Incentive in communism

nah dude

Ikr, so many newfags

The intensive is doing something you actually like doing. A lot of people that dont work just have mental or physical problems that stop them or they feel discouraged by the system i place and all the social pressure put on them.

the idea is that humans in past societies and even very recent agricultural communities had a form of primitive communism, where productive work wasn't really separate from daily activities done because they were fun, or because you did it out of social duty.
Now it was only closest to communism under good conditions.
Like if game was plentiful and foraged plants were easy to access

But, there are plenty of communists who think we cannot put our hopes in a potential society where work and play aren't separated. Capitalism is to dangerous, we need a practical vision for an alternate society. State socialism is much more viable. Communism may be inevitable anyway, if tech can advance sufficiently.

Every time I hear this stupid ass question I wish the person asking it would just get strangled to death

If you for some reason formed a gang and wanted to take the personal property of other people nothing stops the Commune from repressing you just like you are repressed by Capitalists nowadays when you violate private property.

He asked nicely man, this is undeserved bullying

if they do nothing, they don't get to share the communal toothbrush

or you could, you know, answer the question, seeing as all other replies cite idealism and the assumption that a) everyone wants to work for the greater good. b) people would legitimately be happy in a socialist society where people actually get extra benefits for working hard jobs (i.e. Doctors, Politicians etc.) and c) welfare recipients are just "workers waiting for an opportunity"
I dunno though I guess I just don't "get" it, feel free to defend your flawed ideology all you like though, I'd actually appreciate a reply that sounds tangible, if you feel up to it.

You could fuck off and stop being a piece of shit for the rest of your life

literally everything you said was good discussion up until you sounded like a dismissive dick
just ask opinions and give your own thoughts

and you never countered my point that social incentives can exist without material incentives

peak idealism

Hardly, plenty of people do work they don't have to do (ie. making mods or porn or fanfiction) simply for recognition/praise or wanting to make something people enjoy. Some people pick up trash for no reason other than that it makes them feel good.

Nobody invites ted to any parties because fucking ted hardly ever actually contributes to the community and also everyone refers to him exclusively as "fucking ted" and eventually ted gets sick of being fucking ted and pulls his weight a little more

See Chapter 33. Wages in Socialist Economy
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

and how is doing something for other's enjoyment not a material incentive? Oh, I see, you use 'material' to describe money. top idealism.

This is a pretty great analogy that the biggest norman can understand. Even under capitalism in the workplace when someone is doing noticeably less work than everyone else people won't be happy about it.

You stupid fuck. Never conjure such a retarded thought ever again.

Not an argument

So the feeling of satisfaction you get for doing something well is a physical object now? What the fuck are you talking about?

Admittedly massive corporations are run by people

All political systems crumble under hard times.

kys

i'll jus drop a quote by Kropotkin real quick

The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages….

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ….

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour–which is true–the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

The issue with this is the need for benevolent managers. This doesn't oly relate to communism, it is an issue for most all political ideas. i,e NAP.

I didn't mean that we literally get rid of selfishness, we get rid of the idea of it that justifies private property relations that lead to exploitation. No private property -> effectively no selfishness, since it is no longer reasonable/viable with to do so

I've said nothing about human nature

Yes I know, which is why I said it won't exist under communism. If you have the ability but aren't contributed, you don't get your needs met. It's a pretty simple yet effective principle.

It's probably naive of me, but I imagine that, once socialism reaches the landmark stage of saving every person from material necessity (i.e. everyone has guaranteed access to food, a dignified job, decent shelter etc.), I'd imagine a different motive would kick in, as people become finally free to actually do what they want.

Communism collapses because it fails at incentive, it depends on terror and executions to maintain the regime.

While capitalism keeps wiping out the worst in society, communism keeps wiping out indiscriminately.

...

Probably liking what they are doing and labor vouchers would be the incentive.

okey doke bucko

...