Friday, November 4, 2011

Misconceptions, Misconstructions, Errors, and Faults.

     As a first article on the ideas of a new revolutionary society, I thought it fitting to analyze criticisms of past efforts in this regard. To challenge some basic preconceptions that our current capitalist society has fostered in our minds regarding any alternative to it's dominance. To criticize past efforts in creating more equatable societies, where criticism is needed, and more importantly, where lessons need to be learned. In short, this first article will not be dealing with current events as much as current ideological paradigms, concerning Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism, and our mental relationship to said paradigms.

     One basic preconception that appears to run rampant in the Western Capitalist world, is the idea of "Utopian Idealism", being a byword for any alternative society to the current entrenched Capitalist world-view. You, the reader, may have heard some of this phraseology yourselves. The common argument runs something like this:
     "On paper,* -insert alternative to capitalism- sounds great! But, in reality, "human nature" precludes us from exploring such a society in any serious manner. Quite frankly, human beings are too greedy, and only work to profit themselves or their immediate family unit. There are no incentives for people to work demanding jobs in a -insert alternative to capitalism- society."
*(This phrase.. "on paper" is an important part of de-legitimizing the ideology in question. It creates the idea of a concept devoid of reality outside the parameters of putting pen to paper)

This argument, though common, is filled with logical fallacies and gaping holes in it's theoretical structure. It is based off a number of mistaken preconceptions, which have been drilled into our collective consciousness through our popular culture, media institutions, and our severely propagandized education system.
 
   The entire foundation of the argument is built off the conception of an idea called human nature. This conception erroneously places all human behavior into a small preset area of limitation. That humans only respond to stimulus in this "way", or that particular "form". This conception may make room for a small degree of aberration on the part of the individual, but as a whole, humankind is placed in a box, so to speak, where it's behaviorisms and motivations are defined quite rigidly. (In this case, greed, and the profit motive.) 
   
    This foundation, is logically, and in it's essence, unsound. To presuppose that human behavior only fits into a rigid set of parameters, defined by the current status quo's ideology, is to ignore all historical evidence of former societies, and paradigms, that our current epoch grew out of.
      It is to ignore the fact that human behavior is far more complex than a few simple surface motivations. It is to ignore the fact, that historically, different societies create different societal expectations for their citizens. That these social motivators have differed greatly epoch to epoch and society to society, and mostly reflect the current beliefs and structure of the ruling class of each, respectively.  It is quite frankly, to ignore all of human history, and instead focus only on our current ideology and time-frame. There is no evidence to back up the summation that humans have anything resembling a concrete "nature". Indeed quite the opposite is true when you look at the historical record. Amazing as it is, this foundation, whilst trying to set up the premise that an "alternative" society is idealistic in scope, creates it's own misguided idealism. How nice to be able to lump all of human history into the current epoch! One must simply adopt a purely Eurocentric view, and ignore countless co-operative societies ranging from pre-historic tribal communities to 1800's Native American communities, like that of the Iroquois.
    
     The second half of the argument deals with the concept of "incentive based work". To clarify, the above argument does not formulate a broad conception of what the word "incentive", entails.  It's scope is narrow. Specifically, it is referring to monetary compensation.  Again we are dealing with the erroneous supposition that humans are purely motivated by material gain.  A classic example offered by many regarding material gain incentives, is that of the noble practitioner of medicine. The Doctor. The argument is as follows: If all people are paid in monetary rewards that create an equilibrium of wages, with no particular person being paid more than another, what is the possible incentive for a person to join a career that is more "challenging", such as a becoming a neurosurgeon? Also, what is the incentive for any particular worker to be more productive than his/her neighbor?
   
     First, I would like to deal with the "Doctor" element of the argument, as it provides a perfect opportunity to show that indeed the exact opposite of what the question presupposes to be true is true, namely that individuals will not join "challenging" careers for anything other than material gain. One must only look to two recent "alternative" societies to see that such fears of a vast shortage of "skilled labor" in these areas, are unfounded. The first is the former Soviet Union.  In 1980 for example, the number of doctors per 100,000 citizens was 429. The same number in the US was 225. Both nations had comparable population sizes, with a slightly larger population in the Soviet Union, at 280 million citizens, and 241 million, respectively. For further information, see  http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/10/3/71.full.pdf  .    So the number of physicians in the Soviet Union, which practiced egalitarian wage distribution, not only wasn't in crises mode, but was TWICE as high as in the United States, where doctors received much higher rates of pay! Cuba is a second example. Currently the number of doctors per 100,000 citizens is 530. That ranks Cuba third in the world in number of physicians per capita. Both of these nations, at their respective time frames had comparable or healthier levels on health indicators, such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and quality of life, as the United States. Cuba does it with one of the lowest costs for health care in the world. It is quite clear that material gain alone is not the only factor when people decide to enter such careers. So why the huge discrepancy in pay and why the massive shortage of doctors in the United States, when compared with these nations? Frankly, it's rather simple. The United States has some of the highest tuition fees for medical students in the world. This ensures that only the richest of citizens can enter schooling for such a profession. This creates a natural shortage of doctors, which increases the cost of health care, combined with large loans hanging over the heads of practitioners, you can see why American doctors are payed so highly.

     So our preconceived ideas about the equation of doctor to pay is quite an artificial situation, created by the social decisions of institutions.  It does not automatically follow that skilled labor needs to equal high pay. People become doctors, astronauts, marine biologists, astrophysicists, musicians, authors, and philosophers for a number of reasons, pay usually the least important of factors. Mostly individuals follow a career, because they are PASSIONATE about their work.
    
     The second part of the question has many of the logical problems of the first. Instead of rehashing the subject again, I offer a counter question. If productivity is purely decided by material incentives, then why does Japan have one of the highest productivity rates in the world? Japan does not use pay differentials based on productivity of the individual worker. Instead they use a pay scale graded by how many years of service rendered. This does not stop junior members of corporations from being highly productive. Obviously societal expectations have just as much to do with productivity as so called "material incentives".  Still not convinced? Still think that the profit motive is the chief creator of innovation and productivity? Compare the non profit Linux OS to the very much for profit Microsoft Windows. At the very least one must concede that similar results can be obtained without the profit motive involved in the equation.

    For today I will end here. In a few days we will begin part two of this article, dealing with the failings and successes of former and current alternatives to Capitalism.

No comments:

Post a Comment