Slacking and Incentives

This assumption of an excess of slackers in communist society -- if
slacking meant the destruction of society, then capitalism would have long
ago gone to the dogs. The sloth of the more capable exposes the assumption
as fraudulent. I suppose that the incentive argument being advanced by the
listmember is that of negative incentive, i.e., either one works his tail
off for the master or one suffers a life of poverty. Then again, many
tails are worked off in poverty. How this is to be connected with the
welfare of society as a whole -- which was the suggestion -- is beyond me;
rather what end such enthusiasm serves is the master's benefit. If, more
sensible, we argue about positive incentive -- that is, what the reward
will be for one's productive activity -- then a system where workers
control production and redistribute surplus labor among themselves (if
they choose to do so -- they might very well choose to spend more time
with their families) would beat out a system where workers have to give up
the fruits of their labor to a master class. Where is the incentive in the
latter system? Except, of course, for the negative incentive that stems
from being a slave to a system where access to resources and means are
restricted by the system of private property. The listmember's
contribution is even more problematic if laziness is supposed to be human
nature, rather than overwork being understood as the historical product of
the tyranny of capital. 

Among the privileged classes there is certainly an incentive to exploit
labor. Capitalists and managers will sometimes exert some effort if it
means they can turn a buck. But then so will thieves, charlatans, and
confidence men.

Andy