Free Access: What would be the incentives to produce anything at all?

The usual socialist response to that question of 'why' is 'social estimation'.That is, the 'reward' is 'higher standing' amongst one's peers.This 'reward' can be 'physical', in the form of medals, but most often would be 'ideal', in the form of titles, honours, etc.All societies seem to have these forms of rewards, it's just that within class societies these rewards are tied to non-democratic forms, like property, money, palaces, etc.Within socialism, if one's social group elects one to a position of higher social standing, so that one is seen as 'the best' at some social activity (where 'best' is socially-defined, not having to mean 'winner' or 'most efficient'), then this would satisfy most humans, them being social animals. Even currently, for example, the army uses these forms, like membership of 'elite' regiments (guards, paras, marines, etc.) and awards for valour (VC, DSO, MC, etc.), which give much-sought 'standing' within their social organisation. Members will 'work hard' for these forms of 'social estimation', and even die for them.Being 'lazy' means social death. That's why workers used the method of 'sending scabs to Coventry', to socially isolate those who damage the social interests of the group.The only problem at the moment is that most workers are not taken in by bosses' 'rewards' to them, which usually mean a meaniningless title ('brush manager' for a road sweeper) as an excuse for low pay, but as there is a growth in revolutionary class consciousness, then I think there will be a similar development within social production.Not to develop and use one's abilities, to contribute to our society, will be seen as 'odd'. No-one likes to be pointed at in the street, as being 'odd'.

An ignorant red herring argument. Ask a worker engaged in such work and they will tell you they are an important part of public health provision. At least we did so, when I worked there.Of course we had to resort to the strike weapon in order to ensure a monetary recognition of this crucial function by local governments, if not by management.

Put it on the list Robbo.No doubt more bullet points will appear on here.

In reply to LBird's point that 'social estimation' will provide an incentive for production in socialism, I think that this will play a part, but perhaps a better way of framing the argument is that higher 'social estimation' will apply to job roles as much as to individuals. For example, 'dirty jobs' won't be seen in the same way in socialism as they are in capitalism. For example, providing personal care to frail people is one of the most important jobs there is, but in capitalism this attracts very low wages and people in these roles are right at the bottom of the corporate ladder. In socialism, such roles would be recognised for their true value in providing comfort and reassurance, so they wouldn't have the poor standing they currently have. This will mean that people will be more motivated to work in those roles. Also, on Robbo203's point about 'human nature' arguments, the positive aspect of this is that it's easy to prove that our 'human nature' is inherently co-operative. Without a drive to work together, there wouldn't be any kind of society at all. So, we could argue more that capitalism frustrates our drive to be co-operative by introducing scarcity, competition, divisions etc.

I think some of you – maybe all of you – are misunderstanding this type of objection to the socialist case.  Maybe that observation is unfair, as I appreciate this is a methodological discussion and for that purpose, you do have to take comments from the public at face value, but I think you may not be giving the ordinary public enough credit.Within socialism, I would have thought that "incentives" are utterly irrelevant.  Incentivisation reflects capitalistic thinking.  If we accept that the socialist argument is correct (or at least that socialism is possible), then in socialism there would be no need for incentives.  People in a socialist system would live within an entirely different framework of values, even a different cognitive linguistic framework, and though socialism would not be alien to us (and I do not mean to suggest it would be), people within socialism would think about these matters in a fundamentally different way. True, a socialist system is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if a person does not wish to work, then there would be nobody to compel him, but that observation only scratches the surface.  We have to think hermeneutically about terms like 'voluntary', 'democracy' and 'compulsion'.  They would have a totally different meaning in a socialist or socialist-type society.  The obvious question from the ordinary person unaquainted with the socialist case is: "How will society function, if nobody wishes to work?" or "How will society function if nobody wishes to perform certain types of work?", etc., etc.The question is premised on what I would agree is an erroneous assumption about human nature: that people are inherently lazy, greedy, etc.  I agree that this does not hold.  I do think there is such a thing as human nature – this is one of the important points in which I differ from socialists – and I think human nature will make socialism difficult, but you are right on the point of immediate relevance: it is wrong to say that human nature is "lazy" or "greedy", since those things are clearly attributes that arise under specific social conditions, and the genetic attributes that cause these behaviours would be expressed differently in a different type of social system.  That's obvious.But what is really behind questions of this type is a scepticism based on the glibness of the case being put.  'Voluntary' in a socialist system would not have the meaning that it does under capitalism.  I believe in fact that the meanings of a lot of socio-political terminology would be inverted by socialism.  The word 'democracy' would come to bear a meaning that we might today associate with 'tyranny'.  Most people in socialism would not wish to participate in 'democracy'.  When ordinary people hear that socialism would be based on voluntary labour, this conjures up notions that are antithetical to work under capitalism, but employment under capitalism is voluntary, whereas 'voluntary' would either not exist in socialism because the underlying hermeneutic would be redundant, or it might exist to represent a rejection of socialism's totality in favour of a restoration of capitalist social relations.In short, making the socialist case means arguing outside the ken of most people and requires an entirely new language – in my opinion.