I've been a right leaner most of my life. I like the idea though of everyone coming together in order to support each other but what's to stop people from just allowing themselves to be carried by the community and doing nothing or worse organising a mob and taking whatever they want.
Incentive in communism
Actual education unlike the current "put as much useless shit on kids' heads so they won't have time to think between that and entairtainment.
You will not be supporting each other for some grand moral faggotry but for your own selfish profit, because it profits all of us to work together.
Mob mentality only works in anarchy where people are emotional and uses by whoever has the brain to manipulate the masses better, in communism such manipulation attempts at seen as capitalistic manipulation and not something to be accepted as normal and there is no doubt someone will see the manipulation and inform the community which as a whole does not profit from a. Big manipulator using it for his own goals
No one really wants to be selfish and do nothing for others
Pretty much all NEETs end up depressed and unmotivated precisely for this reason
That being said there's nothing stopping from someone in the community from observing you and realizing you're just lazy and selfish. It's "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". If you have the ability but are not doing anything with it, then you don't deserve to maintain the latter condition.
Fucking face palm
I ma not a moralfag like you fag to give a shit about anyone else but the people I choose to care about which are very few.
If people die I don't give a shut unless I know them and liked them, if you believe anything else you are a hypocrite who tries to believe in altruism so he can feel better about himself by thinking he is a good hyooman
Yeah I can be selfish and ignorant and stuff sometimes but It's worthwhile to actively try to not be like that
Anyways this is really not any sort of arguement against communism. Commies seek to get rid of the selfishness which allows capitalists to steal profit using state sanctioned violence, they are vehemently opposed to exploitation. It's foolish to think that it will just be condoned in a society with no state/private property.
You would have incentive structures in socialism; working more difficult positions or positions that need to be attractive to get the necessary number of people, would get benefits (most products are evenly distributed to simplify planning)
the goal is to have the benefits start at being "paid more" (access to "luxury goods") or having access to travel/take vacations for longer/farther trips), or any number of material benefits. This would be in addition to social benefits (fame, prestige, respect, admiration from peers in your field, competitive drive)
All these social benefits tend to be found in the top jobs of various fields in capitalism anyway.
Slowly over time, as tech makes production more efficient you expand benefits to everyone in society, leaving social benefits as the motivation for people
It may not be viable, and we may be stuck with socialism for an extended period of time. I'm OK with that.
There's a fundamental misunderstandind about 'mobs' on the right. They percieve it as a gathering of evil men, totally disregarding the economic etc. factors behind such formations. So why would a mob form in a society where there are no actual material reasons for it?
Oh I see, someone again confused communism with some fantasy where everyone is brainwashed into being a nice person instead of the only logical ideology that focuses on mutual selfish profit
Once again your version will fail because anything based on morality and goodness is unsustainable and has always failed.
Humans are selfish, if you focus on their actions instead of what they say, most people that call themselves moral and nice are hypocrites
Exploitation is an economic category not an ethical one.
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
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
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.
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