/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2240297
This is no way answers my question. The issue isnt in getting people to clock in and clock out, but in making them spend that time actually working. For example, lets say it is possible during a single workday to perform certain task 100 times. How do you incentivise a person to do it 100 times, and not just 50?

>>2240306
You should probably read the whole thing. It's 101 stuff.

>Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

We know a task done 50 times is half of the labor of a task done 100 times.

>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 – 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.

>Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If 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.

tl;dr You are paid for what you accomplish. If you don't do shit, you don't get shit.

>>2240313
>We know a task done 50 times is half of the labor of a task done 100 times.
No, we do not know that. If, on average, it takes within a specific industry workday/50 to produce a single thing, then socially necessary labour time for production of that single thing is workday/50. 100 is a hypothetical number that would be achievable if labour discipline improved. I want to emphasize, I am not talking about performance of individual worker, but of entire workforce. Today it is 50, but if over time average performance in the industry goes down, and now average production is workday/40, then making 40 things in a day becomes the new 100% performance.

>>2240325
>No, we do not know that.
Yes, we do know that, necessarily. If production drops in outputs, it is observable and thus that exchange for labor will also drop.

>>2240306
<How would a socialist economy get workers to perform adequately
Communist piece wage system.
<keep them from slacking off too much?
20 minutes late to work = 6 months in gulag and reductiom of wage
<In socialist economy with no unemployment, the severity of this punishment lessens considerably.
Totally wrong. In socialism, slacking is punishable by mandatory labor, wage reduction, jail, fines, etc.
<How does a socialist planned economy maintain labour discipline?
Read laws below


In accordance with the proposal of the All-Union Central Council of Labor Unions, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decrees:

1. The duration of the working day for workers and clerks in all government, co-operative and social enterprises and offices shall be increased:

from 7 to 8 hours-in enterprises working with a 7-hour working day;
from 6 to 7 hours-for work on a 6-hour working day, except for trades having dangerous conditions of work in accordance with a list approved by the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR;
from 6 to 8 hours-for clerks in offices;
from 6 to 8 hours -for persons over 16 years of age.
2. Work in all government, co-operative and social enterprises and offices shall be changed from a six-day week to a seven-day week, the seventh day of the week -Sunday -being a day of rest.

3. Voluntary withdrawal of a worker or clerk from government, co-operative and social enterprises and offices, as well as voluntary transfer from one enterprise or office to another, is forbidden.

Only the director of an enterprise or chief of an office can permit withdrawal from an enterprise or office or transfer from one enterprise or office to another.

4. The director of an enterprise and chief of an office shall have the right and is required to give a worker or clerk permission to leave an enterprise or office in the following situations:

(a) When a worker or clerk, in the opinion of a medical commission, cannot perform his former work because of an illness or condition as an invalid, and when the management is unable to provide him with other suitable work in the same enterprise or office, or when a pensioner, to whom an old-age pension is payable, wishes to leave work;

(b) When a worker or clerk must stop work in view of the fact that he has been admitted to a higher or middle special school.

Vacations for women workers and clerks during pregnancy and after giving birth shall be preserved in accordance with existing legislation.

5. A workman or clerk who voluntarily leaves a state, co-operative or public enterprise or office, shall be tried by a court, and in accordance with the sentence of the People’s Court shall be imprisoned for terms from two to four months.

For absenteeism without satisfactory reason, workers and clerks of state, co-operative and public enterprises and offices shall be tried by a court, and in accordance with the sentence of the People’s Court shall be penalized by correctional labor at their place of work for terms up to six months with withholding of their wages in amounts up to 25 per cent.

In view of the above, compulsory dismissal for absenteeism without satisfactory reasons shall be done away with.

People’s Courts shall be ordered to review all cases referred to in the present Article in not less than five days and shall put the sentence into effect immediately.

6. A director of an enterprise or chief of an office who does not prosecute persons guilty of voluntary departure from an enterprise or office or guilty of absenteeism without satisfactory reasons shall be held responsible before a court.

A director of an enterprise or chief of an office who hires persons who conceal the fact that they departed voluntarily from an enterprise or office shall be held responsible also before a court.

7. The present decree shall come into force on 27 June 1940.

>>2240334
Ok, lets imagine how this would works exactly:
Capitalism get overthrown, planned economy established. Now one year after the Glorious Revolution, report comes out that shows 20% drop in average productivity in numerous industries across the economy. So you are going to cut wages of significant portion of total workforce.
The first question that arises, who is doing the cutting? Politically, this would be an extremely unpopular measure, so what incentive does anyone have to enforce labour discipline?
Second, demand for whatever is produced is the same, so you need more workers, good luck getting them into an industry where average wage is lower than anywhere else. How do you address that? There is no reserve army of labour anymore. And how do you prevent strikes and further lowering of work morale as a result of your cuts? Previously the job was boring and repetitive, now it is boring, repetitive and badly payed.
Third, most importantly, how long are you going to keep it cut? Is Before Communism going to be the eternal reference point for productivity? No industry is static, capital moves around, you invest in or out, and suddenly you have no reference point, you can no longer tell if lowering or rising of productivity is issue of worker discipline or changes in production process.

- By making sure people aren't depressed by giving them healthy living conditions.
- Regular enrichment activities so people don't get used to boredom and thus content with not doing anything
- Make sure jobs that can be done while sitting have comfortable seating
- Make sure jobs that can be done without having to talk to anyone have access to headphones and MP3 players.

>>2240288

Piece rate wages, set the average time it takes (calculated by controlled testing) to produce a given product in a given production center.

A quantity of output ceiling also has to be set & periodically adjusted so that quotas are not too strongly overfulfilled and thus have no allocated warehouse capacity.

>>2240442

*set at

>>2240288
When the workers are in charge, it's in the interest of the workers to perform adequately.

The lack of worker discipline in capitalist countries stems from the fact that workers are aware that they are getting pittances for their labour while their boss gets a huge chunk of it. Add to it additional living costs, rent and taxation, and the workers fall into a depression making them underperform even worse or sick.

>>2240397
skill issue, lmao

this is not a minor detail. manager distorted incentives plagued the soviet union.

You need some personal profit motivation, at least for company directors so they will whip the rest to get that bonus. Question is what motivates dear leader to even want economic prosperity. Fear of foreign militaries?

>>2240397
Laziness is a result of your material conditions.

>>2240465
>You need some personal profit motivation, at least for company directors so they will whip the rest to get that bonus
What an awful idea. Highly paid positions of power whose main job is squeezing the employees is going to self-select for exactly the kind of person who should be kept away from it.

>>2240442
>Piece rate wages, set the average time it takes (calculated by controlled testing) to produce a given product in a given production center.
This could be partial solution, but the question remains remains who and how is going to do the calculations. Again, manager has no incentive to push the employees. And you cant just have some random outside bureaucrat do it, because they have no familiarity with production process. Furthermore, lot of jobs dont even have "pieces". What is a piece for programmer? Or a construction worker?

>>2240468
And the material condition is that some jobs have to be done, but nobody wants to do them. Lot of jobs in fact. Not wanting to do it is basically in the definition of work.

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards conclusion that labour discipline will inevitably be worse than in capitalism. Doesnt make planned economy inherently less productive, rational allocation of resources and labour can greatly outcompensate the drawbacks, and even the fall of discipline can be lessened by change in cultural norms, reduction of working hours, and investing into making jobs more pleasant. In fact lack of punitive measures incentivises these improvements to working conditions.

>>2240288
whats wrong with cockshotts ABC system? seems fair to me

>>2240288
>In capitalism, the main incentive is threat of firing, and how effective that is depends on job market. In socialist economy with no unemployment, the severity of this punishment lessens considerably.
True.

>In Towards The New Socialism, Cockshott suggested grading system for worker's performance, where above-average workers would receive slightly higher wage, under-average slightly lower. The issue I see here is, because you are grading on a curve, how to prevent the average from slipping down?
What is supposed to be your problem here. You work longer or harder or both, you get more. That's your individual motivation to work more right there, no matter how cynical you are about socialism. Even if the required performance for getting an average goes down over time, this does not cancel the effect.

>>2240325
>I want to emphasize, I am not talking about performance of individual worker, but of entire workforce.
What if everyone… ? Do you know any historical or hypothetical system that passes this test? I don't.

>>2240388
>Now one year after the Glorious Revolution, report comes out that shows 20% drop in average productivity in numerous industries across the economy.
Possible.
>So you are going to cut wages of significant portion of total workforce.
The first question that arises, who is doing the cutting? Politically, this would be an extremely unpopular measure
This is actually answered in Towards The New Socialism. The labor hours going into something will be public knowledge. (It can be even printed on the packages like with the ingredients for food items.) This is the main thing in how to price items. So how prices, production, income relate will be all very transparent and there won't be widespread delusions about it.
>Second, demand for whatever is produced is the same
What do you mean by demand here.

>>2240501
>The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards conclusion that labour discipline will inevitably be worse than in capitalism.
I expect that too, though nothing catastrophic of course.

>>2240507
As I explained here >>2240325
>If, on average, it takes within a specific industry workday/50 to produce a single thing, then socially necessary labour time for production of that single thing is workday/50. 100 is a hypothetical number that would be achievable if labour discipline improved. I want to emphasize, I am not talking about performance of individual worker, but of entire workforce. Today it is 50, but if over time average performance in the industry goes down, and now average production is workday/40, then making 40 things in a day becomes the new 100% performance.
It can encourage performance of individual worker, but because it is tied to an average, does not have mechanism for improving productivity of industry as a whole. If sufficient amount of workers slip into low-performing C grade, then suddenly they get collectively promoted to B, because now C becomes new B. And because limit for high performance is going to be much closer to average than limit for low performance (it is unlikely that lot of employees could potentially work twice as fast, but everyone can do nothing), this scenario is more likely than opposite.

>>2240546
i mean wouldn't competition ensure that sort of laziness cartel wouldn't happen?