motivation and communism

[cab21]

so i have been reading about how communism is a motivator for people. trying to think about incentives, would killing people that did not work solve that problem? like if all the

 

i would think in capitalism, it's really work or die, so creating a work or die communism might solve for something in capitalism that people say communism takes away?

 

was this some overpopulation that just needs a population cull to solve? in capitalism people don't get the luxury to be lazy or only do jobs they like to do, so weeding people out that can't work in such a environment almost seems natural.

 

a society needs people to do lots of jobs, and people doing those jobs well no matter what it's pay is. high paying jobs don't come if everyone in society refuses to take anything less than what they personal like and pays well.

 

just watching wilderness survival shows, if the people don't like the work or the compensation and decide not to work, they die. if the survivalists do poor work, they die. is it modern society and technology that has lead to such entitlement of people thinking they can skip work and be provided for?

[...]

.

[dsayers]

so i have been reading about how communism is a motivator for people. trying to think about incentives, would killing people that did not work solve that problem? like if all the

 

i would think in capitalism, it's really work or die, so creating a work or die communism might solve for something in capitalism that people say communism takes away?

 

was this some overpopulation that just needs a population cull to solve? in capitalism people don't get the luxury to be lazy or only do jobs they like to do, so weeding people out that can't work in such a environment almost seems natural.

 

a society needs people to do lots of jobs, and people doing those jobs well no matter what it's pay is. high paying jobs don't come if everyone in society refuses to take anything less than what they personal like and pays well.

 

just watching wilderness survival shows, if the people don't like the work or the compensation and decide not to work, they die. if the survivalists do poor work, they die. is it modern society and technology that has lead to such entitlement of people thinking they can skip work and be provided for?

 

If you don't mind me saying so, I think your post is full of supposition. From the beginning:

 

Calling coercion motivation doesn't change the fact that it is coercion, and therefore immoral.

 

You say in capitalism, people would not be able to do the jobs they want to do. How do you know? I think you'd be surprised at how little people would have to work in the absence of a State suctioning off of everybody's labor and stored value. If you wanted to do something that people wanted others to do, you would be able to make a living doing so. This is true up until the point that supply surpasses demand, which is in constant flux.

 

You say people do jobs no matter what the pay, but this isn't accurate. People are paid what they are worth. The lack of clarity comes from State coercion artificially altering what people are worth. The reason this appears bleak is the amount of value NOT being instilled in people who go through government schools, which are paraded in front of society as if that's where education (the growth of human capital) comes from.

 

Finally, the reason people think they can do nothing and be provided for is because underneath a State, they can do nothing and be provided for. This is true for as long as the sum of the working class outnumbers the sum of the dependent, ruling, and enforcer classes.

[cab21]

Calling coercion motivation doesn't change the fact that it is coercion, and therefore immoral.

 

yes it's immoral, but coercion is one type of motivation.

 

You say in capitalism, people would not be able to do the jobs they want to do. How do you know? I think you'd be surprised at how little people would have to work in the absence of a State suctioning off of everybody's labor and stored value. If you wanted to do something that people wanted others to do, you would be able to make a living doing so. This is true up until the point that supply surpasses demand, which is in constant flux.

 

 

part of capitalism is that supply surpass demand for some jobs, driving wage costs down and production up.

 

even people keeping 100%, if they expect a society to be more advanced than it is, people are still going to have to do certain jobs. i'd say some people have jobs because they want to earn money, more than they have the job because they like doing the work to the point of doing the work without the money.

 

if people are doing the work without the money, then a communist post money economy is certainly a option that requires no coercion whatsoever.

 

 a society that wants a good sewage system is going to have to have sewage, workers, whether or not anyone particularly dreams of working with sewage.

 

You say people do jobs no matter what the pay, but this isn't accurate. People are paid what they are worth. The lack of clarity comes from State coercion artificially altering what people are worth. The reason this appears bleak is the amount of value NOT being instilled in people who go through government schools, which are paraded in front of society as if that's where education (the growth of human capital) comes from.

 

people get paid what they negotiate, this can be more or less than what a person produces value wise.

 

if a society has jobs that must be done, and more people that need jobs than jobs, the wage can lower while the demand for production can increase.

 

Finally, the reason people think they can do nothing and be provided for is because underneath a State, they can do nothing and be provided for. This is true for as long as the sum of the working class outnumbers the sum of the dependent, ruling, and enforcer classes.

 

this gives the ruling classes and enforcer classes a motivation to keep to coercion, and a motivation for the dependent class to support a ruling class and enforcer class.

 

makes me wonder why the working class puts up with the dependent, ruling, and enforcer classes? that coercion works as a immoral motivator sounds like the case here.

 

a society always will have dependent classes, such as children to a certain extent like infants), so maby the environment the children get raised in plays a important factor in later motivation. im wondering how much babies growing up and wanting to keep enforcer and rulling classes is nature or nurture?

[dsayers]

a communist post money economy is certainly a option that requires no coercion whatsoever.

 

Then you're going to need to define communism. The moment your definition involves people being placed into two different moral categories, coercion is present.

 

 a society that wants a good sewage system is going to have to have sewage, workers, whether or not anyone particularly dreams of working with sewage.

 

If nobody wants to do the work but need the work to be done, then the people who do the work are going to be valuable.

 

people get paid what they negotiate, this can be more or less than what a person produces value wise.

 

If somebody fails to negotiate for a higher wage and/or allows themselves to be negotiated into a wage lower than they'd otherwise be worth, then their wage will be what they're worth. One's ability to negotiate is part of their worth.

 

a society always will have dependent classes, such as children to a certain extent like infants)

 

Without a State to groom individuals to give it more power in exchange for resources, I don't agree that the world will always have a dependent class. It may have dependent individuals, but this will be case by case and will likely be provided for by A) the people they've provided value to such as friends and family and B) their own stored value. One of the larger ugly side effects of a State is that people don't have to be friendly and productive to survive.

 

I certainly wouldn't include children as part of the dependent class. Their dependence is chosen by their parents and therefore their parents' obligation.

[vlbk]

so i have been reading about how communism is a motivator for people. trying to think about incentives, would killing people that did not work solve that problem? like if all the

 

Where did you read this? I wouldn't mind taking a look.

[cab21]

Then you're going to need to define communism. The moment your definition involves people being placed into two different moral categories, coercion is present.

 

i think one definition i have seen is common ownership of the means of production.

 

so one commune without coercion would be a place where the ownership of the means of production is common and agreed to by freedom of association.

 

 

If nobody wants to do the work but need the work to be done, then the people who do the work are going to be valuable.

 

 

it could just be state interference where i see all these low wage workers demand the state raise their wages, but that seems like a case of few people wanting to do something that has not become more valuable. i could be that lots of people want a job for money, rather than the job itself.

 

If somebody fails to negotiate for a higher wage and/or allows themselves to be negotiated into a wage lower than they'd otherwise be worth, then their wage will be what they're worth. One's ability to negotiate is part of their worth.

 

fair enough

 

Without a State to groom individuals to give it more power in exchange for resources, I don't agree that the world will always have a dependent class. It may have dependent individuals, but this will be case by case and will likely be provided for by A) the people they've provided value to such as friends and family and B) their own stored value. One of the larger ugly side effects of a State is that people don't have to be friendly and productive to survive.

 

I certainly wouldn't include children as part of the dependent class. Their dependence is chosen by their parents and therefore their parents' obligation.

 

 

so by dependant class, that would mean people voting for the state to give more resources than the person produces/earns? that rather than working to be friendly and more productive, the person works to get government legislation.

 

that would rule out  people that really have disabilities that go to family and try and make friends to out out, rather than government.

 

i think what i have been reading about communism is it's goal to to be classless and stateless, and that in the real world has always just been stuck at dictatorship levels.

Where did you read this? I wouldn't mind taking a look.

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48758/kyril-tidmarsh/russias-work-ethic

 

this was one article, i don't agree with the solutions it proposes, but it does list some motivation problems ussr had.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn/dp/1843430851/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402205543&sr=1-2&keywords=gulag+archipelago

[cab21]

http://www.amazon.co...lag archipelago

 

ill check out the book looks very interesting