There are two competing ideas at the core of CAPITALISM and COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM. CAPITALISM believes that profit motive is the best way to achieve society's goal of human satisfaction. COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM believes that egalitarianism is the best way to achieve society's goal of human satisfaction.
Let us define terms. "Profit motive" as a motivating factor in the production of goods and services is the process of incentivizing individuals to perform certain actions by rewarding them, especially when those actions are undesirable or difficult in some fashion. Who gets what reward is decided by whoever holds the reward in their possession at the time of exchange. Thus, a "market" is created, which is an extension of the "profit motive." A "market" is a forum for the exchanging of rewards; "rewards" here meaning anything that an individual would be willing to give something in exchange for.
"Egalitarianism" as a motivating factor is the usage of emotional, logical, or ideological pressures and forces to get individuals to do "work;" work here meaning any action that is taken upon a physical object. Under the mode of "profit motive," work does not need to be defined, as work is simply another system of reward exchange and can be folded into the definition of profit. However, under egalitarianism, work must be defined as anything that an individual does to satisfy the pressure created by either internal or external forces. Under egalitarianism, no exchange is made. An individual "works" in order to fulfill whatever external or internal pressure is compelling them to do so.
As "work" becomes less tolerable or more skilled, it requires a larger motivating force. Under profit motive, this force can be easily scaled, as "money," the usual manifestation of the reward exchange network, is infinitely growable.
However, intangible "egalitarian" motivations cannot be so easily scaled--while maintaining humane conditions. An individual must be heavily motivated to perform a very boring, very dangerous, or very skilled operation, and positive reinforcement (as in, patriotism or a sense of duty) is psychologically less effective than negative reinforcement (threat of harm or death for not complying.) It is a proven fact that humans dislike loss more than they like an equivalent gain. When gains are limited to intangible, so-called "virtues," it becomes difficult to motivate individuals to perform jobs that they do not wish to perform. Thus, in the setting of egalitarianism, negative reinforcement such as threat of punishment--in many forms--becomes the default method of motivation. This line of reasoning, when taken to its extreme, leads to the horrific tragedies of the communist implementation throughout history.
Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, was too optimistic about the effectiveness of positive egalitarian reinforcement. He believed that individuals would perform jobs and duties in absence of a profit motive purely for the sake of their own edification or the growth of their society. This was his fatal mistake. He failed to understand the power of negative egalitarian reinforcement, and the temptation to utilize it.
In conclusion, egalitarianism is flawed as a method of motivation for large, complex societies in which there are dangerous or unpopular jobs.
Let us not detract against this method, however. There is a magic number in social psychology when a "tribe" or people becomes a "society." This number is around 122. One of the biggest motivators in our psychological underpinnings is the sense of duty to family and friends. These powerful emotions can motivate an individual to do great things, sometimes even impossible things. In a situation where an individual's "work" will greatly benefit close friends and family, they will be able to tolerate great pains and go to extreme lengths to perform the necessary duties.
Thus, I make this conclusion: egalitarian societies must remain under the limit of an "extended community." As soon as the worker does not personally know the beneficiaries of his labor, and care for them in some way, he becomes harder to motivate using positive noncorporeal incentives, and thus, must be forced to work using negative incentives--resulting in tragedy.
This does not mean that profit motive is clean; under this methodology, individuals without marketable skills, or individuals who do not or cannot produce or acquire large amounts of value (wealth), are left behind when it comes to their basic needs. This is the problem of poverty. Poverty is relative; a homeless individual living on the streets of LA is, arguably, better off than a peasant of the medieval ages. They have, at the very least, a nice jacket and a relatively stable food supply consisting of highly nutritious and good tasting food. "Poverty" is not solved by egalitarianism outside its line of effectiveness. While an individual would be happy to voluntarily support a good friend or family member without recompense, once that poor person loses a face and a name, they are a parasite and should not be supported. (This is a slight exaggeration.)
Thus, egalitarianism, while superior to profit motive in a certain case, often leads to horrible tragedies because of the simple human fact that people dislike loss more than they like an equivalent gain, which incentivizes the individuals doing the incentivizing to use degrading and deadly tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment