r/DebateCommunism • u/spaghetti_gov • 6d ago
đ¨Hypotheticalđ¨ How does communism handle differing levels of ability (real or feigned) among workers?
Considering that a primary communist critique of capitalism is that a worker must produce a surplus (which disappears into profit) in order to meet their basic needs, and assuming that a person may be born/endowed naturally with a greater ability to produce than another:
How does communist leadership prove that a worker is able to perform at a higher level than they exhibit? If it is determined that a worker should be able to perform more tasks than another, does leadership require that the worker perform better to get their basic needs met?
In that case, a deterioration and halt of all production seems inevitable. Hereâs why, on a micro scale:
One worker is reported to produce less than another. Another worker knows they are capable of greater production, but allows their production to fall, matching that of the less productive worker who is having their needs met. Does communist leadership have a way of proving that the worker is âslackingâ? If they donât, work could grind to a halt, as a race to the bottom begins, with workers claiming they are not capable of a task. The only tasks excepted would be physical and so simple in nature as to be impossible to mess up, those tasks which leadership can definitively prove that everyone must be able to do. In this way, society will be performing physical subsistence tasks in short order. If somebody is capable of greater work and performs it, but doesnât see a reward, that is effectively the same as the despised capitalist surplus. I would like insight into how communism addresses this problem.
I expect to be schooled by people who have read more books, but I have always been curious about this and have not found an answer that satisfies me. Mostly, I have heard it expressed that in the communist future, labor is natural, desired, and effectively fetishized because everyone wants to improve their conditions. However, I donât think humans would believe this independently⌠so leadership steps in. What do they do?
1
u/RieMunoz 6d ago
First of all, a modern sociopolitical economy would likely not be structured around the individual effort of some random worker.
In terms of your detailed example. Instead of a deterioration and halt of all production, ask yourself what happens nowâŚif a worker is reported to be unproductive, they may be given a warning or put on a PIP, the capitalist leadership, then finds ways to prove the employee is slacking. The individual is let go and a search for their replacement begins.
In the meantime everyone else just does their job. A worker who performs greater work and sees no rewards for it, may look for new employment.
This would very likely be the exact same scenario in a communist society. However the recently laid off worker may have company shares in addition to his unemployment benefits.
1
u/spaghetti_gov 6d ago
Thanks for your response. In what way might the more productive individual be rewarded for their work? Am I right that communism says an individual is only granted something in accordance to their need?
I think this comes back to my problem. If no reward is given which sets up a worker more comfortably, the worker of the communist future is expected to want work as its own end, not a means to an end. Is that how communists see it?
2
u/kommunistischePartei Anti-classCollaborationism 6d ago
Marx wrote on this in Critique of The Gotha Program
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only â for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly â only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
1
u/gazorpazorpazorpazor 6d ago
You mean socialism. It's just basic math, if someone makes twice as many widgets they should get double the pay. Communism, doesn't use money.
1
u/C_Plot 6d ago
Youâre underestimating how much exploitation motivates such adverse incentive among capitalist workers and therefore how little motivation for such adverse incentive will exist when exploitation is eliminated and workers working collectively appropriate the fruits of their own labors collectively. That does not mean such adverse incentive necessarily disappears entirely, but it is much less of a problem than in capitalism where it is very acute and requires brutal force to âdisciplineâ the working class.
Itâs not that in communism such adverse incentives will be stealth and imperceptible. Workers acting against the collective will not enjoy the rewards of those who do. As Marx wrote: âBut one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurementâ.
That is not to say their needs will not be met, but they will be rewarded for other contributions to society instead (such as conserving the natural resources we cannot and do not produce but which are indispensable to social reproduction). In an initial phase of communism â which does not require us to make ârecipes for the cook-shops of the futureâ but only for the immediate present â an unconditional universal basic income (UUBI) would emerge as an equal endowment share of the natural resources and natural resource rents, driven by supply of and demand for the natural resources we may prudently extract and consume each period. For the worker that does not want to work, that UUBI can meet their basic needs already in the initial phase communism. The UUBI alone, with no compensation for work, serves as that personâs reward for their conserving natural resources contribution to society, where higher income above the basic income conserves natural resources less and less. The capitalist threat of âwork or starveâ is abolished already in initial phase communism so already the workers in any Soviet/coĂśp are there because they want to create and to work.
Combining the UUBI with a disability insurance and a work insurance, provides a tripod of support and administration of common affairs. The co-workers can recognize a disability, of whatever source, in their co-workers and adjust expectations and assignments as appropriate (an equal rule based on labor means consideration of exertion intensity and skill in addition to duration as measured on the clock). A worker can leave unsatisfying commercial work and live off their UUBI, the work insurance to get past the transition, and direct-production-consumption in their residential commune. They are not brutally threatened with starvation because they donât submit to exploitation or even non-exploitative work they disfavor. If they desire more material means of life, they will conserve less and work more.
So even in initial phase communism we already achieve the tenet: from each according to ability, to each according to need, in the limited sense of âneedâ as basic needs (and ability in terms of the volitional creative ability nevertheless held accountable for the natural resources consumed). The higher phase communism leads us to an abundance where âneedâ is more broadly understood as any desire whatsoever, but that level of natural resource abundance is only achievable only once initial phase communism has overcome the fetters on the development of the forces of production we suffer with capitalism. Capitalism locks us into an abundance only for the minority ruling class and a perpetual condition of scarcity for the vast majority.
1
u/spaghetti_gov 6d ago
Thanks for writing a thoughtful and thorough response.
My argument is that "the worker that does not want to work" is a great enough share of the population by default that the burden on the work-obsessed to maintain UUBI would be insurmountable. Those more skilled and harder working individuals would become discouraged from working, rightfully so. Also, to address the Marx quotation, how is managerial work to be measured that does not require your muscles, but rather negotiating the needs of many people? In capitalism, few can do these "C-level" jobs well. Demand curves say they should be paid more because of their scarcity. Does Marxism see these jobs as valuable? In a communist society, a ton of strict organization and detailed planning is required. The effort and skillset required by the managers is great. So who will do those difficult things, and why would they do them? If a standard is devised by a managerial organization to grade the effort of their own work, that will undoubtedly turn corrupt. And if manual laborers are to gauge the difficulty of the job of their manager, they will probably say his job is easy so he should not be granted as much as them. The reality, though, is that his job is difficult and required. It is so hard to place a value on work weighed against all other work without a free market or currency that it may as well be impossible.
1
u/C_Plot 6d ago edited 6d ago
The UUBI, as I already said, is supply-demand driven. It is therefore a self-regulating mechanism that already inherently addresses your concern. If everyone opts to not work, in the limit, then the UUBI rents equal zero and that zero is distributed as an equal endowment share to all. The âequal liability of all to workâ in such a circumstance means we all must work to survive: conservation of natural resources then is not a contribution to society. However, with given material conditions (principally both the productivity of labor and a supply of natural resources) the labor will extend beyond bare minimum as we get the boulder rolling. Then if natural resources become scarce, the UUBI rises and potentially rises enough to meet basic needs.
There are other possible outcomes, but they are not beyond communismâs capacities to address. These fulcrums of labor productivity and natural resource scarcity provide the best way to approach our understanding of these issues. Two things to highlight here:
- The communism is the sociological experiment we need, since it self-regulates. There is no danger to the experimental group because weâre merely granting to all their equal Lockean rights. The danger is in continuing the control group: our experiment in the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism avoids the communist experiment only because the capitalist ruling class (the exploiters, expropriates, and rentiers) donât want to work productively and donât want to share equally the natural resource endowments.
- The supply-demand driven natural resource rents regulate the âequal liability of all to laborâ. At a low level of natural resource scarcity, some labor is induced just to meet basic needs. At a higher level of natural resource scarcity those who can do with less basic resources get rewarded with fewer liabilities to labor. As the forces of production develop, both raising the productivity of labor and aiding the conservation of natural resources, the equal liability to labor becomes reduced solely to civic obligations (direct democracy and representative democracy such as sortition, jury service, militia service) and the productive power of labor becomes its own reward in appropriating for direct consumption of the un-alienated fruits oneâs own labor products (solo or in concert with others). Access to the means of production is guaranteed as a right and the equal endowment share of natural resources is another right and so with these fundamental (Lockean) rights genuinely secured, we already in initial phase communism begin to cross the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights.
Productive Labor
Labor includes both brains and muscles. And as I already said, equal labor contribution includes considerations of exertion intensity and skill intensity (in addition to duration). So within communism, compensation for oneâs labor contribution can certainly be according to skill and exertion intensity as well as duration. Communism simply does not ârewardâ anyone for their tyrannical claim of âprivate propertyâ in the common resources of society. âCommunism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriationsâ (Manifesto of the Communist Party).
Labor is the deliberate intervention in the metabolism of nature. So labor is always mental (mind/brain), even if it is not always mechanical (muscles). A division of labor can persist in communism but it is not as rigid as the capitalist division of labor. A manager coordinates production, like the conductor of an orchestra, but the extractive exploitative role of supervision is eliminated. Workers might rotate through managerial positions and gain an understanding of the unique skills involved and an appreciation of their comrades/colleagues/peers managerial skills.
Allocation of Commercial Products and other Resources
Allocation, in initial phase communism, is inherently through markets. As Marx writes: this initial phase communism âjust as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emergesâ. The mode of production is different economically with the success of the communist revolution, but the rest comes later. From the vantage of historical materialism, we understand that capitalism lacks the material and social conditions to develop new innovative and superior commercial allocation mechanisms to markets and so any supervision of market is another development that must occur after the initial phase of communism (if it is to occur at all, commercial production might also simply wither away and become less important, while still allocating resources through socialist markets). Planning will become more ubiquitous, making for greater efficiency, but it is not the sort of planning that immediately substitutes for and supersedes market allocation.
So initial phase communism can ensure all basic needs are met through a UUBI (though Marx did not insist it necessarily would) while still allocating a) according to contribution, b) according to supply and demand, c) according to those most willing and able to contribute and demand, and even potentially through markets. Itâs just that in communism, oneâs ability to acquire is regulated by oneâs contributions to society and not, as in capitalism, by oneâs anti-social capacities to exploit and pilfer the common treasury of natural resources. By âcommunismâ, we mean the mode of production and not the sundry allocation and distribution mechanisms the mode of production might deploy. As Marx put it: âIf the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?â
So thereâs nothing impossible about communism per se. Itâs just that the capitalist ruling class and their obsequious minions desperately seek to make communism impossible through bald subterfuge and the brutal force of the capitalist State.
1
u/spaghetti_gov 6d ago edited 6d ago
One thing about capitalism that I would like to point out is that class mobility is possible and encouraged when capitalism is working well. Exploitation of the working class with literally no way out is not a defining feature of capitalism, it is a mark of poorly regulated capitalism, because capitalism is defined by the freedom to start a venture. Class mobility motivates capitalists to do and invent things they otherwise would not. That is why the periods of largest wealth inequality often precede the largest recessions. Welcome to one of those periods. Strap in. When the investor class stops encouraging new ventures, well, things just stop moving.
Capitalism allows you to give your children a better life than you, even if they are not equally talented. That is what is so attractive about it to us animals. That is what juices productivity and encourages us to invent and advance. I think those are good things that capitalism offers at a uniquely low cost to humans which only fluctuates with the business cycle.
Thanks for helping me think through this and solidify my thoughts on this topic. See you in the bread line, one way or another haha.
1
u/ghosts-on-the-ohio 4d ago
I think there are different ways a communist society could do this, but using "from each according to their ability" is a good basis. Is everyone putting in equal effort, even if the results are unequal? Then they should get equal compensation. Nothing is ever going to be perfectly fair or equal on every dimension, but I think that is a good start.
0
u/spaghetti_gov 6d ago
âAfter labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime wantâ
Again, much of Marxism rests on the supposed fact that everyone will love their assigned labor. Is there a sociological base for this? Has anyone tested what happens when you give someone abundance but also opportunities to do productive work? Do they perform the work because work is lifeâs prime want? There is a difference between work I would do out of passion and work I would do out of necessity. For example, I would learn electric guitar all day if I had everything. Learning electric guitar is hard, and I am trying to play at a high level which requires much effort. You canât build an economy of hobbies, though. How does Marx address someone who isnât obsessed with their job?
0
10
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud 6d ago
Communism doesnât seek to extract the maximum amount of labour. Thatâs a capitalist way of thinking, because competition necessitates it.
We see that absent of the need to work, people will still perform labour to the best of their abilities, in the form of hobbies or interests. One example is critiquing stuff on Reddit, or fixing your car.
So, then itâs possible to build a society around this latent tendency for humans to perform labour.
The childrenâs yearn for the mines, but like in a good way.