Motivation in Socialism

[ced93us]

When a state adopts a socialistic system people are protected from the majority of the penalties of failure. The social safety net is so strong that people can never suffer when they fail. This elimainates the fear of failure, and through failure: suffering. This is a strong motivation to succeed: not to die. Also eliminated is some of the rewards of success. When taxes are higher people will benefit less from their labour and will have less incentive to be productive.

What then would drive people to work and not succle of the tit of the state in a socialistic society?

[0N3]

What then would drive people to work and not succle of the tit of the state in a socialistic society?

If you don't work (unless you have a good reason not to), you don't recieve the benefits the rest does. simple

[removeduser_487563287433]

When a state adopts a socialistic system people are protected from the majority of the penalties of failure. The social safety net is so strong that people can never suffer when they fail. This elimainates the fear of failure, and through failure: suffering. This is a strong motivation to succeed: not to die. Also eliminated is some of the rewards of success. When taxes are higher people will benefit less from their labour and will have less incentive to be productive.

What then would drive people to work and not succle of the tit of the state in a socialistic society?

Too many incorrect assumptions to answer.

[Helm]

What then would drive people to work and not succle of the tit of the state in a socialistic society?

You would be given work to do whether you like it or not if it's anything like the Soviet Union. If it's anything like the Federation in Star Trek then it's the drive to better yourself.

[Phier]

You would be given work to do whether you like it or not if it's anything like the Soviet Union. If it's anything like the Federation in Star Trek then it's the drive to better yourself.

You know they always liked to say that in star trek yet oddly they still would have cash that was important in so many episodes.

Still the trick with star trek that it MIGHT work is they had those cool replicators that would make anything, anytime.

[Denny Crane!]

You know they always liked to say that in star trek yet oddly they still would have cash that was important in so many episodes.

Still the trick with star trek that it MIGHT work is they had those cool replicators that would make anything, anytime.

Scarcity, the bane of all communist theory.

[Helm]

Still the trick with star trek that it MIGHT work is they had those cool replicators that would make anything, anytime.

They invented replicators at some point after they did away with money though.

[Taxandrius]

He apparantly lives in the illusion that any form of state involvement in the economy is completely bad and resents the current system, yet he has apparantly no idea on why the current system has been installed.

A laissez-faire policy is probably the worst form of economics, 'cause there is no form of control on the free market, so no control of high peeks and deep falls. Though, the intervention should be kept at an absolute minimum, as a "social security" for the market, which should stay as free as possible at any moment.

[Denny Crane!]

A laissez-faire policy is probably the worst form of economics, 'cause there is no form of control on the free market, so no control of high peeks and deep falls. Though, the intervention should be kept at an absolute minimum, as a "social security" for the market, which should stay as free as possible at any moment.

yes look at how the intervention stopped the high peaks and falls this time around... ohhh hang on thats right it made it worse. Better if we're stuck with a system of boom and bust to have it natural than interfered with and then we end up in a situation where we ransom our present at the expense of our future.

[Phier]

They invented replicators at some point after they did away with money though.

Yea but its a lie as they never did away with money in the story lines. Its sort of funny but you can't write a human story without human nature. Having them a bunch of happy communists would be too unbelievable and lose the audience. Having them have a weekly poker night, various merchants and traders, and interfering on wars over resources returns it to believability and human style conflict.

[Helm]

Yea but its a lie as they never did away with money in the story lines. Its sort of funny but you can't write a human story without human nature. Having them a bunch of happy communists would be too unbelievable and lose the audience. Having them have a weekly poker night, various merchants and traders, and interfering on wars over resources returns it to believability and human style conflict.

They still have some gold press latinium for dealing with those eccentric alien races who still use money, how they allocate that I don't know.

[Desperado †]

When a state adopts a socialistic system people are protected from the majority of the penalties of failure. The social safety net is so strong that people can never suffer when they fail. This elimainates the fear of failure, and through failure: suffering. This is a strong motivation to succeed: not to die. Also eliminated is some of the rewards of success. When taxes are higher people will benefit less from their labour and will have less incentive to be productive.

What then would drive people to work and not succle of the tit of the state in a socialistic society?

If you get to the point where nobody can suffer at all when they fail, this is communism as opposed to simply socialism. You misunderstand that socialism comes in various degrees, as does capitalism.

You are also under the ridiculous misconception that people live simply to avoid the 'major penalties of failure'. You greatly underestimate human greed. Improving one's lot and other's (including your children's) even when the 'major penalties of failure' are absent is obviously motivation enough - look at the world around you, where millions work hard not because they're worried they wont get they're next meal, but because they want a nicer car.

Oh, and also, the failure to find a partner and reproduce is a 'major penalty', and I don't think there has been a single socialist solution to that yet.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah I can't stand socialism but I still don't quite get where your coming from....

[magickyleo101]

There are actually two "motivation/incentive" arguments against socialism. Let's call them the "naive" and the "sophisticated" incentive arguments. The naive version - the one presented in the OP - is mostly made by high school students or people who don't have a lot of eduction, but I'll address it here anyways.

The naive incentive argument says something like "if the government is in charge of distributing wealth people won't have any motivation to work (as) hard." Since society would fall apart if people didn't work hard, the government shouldn't be in charge of distributing wealth. Moreover, even if society doesn't fall apart, everyone will be less well off because people won't work as hard and less will be produced.

However, there are a number of problems with the argument including:

1. The fact that while command economies tend to stagnate in the long run, they can attain periods of high growth that can last decades. If the naive argument was correct, people wouldn't have an incentive to work very hard in the long or the short run and thus both long and short term success would be beyond the reach of command economies. That's not what we see, and thus there's a pretty good indication that a command economy (or socialism generally) isn't inconsistent with hard work.
2. The fact that the government has other avenues to encourage you to work, even if the economy as a whole is controlled by the government. For example, in a socialist economy you can still be promoted, recognized by others, given a higher salary, etc.
3. The fact that most of your incentive to work when you're actually working isn't money. I don't know how many of your guys have actually had jobs, but generally when you're given an assignment by your boss you're more worried about getting praised, or being assigned more interesting work, or simply doing a good job than you are about a raise that may be several months off.

Thus, I think opponents of socialism really make a mistake when they act as if people simply don't work hard in socialist economies. That's not to say that there's no incentive problem with socialism, but rather, if you want to highlight the problem you should make something closer to the sophisticated incentive argument.

The sophisticated argument is, as its name suggests, sophisticated and rather hard to type out here (that's why I linked to it on wikipedia) but the rough idea is presented fairly well by the following quote:

Inefficient resource distribution surplus and shortage

Critics of planned economies argue that planners cannot detect consumer preferences, shortages, and surpluses with sufficient accuracy and therefore cannot efficiently co-ordinate production (in a market economy, a free price system is intended to serve this purpose). For example, even though the Soviet Union had its own passenger car manufacturing industry going back to 1940's, it was impossible for a Soviet citizen to simply walk into a store and buy a car - the entire output of all car manufacturing plants was allocated for years in advance. From the modern viewpoint, such a shortage indicates a mismatch between supply and demand - suggesting that planners have misjudged the demand for the product, the equilibrium price, or both. An imbalance, which would've been corrected naturally in a matter of years in a free-market economy, persisted for decades, while central planners turned a blind eye on it.
As the Soviet Union was collapsing, the system gradually became so unbalanced and shortages became so common that one could wait hours in a queue to buy basic consumer products such as shoes or bread.[16].
This difficulty was first noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who called it the "economic calculation problem". Economist János Kornai developed this into a shortage economy theory (advocates could claim that shortages were not primarily caused by lack of supply).
There is also the problem of surpluses. Surpluses indicate a waste of labor and materials that could have been applied to more pressing needs of society. Critics of central planning say that a market economy prevents long-term surpluses because the operation of supply and demand causes the price to sink when supply begins exceeding demand, indicating to producers to stop production or face losses. This frees resources to be applied to satisfy short-term shortages of other commodities, as determined by their rising prices as demand begins exceeding supply. It is argued that this "invisible hand" prevents long-term shortages and surpluses and allows maximum efficiency in satisfying the wants of consumers. Critics argue that since in a planned economy prices are not allowed to float freely, there is no accurate mechanism to determine what is being produced in unnecessarily large amounts and what is being produced in insufficient amounts. They argue that efficiency is best achieved through a market economy where individual producers each make their own production decisions based on their own profit motive.

[ced93us]

I appreciate your comments but all that I am saying is that the motivations of hard work are DECREASED by large taxes and the penalties of not working are INCREASED. Some people desire to better themselves and some desire to work to increase their wealth but others have a greater desire to give into to their base desires. These people live off of welfare cheques or other government handouts at a most basic level. They sit at home all day doing nothing, maybe watching TV or drinking but they are content, they will not work unless their is a powerful motivation for them to do so.

[Ahlerich]

I appreciate your comments but all that I am saying is that the motivations of hard work are DECREASED by large taxes and the penalties of not working are INCREASED. Some people desire to better themselves and some desire to work to increase their wealth but others have a greater desire to give into to their base desires. These people live off of welfare cheques or other government handouts at a most basic level. They sit at home all day doing nothing, maybe watching TV or drinking but they are content, they will not work unless their is a powerful motivation for them to do so.

ok completely untrue.

example: my country germany (a somewhat socialist system especially from an american viewpoint)

people that earn a lot pay less taxes then a labourclass worker (percent wise )
also when you are unemployed what you get is 70% of your average wage for about 2 years. people that work for a "normal" wage and then get unemployed they will have to struggle to pay their bills as the money they get is only enough for a basic lifestyle. i lost my job in november and was unemployed only one month and i had to struggle to make it through only one months without giving up things that are important to me (car, internet...)
if i d have been unemployed for a longer period of time i had to give up my car and maybe more. so there is a big motivation to work - to maintain a living standard

[Denny Crane!]

ok completely untrue.

example: my country germany (a somewhat socialist system especially from an american viewpoint)

people that earn a lot pay less taxes then a labourclass worker (percent wise )
also when you are unemployed what you get is 70% of your average wage for about 2 years. people that work for a average wage and then get this social security payment will have to struggle to pay their bills. i lost my job in november and was unemployed only one month and i had to struggle to make it through only one months without giving up things that are important to me (car, internet...)
if i d have been unemployed for a longer period of time i had to give up my car and maybe more. so there is a big motivation to work - to maintain a living standard

Yes the criticisms are overly simplified. Motivation will come because people want to work, eat and buy things regardless of different tax systems. I have my criticisms but that one just simply doesn't work, empirically we know it isn't true by looking at European countries.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

ok completely untrue.

example: my country germany (a somewhat socialist system especially from an american viewpoint)

people that earn a lot pay less taxes then a labourclass worker (percent wise )
also when you are unemployed what you get is 70% of your average wage for about 2 years. people that work for a "normal" wage and then get unemployed they will have to struggle to pay their bills as the money they get is only enough for a basic lifestyle. i lost my job in november and was unemployed only one month and i had to struggle to make it through only one months without giving up things that are important to me (car, internet...)
if i d have been unemployed for a longer period of time i had to give up my car and maybe more. so there is a big motivation to work - to maintain a living standard

Actually Germany like all other countries are mixed economies, so you actually confirm what ced93us, you work because else you are less wealthy, more wealth thus motivates you.

[Ahlerich]

Actually Germany like all other countries are mixed economies, so you actually confirm what ced93us, you work because else you are less wealthy, more wealth thus motivates you.

well we have soziale marktwirtschaft. this is not a socialist system which is why i said "somewhat socialist"
there are acually few true socialist countries at all. from a american perspective everything which has some sort of public care system seems to be called socialist so i think my response fits into the forum.

if you think that ced93us raised questions about utopia instead of the real world i am sorry, i honestly did not realize that.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

The fact that while command economies tend to stagnate in the long run, they can attain periods of high growth that can last decades. *

GNP numbers are actually quite meaningless as they really do not measure anything being made, just money exchanging hands, for example the destruction caused by Katherina added to the GDP of the US because of the salvage and rebuilding activity. And that is beside the point that even the wiki article mentioned that the USSR manipulated the data and their were famines at the time.

Thus, I think opponents of socialism really make a mistake when they act as if people simply don't work hard in socialist economies. That's not to say that there's no incentive problem with socialism, but rather, if you want to highlight the problem you should make something closer to the sophisticated incentive argument.

*





This article is not about the lack of incentive to work under socialists regimes but rather why the goods and services produced are produced inefficiently (like shortages of some and too much of others)