Unthinking Majority wrote:
So if there's 10 people on your team and 9 are working hard, and you want to work half-assed, the cost to society is low, but your personal gains are high (less work to do, can relax a bit, chat with friends, text your bestie).
There would be no salaries or wages because labor would no longer be commodified.
Consider as being similar to PoFo here -- either the effort for discussion, etc., is put-in by participants here, or else it *isn't*. Likewise there could be an *identical* social process for a *post-capitalist* political economy, one in which discussions like these would actually apply to specific *real world* production processes.
Since it would be inhumane to deny 'commons' and natural materials to anyone (that which is mass-produced by anyone and/or nature) -- *and* there would be no government for any 'oversight' and 'enforcement' -- then that means that *anyone* could simply live off of society and/or nature without doing a single minute of work in return, and no one could do anything about it, ultimately.
However, for your scenario, you're *outnumbered* 9-to-1, and the co-workers might begin to share the sentiment in common that you could do all of that shit *at home*.
Unthinking Majority wrote:
The incentive to work hard is to not get fired. If your boss says "work hard" and there's 10 resumes on the boss's desk from people he interviewed last week for another position and they're ready to work hard and you go half-ass, you're gone.
Yup, that's because the bourgeoisie *enforce* with *violence* their social construction of 'private property', which translates to *elitism* over the distribution of things that people *need* for modern life. In other words it's *coercion* since it's their game, that of private ownership over the means of mass industrial production.
Money, and thus power, is *easy* for the elite owners because they're continuously exploiting others' *labor power* to get that money, while those who do the actual *work*, for the production of things, are *disadvantaged* by *not* having any say-so over how the machines of mass-production are used and where the resulting products *go*.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Workers under capitalist property relations have no *incentive* to work harder for the boss because it's not like they would be *rewarded* for it, or see their wages go up. Wages have *stagnated* while workers' productivity has *increased*
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Your idea of the corporate world is like a caricature. Have you ever worked for a large company? This will sound condescending again, but the corporate and business experience of many Marxists so numerous among 20-year old college students and most of their professors typically consists of a few summers working at Starbucks. Bullshit always works better on paper than under the complex dynamics and variables of the real world.
You're *dissembling* here, and not-addressing the point I'm making about *incentive* for the worker -- workers get the short end of the stick, so there's no empirical *incentive* to identify with the boss' interests, and work harder.
It's physically easier to not-work than to *work*, so if work / effort is to be expended, it needs to be rewarded. Workers aren't at the workplace to be *volunteers* and *altruists* to the capitalist ruling class.