Skip to main content

Reply to "Incentives"

Originally posted by umbrarchist:
They aren't concerned about the value of the work, what matters is the minimum they can offer the worker on the basis of supply and demand for labor. So the more desperate the workers are in competing for jobs the better for the capitalists. The capitalist intends to keep as much value as possible.


Sounds like a pyrmaid scheme. Razz I'm not just saying that, that's the same logic that pyramid schemes use for incentives (except they offer no fixed income).

I say a communist business would actually produce more incentive to work than a capitalist business because salaries would be higher. On average, capitalist workers receive about 10% of their actual labor value. In a communist one, they would receive 100%.

Yes, human incentive is always important. What's more entycing than getting to "keep what you kill" so-to-speak?

A good example would be the Workers' Communes in Spain and Ukraine during the 1930's. The workers' communes that successfully ran an anarcho-communist society in Spain and Ukraine. The only reason they didn't last is because the commune in Spain was forcefully annexed by the Spanish fascist government backed by the Germans and the Italians. The Ukraine commune was absorbed by the powerful Soviet Union. Those workers' communes actually worked more productively in their short time than any capitalist system (even our own current one). That's incredible.

Neoliberal third world natons like Chile and Argentina have high economic growth due to Neoliberal "incentives" (which includes downsizing, low job security and low wages which keeps workers on the ragged bare edge of existence to encourage them to fight tooth and nail for raises and exploit one another to get paid more) causes this. Does that mean anything for the mass population? No. The economic growth is centralized in the hands of business owners and industrial elites (they keep costs down by paying workers less and increase profits by keeping 95% of the labor value capita). Then you have Social Democratic states like Sweden and Norway that have low GDP growth but high GNI and high Real GDP per capita.