If "communism isn't equal pay" then what exactly are labor vouchers?

An important part of forming a structurally 'valid' definition is to attack it from all angles and see if it still holds. So, in your case, you state that I'm going to say "surgeons will be given more money to train to become educated surgeons, ergo they will be making more money once their training is completed". It sounds pretty valid, but this assumes that the training the surgeon-to-be undergoes will make their skill set desirable and that they will necessarily get more vouchers/dollars/euros/whatever unit of worth is set on for exchange in the end. That is not necessarily true. Consider the following: I am a surgeon-to-be and I spend lots of exchange units to go to surgeon school. I get my qualifications and go into the field, but I learn that I am not as good as I thought I was in practice. As a result, I do not get people choosing my skill set and "pitch" over others. They will choose to go to other surgeons over me. It isn't an "A, therefore B" scenario, you can be well-educated but fail as a surgeon in practice. It is all dependent on a multitude of factors, from circumstantial luck, to effort, to a boosted start, and so on.
If you disallow this freedom of association, you'll be left with a shit ton of dead patients and a population that wants to run away from your nation. Hence the whole Berlin wall keeping people "in" instead of "out".

so he wont be paid to go into education under a labor voucher system?

You are paid for the number of hours you work. That's the whole idea of labor vouchers. Whether they work or are even possible to implement in socialism is another.

Who the fuck would pay him? I just elaborated, quite clearly if I might add, that higher education does not directly translate into a successful subsequent career. Are you willing to pay a guy to go and finish higher education if you aren't even sure he will succeed? You're basically arguing for an investment that you aren't certain of. You have no basis to determine his success and demand as a surgeon (if he attracts people because he succeeds or if he repels them because he kills his patients). I sure as shit won't pay. He can pay for himself, it's his own investment into his own POTENTIAL future. The entire premise is flawed and assumes we can read the future. Not to mention that virtually every other context the "public education" argument is mentioned, NOBODY decides what career the student pursues: the student does. So if I spend your money on my future investment, I have no desire to be frugal with money that isn't mine: I have nothing to lose.

they're essentially "points" you earn for doing a job basically like money but they don't circulate so there is no point in hoarding them because nobody is making a profit, i liken them to money you spend on an npc shop in a videogame, the money just ceases to exist once you spend it and is deleted.

...

What a self-refuting concept. If the currency is ephemeral and "ceases to exist once you spend it", why would any shopkeep accept it or sell you "exploding money". If you're a surgeon selling his services, why would you operate on your patients if you knew that once they paid you, the Spaghetti Monster would come down and take the money they just paid you, drifting into the heavens with the money. Or that it was money that turns to dust as it touches your hand. That isn't how it works. You're just describing a slave economy with people who work for nothing. You might as well call it a "high five" economy. You operate on a patient and remove his tumour, you get 100 high fives. Then onto the next patient. Do you even have a single example of civilized society operating with "points" that disappear after the worker gets them? How many surgeons or bus drivers do you think will continue to work after they get their first "paycheque"?

wew lad learn to read

I did. I quoted your point verbatim. Did you not say that the "currency but don't call it that" can be summarized as "[ceasing] to exist once you spend it"? It's "deleted", like you said. I'm asking you for examples that aren't theoretical.

Because they're also getting vouchers for tending the shops which they can use to buy things for themselves and btw there won't be anymore "business owners" so nobody really will care that the money dissapears after being used as long as they get vouchers to spend on what they want.

The point is that it does not behave like a currency. There is no trade as such but the guy who "get" the vouchers from other workers don't get thoses vouchers in exchange from his work but get new vouchers corresponding to his own work.

The idea is that all the businesses would be nationalized and the economy centrally planned.

Now do you see why I don't support vouchers.

The definition of 'currency': Currency, in industrialized nations, portion of the national money supply, consisting of bank notes and government-issued paper money and coins, that does not require endorsement in serving as a medium of exchange; among less developed societies, currency encompasses a wide diversity of items (e.g., livestock, stone carvings, tobacco) used as exchange media as well as signs of value or wealth. In the developed nations, where checks drawn on demand deposits are an important means of transaction, currency may actually account for only a small portion of the total money supply.
How can it be "deleted" and be incapable of exchange within a network while simultaneously be provided for shopkeeps who "tend to their shops". What the hell do they do with it? Like I said, just call it a high five: please point me to an example of a civilized society operating on "high fives" (or 'points' that shopkeeps get for tending stores, or people give to them for goods/services).
Okay, so if the "points" circulate and can be "spent", you are, by definition, describing a currency.
There can't be "no business owners". Somebody has to provide the services that are being 'spent with points'. The state will have to fill the void.

Okay, well I was using the quotes and phrases of the user above me (if you read carefully, he literally calls it 'money'). If you have gripes with the terminology, take it up with him.
Why would other workers give him points, or vouchers? What service has he done for them? Who chooses how many points he gets? Why should the workers give him vouchers to begin with, what if they refuse, what happens then? It's just one worker, what is he going to do to the workers (as in, group)?

What economy? The anons above just stated that there would be no 'trade'. What economy will exist without trade or markets owned by business owners? There is no currency at all, there can't be an economy.
Definition of economy: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.
There is no more 'consumption', my entire argument against it is that nobody will be asked to do anything for "points" or "high fives" (vouchers that are not worth the paper they are printed on).

...

Because the points are automatically administered to someone based on the number of labor hours they've put in that week by a database of some kind that keeps track of it which is controlled by the government.
They spend it dummy.
The points DO NOT circulate please pay more attention when reading. You can spend them and earn them by working but that's all. Nobody gets any point when they're spend they simply cease to exist, the only thing you get in exchange for spending points is the item you spent them for.

Yes, because "free" doesn't exist. Nothing is free, it is the result of some effort. The surgeon operating on you doesn't snap his fingers to make the tumour disappear. It is the result of an intricate process that people pay good money for, because the downside is death. Surgeons don't work for free, you're describing a slave system. People don't 'consume' anything if the shopkeeps can't be asked to work for 'high fives'.

Excellent, a theoretical model. Now, related to my point above: I'm asking you for examples that aren't theoretical. Are there any real-world implementations of this system you describe?
Yeah, I know retard, currency circulates.
If they spend it, what happens then? If it is worthless, then just replace "points" or "vouchers" with high fives. Who do you think will work for you for high fives? I can imagine some slaves working. At the end of the day, some magical computer gives them three high fives each for a three hour workday.
Theoretical models aren't pragmatic. This doesn't even sound good on paper because nobody works for high fives that are worthless. Or, a more apt analogy: vouchers that turn to dust when it touches the hands of the recipient that it is "spent" on.
Give me an example of people who are free working to receive "vouchers" that turn to dust when they are utilized.

You're getting somewhat into semantics there.

Look at labor vouchers like this. They're a way to measure your contribution to society. These "points" which measure your contribution to society are given to you by a central authority which legitimizes them, and traded in at "stores" (essentially) that are operated by said central authority. They are prevented from circulation by being electronic, nothing but packets of data, like cryptocurrency. They inherently require centralized planning of the economy (and yes by the definition you provided there is still an economy).

interesting. I didn't know humans who lived in tribes and operated on a gift economy were slaves. Heck, slaves must've existed since the dawn of man! Apes must be slaves! All tribal mammals!

Wow you're really dense or a troll.

There aren't any, labor voucher along with socialism/communism in general IS theoretical since we haven't done it so there are no models to give all I can do is provide a guess at what it could resemble in put in place.
Please look up "circulate" in the dictionary.
I've already explained it a million times they get deleted wtf why are you not understanding this?
Because high fives can not be accurately measured and given to someone for amount of time they have worked what kind of stupid comparison is this?

Definitions aren't semantics. A semantic fallacy: The etymological fallacy as a semantic error is the mistake of confusing the current meaning of a word with the meaning of one of its etymons, or of considering the meaning of the etymon to be the "real" or "true" meaning of the current word. If one's goal is to communicate, then the "real" or "true" meaning of a word is its current meaning. Since the meanings of words change over time, often considerably, the meaning of an etymon may be very different from the current meaning of the word derived from it. The fact that a word historically derives from an etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.
For instance, the English word "decimate" means "to destroy a large portion of", but is derived from a Latin word having to do with a tenth of something―see the Source, below, for more on its etymology. Some people who know this insist that "decimate", therefore, means to destroy exactly one-tenth, rather than a large part, and may claim that as its "real" or "true" meaning. However, current English is not Latin.
We're discussing the usage of the word "currency". If you have some entity give "points" to people for how long they work, if it circulates within a network as an exchange unit, then it is, by definition, a currency. That can be something as far removed as a "voucher unit", like a cow. So long as it is transferred over as means for trade and circulates within the marketplace. Then it's a currency. If it vanishes (as the other user said, ceases to exist) after it is traded, then you are describing a null economy that cannot be demonstrated to exist.
Nobody does that BUT the patients who are under the knife of the surgeon, so to speak (from my example above). Not the person who gives them points, because this concept completely bypasses the concept of self-employment. If my own work as a self-employed surgeon is rejected by my patients, I don't get anything and this is completely removed from this "computer central authority". It's the consumer who sets the cap, not the point-distributer: they ARE the point distributer.
Wrong, the central authority doesn't legitimize them: the shopkeeps do. If they reject them as null and void (because they are if they are vaporized once the transfer occurs), then they're meaningless. I repeat myself: people don't work for high fives, and high fives don't become valid just because an agency says so, people have little faith in fiat currency as it is.
Poor comparison, cryptocurrencies are traded openly. Here's a challenge, though: can you name me an example of a cryptocurrency that is destroyed the moment it is traded, and to a marketplace that utilizes this?

try to imagine a different world. like on a computer game

What century do you need to point to in order to show that people working for high fives is a good idea? What century are we living in again? What do you think happened to those individuals once they utilized barter? That enough human physical energy went into things that "dude just take it, don't worry about paying me back (because currency had yet to be utilized, but nice deliberate omission)" would necessitate some form of "quid pro quo"? You still haven't actually provided an example, prehistoric man did lots of things that, when applied to our modern standards, would result in societal collapse. The concept of a cell did not even exist back then. They literally did not even understand cell theory. Or utilize electricity. No such thing as anti-biotic, either. Appealing to "what humans used to practice" as some blanket that can be applied cohesively to our modern societies is a self-refuting point. I was expecting something like "in the 19th century, Austria was the first nation to operate on an economy entirely sufficient on…", not some vague "group" of people you can't even name.

Because I push back on your ideas, you call me a troll? Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you, man.
So why should I believe your models if you cannot test them? That's how the scientific model works. You are making an unfalsifiable set of claims to truth that I have no reason to believe. Can't even begin to see examples of their implementation… yet you are speaking on its behalf with a shred of integrity, when untested hypotheses deserve none to begin with.
"move or cause to move continuously or freely through a closed system or area".
Giving high fives to people for work, then having them spend them, is circulation from one area to another.
That your claims have no evidence to support them because you just admitted there is literally no such example of what you describe occurring in reality. I am trying to get you divorced from theoretical models that cannot be tested and reality.
About as honest as "points that are deleted". I have as much evidence to support my claim as you do yours (pro-tip: high five economies don't exist).

What? That makes no sense. How does that change anything, the imaginary setting has to be applied to our world some time. Do you have any examples of its application? Or is it just simulations.

To add onto that, didn't written language/properly translated communication come into existence far beyond that time period you're referencing? Where's your evidence, man?

My instruction made no sense? Okay, sorry.
I tried to phrase it in as simple and clear a manner as possible.

I didn't just say that it made no sense. I said that it must be capable of translation into our society.
"How does that change anything, the imaginary setting has to be applied to our world some time. Do you have any examples of its application? Or is it just simulations."

1. what level of insecurity do you need to be on to continue forcing this absolutely cringe "high-five" comparison that literally makes no sense
2. I was talking about the fact that you implied that you're working for free under socialism (you're not) and then equating it to slavery using further mental gymnastics

Because you aren't giving your labor time (in the form of of money) to a business, you're only certifying that you contributed labor. The voucher, unlike money, has no value in and of itself. it is simply a certificate. Whoever you're giving that certificate to couldn't care less about it, they just need to verify that you're entitled to commodities and services. The surgeon will receive his own vouchers, not from the patient but by the representative commissions which distribute them.

By the way, you're trying far too hard. You can't refute every concept by just "summarizing" it in the most hyperbolic fantasized way possible. Go back to reddit, Holla Forums.

Reminder that people should only earn the value of the goods they make

If you want to imagine a computer game that is theoretically impossible that's obviously not gonna work but hey it's your imagination

Still not properly providing an example, but I'll explain the rationale behind the analogy, then get right back to pinning you on that point because it is literally the foundation of your argument (without practical examples, you have no evidence). The 'high five' is an ephemeral concept that loses its utility as it is 'expended', so to speak. Once you finish your work, you receive "high fives" that can be expended in order to acquire goods/services. Once they are expended, the shopkeep you just acquired goods from can no longer "high five" anybody because only you can give YOUR work's high fives. If you were following along, a more apt analogy I provided would be "points" or "vouchers" that turn to dust once they are transferred. In that regard, it is perfectly in-line with the "deleted points" the other user was talking about. So again, I pin you down on a lack of evidence: give me an example of such a "deleted vouchers" society in-action that can have some translational significance to our modern society.
Yeah, you're given vouchers that become worthless once they are exchanged. I'm simply pointing out that no rational agent will accept your worthless vouchers because they aren't worth the money they're printed on.

Businesses don't care what work you're done or how long you've done it. They just want their end of the bargain. They want something of value for their goods/services. "Points that are deleted" are not valuable, by definition (they are "bits of data that cease to exist", as you say).
Businesses, or anybody, will not accept vouchers that have no value. I challenge you AGAIN: point me to an example of such a system being successfully implemented. Another user literally admitted to espousing theoretical models with no pragmatic application. Why should I accept your fantasies?
And what good are they if they are literally without value? He is working for vouchers which have no utility in exchange, which is the entire reason the surgeon is working: to get something of value in order to save up/exchange for something else.
Again, user: not everyone who pushes back on your ideas is out to get you.

In my imagination, I can fly, too. Theoretical models work in everyone's imagination, that' why you need to test it out in real life. How is nobody seeing this, isn't this a gaping hole in your logic?

*the paper they're printed on.

you can fly in real life if you sit on a plane so i'm not sure what your point is? you can imagine theoretically possible scenarios or you can't?

You're operating under the assumption that the shops are non-state owned businesses, that's wrong, they are state owned and shopk employees are given their own vouchers for running it. People aren't being paid for high-fives, they're being paid a value measuring their contribution which they can get a return on in state owned ditribution centers, without which they can't get anything they want unless they make it themselves.

I'm not going to defend labor vouchers against your criticisms, since said in my first post I support traditional currency. A labor voucher system would probably ecourage a black market.

it still makes no sense. a high five is an action. credit is not. you're better off saying "UFOs" and the analogy would make more fucking sense
How exactly do you believe currency works user? You sound very confused.

Lol you're so far up your ass you refuse to understand anything I explain because you have an axe to grind against the very idea of the labor voucher which you'll refuse to accept no matter what anyone says.
Well we would like to test them someday but for now they're just theoretical in nature which really does nothing to discredit them, if we tried it and failed that would be another thing but you're simply dismissing it for not actually having been done which is ridiculous I hope your not a scientist lol.
Vouchers don't do that though, they're generated then deleted, then generated again and deleted again they don't "live on" and accumulate somewhere like they do in capitalist economy I don't even know why I'm wasting time writing this again anyway since you'll just ignore it.
>About as honest as "points that are deleted".
What is dishonest about this? Who is secretly hoarding them? The government who can create them at will anytime?
Lol you and this again, last i checked you don't work to make a high five its just something you can do so i really don't see how a high-five is even a comparable example at all to labor vouchers.

Fair point, I retract/revise my statement as follows: In my imagination, I can fly unassisted by machines/vehicles by the sheer force of my farts propelling me into the sky and maintaining enough thrust to allow for flight. Theoretical models work in everyone's imagination, that' why you need to test it out in real life. How is nobody seeing this, isn't this a gaping hole in your logic?

Wait, what? The 'shopkeep employees' don't run it, the state does. You just said I was wrong in assuming they were 'non-state owned'. The state is not equivalent to shopkeep employees, they aren't bureaucrats or politicians writing legislation.
What the hell is state owned distribution centre. You mean a marketplace regulated by a state? Sure, that's feasible. Plenty of mixed economies exist. But if you think that state regulation of distribution of goods/services will not lead to black markets, you are poorly mistaken, my friend. The war on drugs hasn't 'ended drug trade' just because the distribution centres were shut down.
Honest to god, I didn't read the next part of your post when I typed the war on drugs stuff. We are in agreement on that point, then.

The lower stage of communism is "equal pay for equal labour", hence the need for labour vouchers. It's not specific to communism though: it's capitalism's legacy.
The higher stage of communism can precisely be defined as the moment when we will get rid of this legacy (and thus of labour vouchers).

No it isn't, thank to capitalism, which developed the division of labour to the maximum, effectively turning most of the jobs into simple tasks.

No. You don't buy anything in a communist society, labour vouchers.

is not equal pay, where did you hear that?

1: No, your five hours of labor are not equal to another person's labor.
Say you sell burgers and I work in a nuclear power station. My labor is FAR more valuable.

2: People who are in the party always get payed better. People who are connected with the Socialist government are always better off in every way.

3: Personally, I prefer money and private property.

I revised the point, as the high five issue is valid insofar as it is as ephemeral as the vouchers are, but not much more beyond that.
Yes, finally! You understand my point: the vouchers that are exchanged will be tossed back in your face by the shopkeep PRECISELY BECAUSE they are worthless. It IS NEVER EXCHANGED. The entire premise is based on flawed reasoning with no supporting evidence, because we have no reason to believe in the model as it is internally inconsistent. It is never actually exchanged properly because vouchers that might as well turn to dust when they're exchanged will never be exchanged in the first place.

Okay, using your own logic, I can call you a troll for deviating from the point, too. Where does that leave us? Try and focus on proofs and your argument instead
I'd like to introduce you to the concept of falsifiability.
"Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

Okay so you can only imagine impossible scenarios that don't build on facts that you know. Okay fine.
I work in car design and can I do about 50% of a standard new product off the top of my head using my imagination, so I'm used to visually connecting complex systems. I guess everyone is wired differently.

the same would occur if I gave the shopkeeper Chinese yen while in America. How the fuck does that make something worthless? Your logic is incredibly flawed.

Another concept known as Hitchens' razor: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"/What is freely asserted is freely deserted.
Via an entity and transferred to another for the work they've done. It absolutely does circulate. The workers come to acquire it by that method.
That's not what circulation means. Objects or things can circulate and cease to exist. They can cease to exist precisely BECAUSE they circulated. Blood circulating in a "bad" clump can kill you very easily.
Because you do not work for meaningless vouchers that cease to exist.

The important distinction here is that the voucher doesn't represent material wealth, it only certifies labor already contributed. In a sense, once labor has been performed, the commodities you will reap in the future are already yours, you just need to get them and the voucher is just a tool meant to verify your entitlement.

You're trying very hard to not listen here. Vouchers would NOT circulate. The amount of vouchers a patient gives to his doctor has nothing to do with the vouchers the doctor receives for his labor. It's just a certificate unique to the individual: non-distributive, impermanent, and void after your commodities have been received. On a very fundamental level, it does not function at all like money in advanced societies of the past few hundred years.

Regulatory commissions would be in charge of this, and this would vary drastically depending on legislative system. In a more libertarian solution, commissions with national authority but only local operation (with elected, rotating officers) would control how vouchers are distributed. Obviously if a single or several workers take issue with the way their vouchers are distributed, they can take it up to directly with local legislative bodies, elect a preferable representative, or attempt to initiate a referendum. Cases of corruption or labor theft would occur, certainly, but there would absolutely be mechanisms to counter them. Other solutions include trade union control of distribution, centralized control, local council control, etc.

I'm going to be perfectly honest, you're a fucking idiot. Economy was not an invention of capitalism. Economy is a VERY broad term which simply describes the distribution of resources within human societies. It means everything from the slave empires of antiquity to feudal landlord hierarchies to liberal capitalism to socialist planning.

People will do things not because of the money promised to them by their clients, but because their labor contributes to society in such a way that they may reap personal benefits. The vouchers received for a given amount of labor is meant to be generally equivalent to the labor used in creating a certain amount of commodities which are then received after a voucher is certified.

… is zero. Labour vouchers are ration cards, you don't give them away.

I mean, I can imagine many things divorced from facts: people speculate all the time. I just don't make claims to truth on their behalf, like anons are doing now.
Well, that's different because I take it you've done that many times before. You are creating something that can exist. Imagine if I told you to make a new product using only water without freezing or boiling it: literally just liquid water, not ice. It would not be possible by the very nature of water. That's kind of like appealing to a voucher unit that has no practical application: shopkeeps will reject it because they don't want to give their goods/services for literally nothing.

Except Chinese Yen is equivalent to 0.0092 USD, right now. The deleted voucher is worth exactly 0 any currency. You realize that currency can be exchanged and that not every business deals in USD? Depends, if you live IN China, then you can always exchange your currency. Lol, that's another can of worms I did not even attempt to ask you to explain, it's hard enough asking for real-world examples that can be translated into our society, let alone how the vouchers will be translated by occupation, location, time, etc. This must be some Skynet computer, I hope it never exists.

I love how you use a non-argument and then proceed to use two different hypothetical premises for your 3 responses.
Assuming all he other shit is true:
meaningless is totally arbitrary. If I can receive products by exchanging the voucher then it has value to me, no? why wouldn't you?
why wouldn't he?
so you're assuming that everybody will just say "no" to vouchers? how does currency function then? we have something called a "social contract" and that's how civilization functions.

Neither does fiat currency, it is not bound by a gold standard. It's literally just trust in the Fed.
There is nothing material it falls back on besides itself.
Vouchers are printed on paper, too. Or are they data? I have no clue, none of you have explained or provided any examples, it's literally all been unfalsifiable theories.
How the fuck does anybody know or anticipate what I will need?
Only the doctor determines that worth, though. Nobody else. This assumes that he is beholden to some other entity for his work. I don't get to determine how much he is working for, only he does. If he highballs it, he loses customers. If he lowballs it, he is run out of a job. It must be something that the patients are willing to pay for and that the doctor is willing to offer. Also, you are literally describing an impossible scenario where a third party is responsible for paying the doctor that is completely divorced from the patient. No such example exists. Even insurance companies are indirectly related to the society of patients, as a whole (with single payer). You just said that "The amount of vouchers a patient gives to his doctor has nothing to do with the vouchers the doctor receives for his labor". That is a preposterous claim, I ask you to please provide me an example of such an interaction. I don't buy an apple and have the shopkeep paid by some separate entity. No individual will be that altruistic, so it has to be inanimate. Maybe some government agency? But the state doesn't have money of its own: it taxes its citizens or prints it off. I don't think printing money off for that purpose is a great model, though. Unless you can give me a successful example?

because?…

The important distinction here is that the voucher doesn't represent material wealth, it only certifies labor already contributed. In a sense, once labor has been performed, the commodities you will reap in the future are already yours, you just need to get them and the voucher is just a tool meant to verify your entitlement.

You're trying very hard to not listen here. Vouchers would NOT circulate. The amount of vouchers a patient gives to his doctor has nothing to do with the vouchers the doctor receives for his labor. It's just a certificate unique to the individual: non-distributive, impermanent, and void after your commodities have been received. On a very fundamental level, it does not function at all like money in advanced societies of the past few hundred years.

Regulatory commissions would be in charge of this, and this would vary drastically depending on legislative system. In a more libertarian solution, commissions with national authority but only local operation (with elected, rotating officers) would control how vouchers are distributed. Obviously if a single or several workers take issue with the way their vouchers are distributed, they can take it up to directly with local legislative bodies, elect a preferable representative, or attempt to initiate a referendum. Cases of corruption or labor theft would occur, certainly, but there would absolutely be mechanisms to counter them. Other solutions include trade union control of distribution, centralized control, local council control, etc.

I'm going to be perfectly honest, you're a fucking idiot. Economy was not an invention of capitalism. Economy is a VERY broad term which simply describes the distribution of resources within human societies. It means everything from the slave empires of antiquity to feudal landlord hierarchies to liberal capitalism to socialist planning.

People will do things not because of the money promised to them by their clients, but because their labor contributes to society in such a way that they may reap personal benefits. The vouchers received for a given amount of labor is meant to be generally equivalent to the labor used in creating a certain amount of commodities which are then received after a voucher is certified.

Don't complicate the discussion by being picky about something as irrelevant as the fucking physical mechanism of the vouchers.

It's easier to talk about vouchers in terms of actual physical certificates rather than their more realistic implementation as simple cards or digital accounts or whatever. None of this has anything to do with the theoretical argument.

Any real-world examples? Also, how are they countered? Just saying that they can be directly contacted, or that they can avoid corruption, doesn't mean anything. These are all just claims to truth without a practical application to back it up. Why should I trust what you are saying, basically? On what basis do you have to come to that conclusion?
But this doesn't answer the question: why would other workers give him points? Because they're in a union? What happens if an individual refuses to work within the union or pay points to others?
Try not to get too emotional and stick to arguments first.
Here's a challenge: find me a single point in the post you just responded to where I made a positive claim on behalf of markets and claimed they are dependent and created by capitalism.
Such instances have to first be demonstrated first. You have done no such thing, you've just alluded to the agencies and concepts without actually demonstrating anything truthful.
Yes, it does, but we know slavery existed. It didn't work for a while because of the human toll and slaves fighting back. I'm asking you for evidence of the last bit.
Where you observe economies based on these 'personal benefits'? What a subjective and open-to-interpretation concept. Many will state that money is the benefit they want. Or barter, if you remove currency. Who determines what is 'personally beneficial'? The individual? Why should their emotions or state of being be relevant to how an economy is managed at a foundational level? You know what benefit is better than the rest? A translational unit of exchange.
Well, they actually have never really been 'received'. You're just talking about them, but no such vouchers have actually existed properly. It wouldn't be a really good 'voucher' if it can be translated properly and traded on a global market with actual currency, too. Kind of defeats the purpose.

Labour vouchers are ration cards. Nowadays, they would certainly not be printed on paper (thus they wouldn't be "vouchers" per se, more like "labour records").

How the fuck does a store's manager know what his clients want today? He uses statistics of the previous week's/months/years. Anticipating the sales is an actual job, money is no magical way to do it.

Calling something a non-argument doesn't make it one.
It is when the shopkeep rejects it. That's all that matters. If I refuse your voucher and don't even accept it from you, it means nothing: it lacks value in exchange, entirely. If that's the point, then point me to a society that operates in this manner successfully.
But you can't. Your vouchers exist only in your mind: there is no actual example of their existence in reality.
Where did I say that quote? I never said "lol the store "owner" would never do it". That isn't me you're responding to. Don't put words in my mouth then complain that I'm not making arguments: you can't even properly quote me.
Well, fiat currency is basically trust in the Federal Reserve. If tomorrow shop owners refused to accept the USD, or global markets did not trade in USD because it could not "circulate" or "be exchanged", then the people of the US would resort to a barter economy (read: archaic and underdeveloped). So, the opposite of 'civilized society'.

It's totally relevant: most people (and the other user is clearly one of them) believe vouchers are a form of money. Talking about "giving" them can only reinforce this misconception.

It has no exchange rate because your theoretical model does not exist. It has never even existed for you to say that it has any worth, and the entire concept of vouchers/points that are deleted upon the transaction would be a one-time thing. A shopkeep would literally say "hey, these new vouchers in the form of data bits that are deleted from the net once they are transferred are actually completely gone upon transaction: let's not accept it as an exchange unit because it's fucking moronic to provide goods/services for bits that cease to exist upon the transaction". Also, read the posts above and follow along, I've already discussed the internal inconsistencies of the point, especially how it is unfalsifiable.

hypothetically. got it? good.
now tell me why it wouldn't work hypothetically

If you want to be really honest, they wouldn't be anything because they have never existed beyond theoretical models. Actually, if I'm being honest, it isn't even a theory. A theory has been tested and properly examined: your 'model' is a hypothesis, at best.
Reading the markets and trial and error. If I start selling green apples and nobody buys, I'm shit out of luck. The customer who walks buy and tells me to stop selling green apples would have a good point, too.
Correct.
Sure, this is also true. I take issue because this governmental agency(ies) assume some sort of order and cohesion within modern governments, at a successful tier so as to minimize losses. Newsflash: governments are not as efficient as you think they are and they aren't exactly democratically elected if you just described a state that would be so intrusive so as to realize, to the most accurate degree, what amount of groceries you will need for the month. In reality, it's a couple of loaves of bread and a starving stomach (read: bread lines).

labor voucher are paid an an equal MARGINAL rate thats not the same as equal pay. If i work 10 hours i get 10 hours of vouchers. If i work 80 hours i get 80 vouchers. OFC there is still redistribution for social spending, possible bonuses for professions in shortage, etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=PI2xrJIoh-E

I would like to introduce you to another concept: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat". Or, "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies".
Let's extend your same logic.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which Russel's teapot exists can't work?"
Presupposing a truthful conclusion without first proving it to be valid is not how you argue. We've been over this for decades as a society, why is this still a thing? That's why the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing exists.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which the accused is guilty can't work?"

Every cashier in every store in the world already accepts to give away goods for nothing in exchange, simply because it is his job to do so.

Please stop invoking your petit-bourgeois fantasy in defense of actual capitalism.

except we're not talking about how it would happen in a capitalist economy you absolute moron. OF COURSE that would fucking happen. people would agree to do it in a socialist society because it would keep it functioning. it's the same way you agree to use private property and currency and obey certain laws, they aren't natural, you just do it because it keeps things going in place.

The 'nothing' is fiat currency that supports the entire global marketplace. We have agreed to give it worth precisely because it circulates and is traded globally. Your hypothetical system does not. It isn't "nothing".
Here's a challenge for you: prior to your mentioning of 'capitalism', please find me a passage in which I explicitly defend 'capitalism'? Pointing out the logical shortcomings of a faith-before-fact assertion=/=overt defense of another system. What makes you think I agree with the fiat currency system we have today? What a preposterous appeal to motivation.

See above: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat". Or, "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies".
Also, my grandmother would be my grandfather if she had balls. I'm asking you, by extension, why such a state of society/economy (i.e. socialism) will become necessary to allow for this hypothesis you have yet to demonstrate? Of course, in my imagination, the flat earth model exists because OBVIOUSLY the earth will have to be flat in the first place!
Actually, the acquisition and conquest for land and resources is quite 'natural' if you mean to say that humans, or primates, operate in a territorial manner. It is observed within our nature. Most of human history has been conquest and subjugation, for land, resources, wealth, women, etc.

[continue using this same argument for dozens of posts]
kill yourself

No: I do not give any money to the cashier.

I said "private property" are you illiterate?
what does the burden of proof have to with what I said? you are illiterate…

"[continue using this same argument for dozens of posts]"
Being totally honest to yourself, myself, and the people reading your post: is that what I have stated? Is that honestly your takeaway from my posts?
I'll quote my original posts first to disprove you.
"Depends what their track record is. I'll reverse the question: are you willing to get a surgery from a surgeon who has had an abysmal track record, resulting in many deaths and is incapable/poorly qualified? Or would you rather go under the blade of an individual who is highly skilled and has been operating on patients for decades, without any missteps? Who are you willing to go under the knife for?
Alright, if you are sane and answer as I anticipate you will, you'll realize that the surgeon will not provide his services for nothing. If you force him to work for you without pay and own him and his work, that's slavery. If he chooses to operate on you and you choose him over the other guy who sucks, then you have arrived at a mutually beneficial agreement. He is willing to give up his time (worth MORE than the other guy in your circumstance because you don't want to pay for him and his work) and you're willing to give up your cash to get the tumour taken out (for example). The hierarchy of skill sets the two apart, as you are a consumer who has preference and a specific demand that must be met.
Another follow-up to the original point on bus drivers and doctors. What do you think requires more training: driving a bus for city transit or operating on a patient?"
Are you not familiar with the concept? The burden of he proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies. I know it's a difficult concept to reconcile with when I ask for something that isn't hypothetical. You can't state that a future system is desirable or beneficial if you have an untested hypothesis. Similarly (and if this is you, then this passage should be the textbook definition of shifting the burden of proof), when you state "now tell me why it wouldn't work hypothetically", this is assuming that I should disprove what has yet to be demonstrated. With the same amount of evidence, I can make as many claims if I never actually test my hypothesis.

I think you need to do some research.

Newsflash: stores are (never once seen an empty shelve in my life). And thanks to the job they are doing, not to the money they charge for it.

You keep posting the same image and you keep asking retarded questions. Read a fucking book.

Also, mods, why the hell is this dude still posting?

and after that…
then you continue doing this on and on and on, saying that nobody will use labor vouchers "just because", you completely lack any form of abstract thought clearly.
the poster before me (and many others in this thread) have stated how it would work. what is the problem here? your "burden of proof" makes no sense, it's a fucking theory. you're supposed to point out logical flaws, not demand historical evidence.

Then you receive nothing in return.

Your interpretation of what constitutes my private property is irrelevant because you have no evidence to support the claim that you own it, that my possession equates to an injustice against you (presupposes an infarction against your rights, which you have not demonstrated because that would constitute theft, which would necessitate ownership to begin with) is also not demonstrated, and finally, what I do with it is just as irrelevant to you because I can protect it from all of your claims.
By 'animals', I mean humans. Humans are animals.
Also, you don't take rent from people if you have private property. I can own a house and literally let it sit there. I don't have to rent it out. Your definition is flawed because the two are not mutually exclusive. My main premise was that people utilize violence to acquire land and resources all the time, and what the conquered interpret is irrelevant because they have already lost. It's kind of like complaining about why I drink your milkshake: I've already drank it, there is nothing you can do about it.

How can someone be illiterate if they've heard and read of the burden of proof? Think of a better insult, please.
The issue is that you must first demonstrate the socialist society and the voucher system instead of relying on me to prove it for you.

that would require a mass of people who agreed to do it?… I can't do that ITT. what do you want us to do, make a simulation?

Yes I do, every time I go to the store. I can go a hundred times in the day, buy a hundred packs of rice, a TV, some diamonds, everything in the store, say hello a hundred times to the cashier, at the end of the day his wage won't have changed a bit.

Excellent, then prove it. Again, the burden of proof is on you who affirms, not me who denies.
Innocent until proven guilty, presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, etc.
Not the bread lines owned by the state. Stores are efficient because if they fail, they are removed from power. A state that fails means that the people are stuck with it, unless they can revolt against it. I'm not in the mood for constant revolution, neither is most of society. People are more than willing to just not shop at shit stores instead. It's the biggest "fuck you" imaginable.
The job is possible because of the money they charge.

That's because I don't have to disprove the theory of general relativity, you have to prove it. Do you follow along? That's the whole 'burden of proof' issue. You are making a claim to truth, so prove it. Hypotheses=/=real world examples. If you have no means to falsify your hypothesis, then it is pseudo-scienfitic.
No, actually. They just made circular arguments that it 'can work hypothetically'. Okay great, can you implement your hypotheses in the real world? I will wait until you provide a successful example.
*hypothesis. Theories are tested first to become theoretical models which are, then, demonstrated to be laws.
I've already shown how shopkeeps will immediately dismiss such a concept because there is no incentive to work because of "personal benefits" like another user stated above unless you demonstrate how this is realistically feasible.
Or that the whole state bread lines will be efficient has been shown to be… not accurate given the "historical evidence" you have an aversion to.

So how do you falsify the hypothesis? How can I show you that this is not realistically feasible?

That's not what you said. You answered "no" to "I do not give any money to the cashier." If you do not pay for the products you walk out with, you have committed theft.

I do give money alright; but not to the cashier. He is there only to make sure I have money to the store.

Just like tomorrow, he will be there only to make sure I'm entitled to take whatever I'll take in the store.

Just like to take a quick hiatus, some of the anons have been honest in arguing their points as logically as they can. Beyond the personal attacks, good argument so far.

my what? I'm not sure what I said
if you don't use it then it's not your possession. you are aware of the difference between personal and private property right?
when it becomes a means of production and is used to hire workers (like me) and distribute goods then it does affect me. property that doesn't affect is called personal property, not private.
how does this make it irrelevant to me? the former is not the logical conclusion of the latter
in a capitalist economy, yes. I don't think that should be the case.
you mean "synonymous" right? not "mutually exclusive" - I'm gonna assume so. If you are using the house as residence then obviously it belongs to you (personal property), if you are renting it out or using it as a means of production then it affects my consumption, which are entirely different scenarios.
it's not irrelevant though… it affects my material conditions.
this is a stupid analogy, if you drink somebody else's milkshake you should expect a sock in the face.

there is no incentive to work? huh? if I can use labor vouchers to buy produce then I think that is a pretty good incentive to get some, no?
in what way am I advocating for breadlines?
I'm not… it's a theory and I think it's a system that will work. I'm not going to "prove it" because I physically can't. If you're waiting for proof then I don't know why you continue replying.

Oh, yeah. I should have been more specific. By "cashier", I should have said the establishment/general 'company'/branch. You don't pay the cashier Doug's wage, literally. That's not what I meant. I was referencing 'cashier' as in, the system as a whole. I am paying the register first, which is then emptied out. Then, the owner steps. I'm not sure what happens after, though. I would think that he distributes it based on company policy of wages, plus bonus if it is earned? No clue, really. I have never worked as an owner or a cashier.

You want me to prove there have already been ration cards in history. Are you serious?

Yup. So?

No. What is needed to do a job is: some tools; some matter; someone to do the job.

Labour vouchers can be used for production for use though. The whole idea of labour vouchers is that you cannot exchange them with other people, only use them to buy scarce goods.

but not goods that are in high supply?

Well, when that's the point of contention, you can't just prove your claims by asking a rhetorical question. "Do you seriously want me to provide relevant historical evidence for my claims?"
Yes. The answer is yes. I am sure ration cards have existed. But I want to see how you tie ration cards into your central premise, as ration cards as the basis for an economy.
Include the next part when I make the whole revolution against a state part, too. Don't selectively edit my post. The "so" part followed.
The "matter"? You mean atoms? What good are atom if they don't want to work?

No you shouldn't, really, since I am the one who started mentioning the cashier, and this is specifically what I meant: tomorrow, when I will go to the store with my labour voucher, the cashier will accept because it is his job, exactly like he does today with my credit card.

As for the owner, there won't be any. Don't forget communism is the abolition of private property.

If goods are not scarce then by definition there is enough for everybody at a zero price, so you don't need to charge for it.
Like water is lots of countries, which is so cheap that keeping track of who uses how much and who has paid is almost not worth the effort, might as well make it free.

How else do you want to ration scarce goods?

No, what followed was some blabbering about capitalists states.

No. I mean what you will consume during the process: the ingredients if your job is to cook, for example.

okay, so then say the supply of certain goods are below the demand, and you need to invest in infrastructure if you want to maximize efficiency? how would people go about organizing that without some type of banking+investment?

You don't think a company can improve efficiency without investing money?

That's not what you said originally, though. You can't revise your statement after we've agreed upon it. A labour voucher is not equivalent to a credit card because the currency, as many have pointed out, does not circulate and is not utilized once it is exchanged. You might as well be trading a currency that is not worth any value for the business because they don't accept it: it isn't USD, GBP, EUR, etc.
There's another one of those unfalsifiable hypotheses. So far, I've yet to see such a system manifest itself in a modern equivalent to its archaic, prehistoric variant.

During wartime, you see the ration cards being traded, but only because it is some moral obligation: they can't let the citizens of the conquered land stave, so they say "here is one USD, you can only trade if with our specific market and nowhere else for this amount that we set." It has no utility elsewhere, cannot be exchanged, and no 'stable economy' has existed under such a premise: unless you can provide an example.
What I actually said: Stores are efficient because if they fail, they are removed from power. A state that fails means that the people are stuck with it, unless they can revolt against it. I'm not in the mood for constant revolution, neither is most of society. People are more than willing to just not shop at shit stores instead. It's the biggest "fuck you" imaginable.
How is pointing out that totalitarian states will bring about revolution "capitalist". At this point, it's just a buzzword, like fascism.
Well, an issue with your 'requirements': some services are immaterial and don't require some "one", but something. Advice requires air as its medium through which sound waves can travel, for example. The 'sound' itself is immaterial: it's energy, not matter. Often times, inanimate objects are the point of sale, not a 'thing' or person.

To add, I do not agree that it doesn't circulate, but that's besides the definitions others have set on the issue. I believe the very transfer from 'magical skynet computer that is omniscient' is a circulation from one area to another.

All your questions are answered in this book.

But in short:
All means of production is owned collectively. Investements are based on "shortages" or democratic votes that override those.
Shortages are measured by the price. The price of products is set to marker clearing prices. If that marker clearing price (ie the price at which all is sold but no shortages exist) is higher than the labour time cost, there needs to be upscaling there. If it is lower, it needs downscaling. This aims for equalibrium where all labour is equally socially effective.

Investment is then done though a democratically set tax on all labour vouchers. Plans are drawn up for how to expand and the orders for the expansion are put into the planning system (also outlined in the book).

Its a lot to go over in one post. I highly recommend the book.

true but idealist

This is exactly what I said:
"Every cashier in every store in the world already accepts to give away goods for nothing in exchange, simply because it is his job to do so."

Indeed. We are working on it.

I just had this long gripe with another user for not properly citing his claims and, instead, resorting to vagueness without actually providing supporting quotations that are properly cited, showing his claims.
You cannot link to an entire book as if it is evidence for your claim if you do not want to cite the arguments contained within that support your premise. It's a dishonest argument that literally anybody can make. "Here's 'x', it shows this." Yes, why and where does it show your argument? Even the bibliography of the book properly cites its claims.

To which I responded: The 'nothing' is fiat currency that supports the entire global marketplace. We have agreed to give it worth precisely because it circulates and is traded globally. Your hypothetical system does not. It isn't "nothing".
The challenge of accusing me of defending capitalism was also conveniently ignored, without response. I still await evidence for your accusation, though.
Then I was more specific with what you meant as a cashier, then we agreed on that conclusion.
Who is 'we'? By what definition have you succeeded/improved today compared to, say, ten years ago? Twenty years ago? I don't think the 'work' done to advance the system has gotten far, but I'm open to an argument.

You again? Piss off mate. Im not going to rewrite the book for you again. Its a complete political economy system that you can't just lift parts from without knowing the rest of them.

Because this is a fucking imageboard post i write before going to work, not a fucking book for publishing, you ultra-autist.

There is no such thing as a "stable economy". The inherent instability of every mode of production so far (class struggle) is the underlying cause of all of history.

It isn't: totalitarian capitalist states will indeed bring about revolution… the communist revolution.

So? My point was merely to say that one doesn't need money to do a job.

Oh, and by the way, i fucking wrote down the answer to your question, and provided the book as suplementary material. If you didnt get triggered just by people saying "heres a book explaining everything you could ever want to ask about the system i am proposing" that you didnt even bother to read beyond it, you would have seen I answered your question.

Say this to all the quality managers who get paid quite a lot for their job, and to all the companies that hire them.

There is a lot you can do without extra money, but if you need an extra road or assmeblyline, no amount of managers are going to help you.

I'm the guy who asked the question, I'm not the autistic nerd you're replying to.

Hey, nice to meet you again. Seems as if you've learned nothing about properly citing your claims. I know it is common to just tell people to "read a book", but if you haven't even read the book you're "citing" to be able to provide supporting quotations, it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. How hard is it to just control+F key words and cite a quote with a page number? Jesus, man.
Supporting quotations=/=entire rendition of a book, front to back.
So provide the nuance and context. That's what the thesis is supposed to do.
Then don't act as if you read books if you can't cite the claims within. You don't get to half-ass your claims like a pseudo-intellectual.

By stable, I mean self-sufficient, capable of replication, and capability to withstand 'negative events'.
There are certainly more economies that are more stable than others. Zimbabwe versus Japan comes to mind.
Considering the fact that class is a recent (on the time scale of human history) social construct, that is not true. It's also incredibly reductionist to claim that one "thing" or factor causes "all of history".
Define capitalism and explain, with historical instances, how a free market with the means of production fully incorporated into private businesses is totalitarian.
I agree, if you are motivated, you can find employment, you don't need a boost if you are marketable.

Wasn't my question, actually. Your 'tl;dr' can be debated by the guy who asked the question, but if you just shit out a book that you haven't read enough to be able to cite properly, it is meaningless. "Supplementary material" equals supporting quotations, not an entire book. If you examine the book you make claims to truth on, you would see that they don't just say "Marx said that x is y… source, what Marx wrote in that book once".
I'm not upset, I'm kind of confused why you would role-play an intellectual if you cannot shit out a proper citation for your claims (if you believe the book is rife with relevant context, you'd be able to find ONE supporting quotation).

Which is wrong. I literally give nothing to the cashier today, and neither will I tomorrow, end of story.

Communists.
We haven't. The period is clearly still counter-revolutionary.
We got pretty far in 1917.

Sorry about that lad.
That autist was sperging out massively in the discussion thread about the book i posted because he demanded to have his opinion of it be taken serious, despite not having read it.

Piss off cunt.

Indeed.

Really? What if your company's field of expertise is precisely the construction of roads and assembly lines?

You still need stone, tar, metal and rubber, despite having the knowledge and people to build it.
A master shipbuilder cant build a ship on an island with no trees.
So you need some way of obtaining resources.

That's not what I quoted, I said that the "fiat currency" is what is exchanged. The quote I mentioned did not relate to who is receiving the fiat currency: we've already ironed out that the business itself receives the fiat currency (in the US, at least).
Communism has never actually existed, really. If it is an a priori resolution, then we can always make assertions on its behalf outside of relevant experience.
Well, that doesn't answer my question: by what stretch of the imagination are you "working" on anything? You have an entire global populous to convince, many of which want nothing to do with your ideas. Freedom of association and all that.
Consider the following: hasn't it been a consistent decline since 1917, then? Hasn't the system of ideas been gradually declining into un-Communist states until it finally collapsed in 1989 (in the USSR, at least)? So how have you been working on it? It seems to me as if it has been failure after failure leading up to total collapse and reversal.

I would like to respond with your own quotation. Both to show you how to properly cite your claims and to touch on an irony sweeter than honey.

This, coming from the person who resorts to an ad hominem to dismiss a response critical of his unscientific way of thinking: Piss off cunt.
I love it, I absolutely love it. On one hand, you LARP as some nuanced intellectual capable of providing well-sourced arguments, but upon the slightest insistence of a proper citation with supporting quotations, you become emotionally unstable and call people names and, most likely, report them because you disagree with their criticisms (not on any reasonable grounds, of course).
Please, keep on making my accusations of sophistry more clear.

Keep playing the "holier than thou" card buddy, im sure your fallacy fallacy works out some day.

Apart from some primitive attempts to colonisation, almost every society that ever existed was self-sufficient (to some extent), capable of replication, and capable to withstand a whole range of "negative events". But none has ever been neither self-sufficient for all of its members, not capable of replicating indefinitely, for all of them generated negative events it couldn't withstand: hence the revolutions. Capitalism is no exception.

Japan and Zimbabwe are part of the same, global capitalist society.

Oh by the way, you seem to have an intentional habit of ignoring shit to support your argument.
You ignore my explanation and say I dont provide an explaination.
You ignored my correction post in the other thread and then made personal attacks saying that I am wrong because english isnt my fist language.

Shouting "fallacy" and "not an argument" doesnt make you right.

Except it isn't. Classes have existed since the end of primitive communism; that is, since antiquity or even before.

And yet, without production there can't be any history.

Well, you'll have to demonstrate how I am acting "holier-than-thou". So, I challenge you to demonstrate a standard that I hold others to that I do not extend to myself. I cited my claims from your own post… unlike you. I didn't just say "ah, it's up there somewhere, find it for me".
A fallacy fallacy assumes that the statement can be true and fallacious at the same time. I can feel as if the moon exists. It's a shit reason, but it's true. You'll have to demonstrate why your arguments are valid first, because the fallacy fallacy assumes that it is demonstrated truth. The other user pointing to 1917 as an example of success. I would actually use that as an argument against Communism, but whatever.

I think the relevance of standards of living also plays a role. I would rather live in the USA than Madagascar. Madagascar is self-sufficient, but the USA ranks higher on the HDI.
Sure, valid concern. Absolute societal equality is a pipe dream, so using that as the reference point/assumption is like assuming why the moon isn't made of blue cheese.
How is Zimbabwe capitalist. Or, how is the MoP owned by private entities within a free market.

Such as? Your entire book you can't cite isn't really a good point, because that's what we're debating about: your lack of proper citations.
[citation needed]
I actually said that I responded to it, not that it doesn't exist.
[citation needed]
I never used an ad hominem attack against you, you did. I never said you were factually 'wrong' because you could not speak English properly: I said that you were unintelligible, if I recall. Not the same thing.
Weren't you just using the fallacy fallacy as an example? Convenient how you bypass the definitions I provided, don't present an alternative, or explain how I am guilty of it (unlike my accusation of your ad hominem attack here: ).

Within the societal paradigm, sure: but they are still social constructs. And if that were true, it would require any societal inequality to necessitate some class difference. You'll have to demonstrate the class consciousness of prehistoric man to qualify the social construct's existence, first.
Yes, and without air there can be no production. Reductionism works both ways.

A mode of production based on the exchange of equivalent values.

USSR, Nazi Germany, USA, France, etc.

Take a look at the following sentence

Where have you arrived at this definition? My definition: Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
From: britannica.com/topic/capitalism.
How was the "means of production…privately owned" in USSR, Nazi Germany, USA, France, etc.
What do you mean by etc.? That sounds pretty open-ended.

See:
"I would like to introduce you to another concept: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat". Or, "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies".
Let's extend your same logic.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which Russel's teapot exists can't work?"
Presupposing a truthful conclusion without first proving it to be valid is not how you argue. We've been over this for decades as a society, why is this still a thing? That's why the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing exists.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which the accused is guilty can't work?""
When I accuse you of committing a logical fallacy here:
I quote your post and your exact words: Piss off cunt.
The post you were responding to was multi-faceted and dismissing it because I am a vagina, or cunt, is an ad hominem attack. You say I hold others to a different standard: your accusation, your affirmation, your evidence.

What if my company's field of expertise is also producing these resources I need?

Weaponised autism is incredible

Allow me to present another example here:

It does rely on my projection, so bear with me because I think I am correct. Here, we have a person coming in and calling someone/thing autistic. Statistically, as I have made the most posts, he is, most likely, referring to me. I will ask after if he thinks I am autistic or not, but we will posit that this is so for the purposes of my example.
Dismissing my points and subsequent criticisms on the basis of a disease you cannot prove I have is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. It assumes that my identity determines the merit and worth of my arguments, as opposed to the structural 'weight' of the argument itself.

Consider the following:
People dont like to talk to you because you act like a cunt. A cunt who goes "oh but you need to provide academic citations to several books for a comment made on an imageboard for quick discussion" to shut down the opposition.
Its a common strategy, also used by patent trolls. They make people spend so much time (and money) and after their opponent has proven they are right, they just pull out the next bullshit item from their pile and do it all over again. Meanwhile, they themselves dont have to do anything but shout "objection! provide proofs/i have a patent".
People being fed up with your retarded conduct doesnt make you right, it just means you cannot have a conversation like a normal person without sperging out at the sight of somebody saying "oh btw heres a book that has more info".
Now piss off

This kind of shit is exactly why people call you autistic.
And rightfully so. This isnt debateclub or lawyerschool, buddy. If you didnt act autistic people wouldnt call you autistic. Kinda hard to see if you are autistic on an anonymous board. All insults result purely from what you write, ie your "arguments"

… is basically the same as mine:
The private property of the means of production directly derives from this.

Then you still need to have the rights over such thing
If you have access to all resources and all expertise you have a complete economy and youre just kicking the problem down. Now you need to allocate resources within your company by some means (which lots of corporations do by creating subdivisions who trade between themselves).

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
By definition, an ad hominem attack.
"Quick discussion"? I believe that the debate concerning the foundational economic system for the future is more than a quick debate. If you care that much about defending your ideas, then that's fine. But don't post academic work (that isn't your original work) if you don't want to read it and properly cite arguments from within demonstrating your thesis.
See the point on ad hominems above. Remember the 'holier-than-thou' fallacy you accused me of? That was my response: elaborating on my standard of evidence, which you now call "too intellectually strenuous for me and my 'quick' attention span".
If you can't defend your points from refutations, you are not 'proven' right. I asked above for evidence of feasibility within the real world. The response here:
"Well we would like to test them someday but for now they're just theoretical in nature which really does nothing to discredit them, if we tried it and failed that would be another thing but you're simply dismissing it for not actually having been done which is ridiculous I hope your not a scientist lol."
Greentext is my question (in full, it was: So why should I believe your models if you cannot test them? That's how the scientific model works. You are making an unfalsifiable set of claims to truth that I have no reason to believe. Can't even begin to see examples of their implementation… yet you are speaking on its behalf with a shred of integrity, when untested hypotheses deserve none to begin with.), quotes are his response. If that's how you prove hypotheses, the Earth is also flat, too.
Well, it's called the onus of evidence. Goes both ways. If I say that capitalism is valid, I have to provide the same evidence. But I have not been concerned with capitalism, but a critique of the arguments within, about labour points and totalitarianism.
See the point about ad hominems above.

Not all of them, and most certainly not for the reason you seem to have in mind ("it is more efficient that way"). The actual reasons are:
- the subdivisions that trade between themselves often happen to trade with other companies as well, and thus need to be proven profitable in and of themselves;
- tax evasion.

Nigger get that stick out of your ass.
One paragraph isnt a fucking thesis.

And yeah, communism is a complete economy and does "kick the problem (of misuse of resources) down"… down the dustbin of history.

You aren't here to debate your ideas and defend them from criticism… yet you are willing to laud around "citations" from books that SPECIFICALLY MAKE academic claims… that you don't want to defend (let alone properly cite).
If you classify an ad hominem as just cause to dismiss a point in the context I provided ("you are autistic, I know this because autism is defined as… here is my evidence of your diagnosis…"), then you have no reason to call other arguments invalid.

So explain how the MoP were privately held within the examples you provided. That was the second half. I can agree on your definition, save for 'equivalent values' (for the reasons above within the following posts: , , , ). The income/profit distribution is valid, but you're missing the other question I asked: How was the "means of production…privately owned" in USSR, Nazi Germany, USA, France, etc.

"a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved."
"a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a college degree."
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume you meant the second definition. In the context, the first definiton is more valid as that is exactly what I referenced. That definition does not actually set a limitation on how many paragraphs it may/may not be. Nowhere does it state that "it must be one paragraph and one sentence to become a 'thesis'".

What do you mean, "how"?

Sure but what is your point? That a company encompassing all of society (IE the soviet union) doesnt need to to use money to invest resources?
Because that is true.
But your original point was
Which then changed to
At which point you are basically describing the soviet union with its internal planning and bookkeeping, one massive company with subdivisions that produces for sale to its own employees.
Im not sure what you are getting at here to be honest.

So you are saying two objects of the same value aren't exchanged during a trade?

My citations are the book.

And no, I am not willing to waste my time on an annoying little shit who reminds me of the autistic "akshualy" kids from 4th grade who, rather than replying to my explanation of how it works, resorts to super long rants about how I dont city the page and line in a long book and how therefore my arguments are wrong.

Yes. Absolutely true, as counter-intuitive as it seems. That's because the value is dependent on the consumer, so what I find valuable is not what you find valuable. Different preferences, exchange rates, and time frames all alter the 'vale' of an object. A diamond may have very high value when it is in low supply, for example. The diamond itself does not change when the supply is increased, but its demand and value does. During any trade within the same minute, the same is true. You buy a pen for $1 because you need to write something. You will not buy the next pen I offer you because you don't need two pens to write in black ink, only a black ink pen that you already have. Same object, different SUBJECTIVE worth.

From the last thread: news.mises.org/sites/default/files/qjae7_1_6.pdf.
Response, the citations are "within the book". I love being a lazy sophist, too!

Yea that book is on my list after I read the misis book you posted.

Precisely.

Not at all.

You have huge misconceptions about what the Soviet union actually was.
For example: half the population worked in kolkhozes, which owned their means of production and sold their production (which was most of the country's food) on the market.
As for the "plan": the first five-year plan was closed in… four years! That should give you an idea of how much of an actual plan it was.

That is the 'mises' book, it's the response 'citation'.
Try 'citing' things as you have in a proper debate, see how far you get and how fast you'll be laughed out of academia.

So if I don't like rice as much as you do I will pay my pack of rice cheaper than you in the store?

No i mean the actual mises book, written by mises, not your "mises" book written after mises had died for a few decades.

This isnt a "proper debate" and that is by design. Dumbfuck. If I wanted to have unproductive conversations with austrian economics about how well i cited my claims I would go to the debate club at the university. Except they wouldn't let me in because you need to study there to be allowed in.

You will OFFER less. Whether or not the offer is accepted by the shopowner is dependent on the owner. If he needs to get his hands off of the rice ASAP, he will sell it because at least he will make some money. I will then feel like an idiot for having bought the same rice, but for more cash. I will learn to wait and be opportunist/a bargainer, like you.

So youre arguing that we should make one super bussiness entity and plan it without money?
Because I agree.

Mises has written many books. It seems as if literally any proper citation is something you have an aversion to.
At least you admit that you lack intellectual integrity in this conversation. Ad hominems aren't dependent on Oxford debates, even if you're arguing for a viewpoint, that is technically a debate. You will still be called out for being a sophist when you call people names as reason to dismiss their points.

So if rice is cheap but I LOVE it very much I will offer more money than the actual price to the store?

What the fuck are you on about.
You posted two books last time. One is the book by mises from 1920, the other is that 13 page booklet that is a response to TANS. I am going to read mises' book first, then read the response book.
I find it highly doubtfull mises wrote a response to TANS (1993) when mises died in 1973.

False. Learn2logic. This not following "proper debate" rules doesnt mean its intellectually dishonest.

Why would you pay more, if you love it and want more, you would, logically, choose the deal which allows for a greater consumption rate of rice.

What did I post this time? You don't mean the "actual Mises book", Mises, the person, or Mises.org? Like I said, be more specific.
Not asserting that, so not sure how that's relevant.
Except you are debating a viewpoint. Claiming you don't have to follow 'proper debate rules' is not true, considering you are actually debating a concept right now: you are still bound to a framework of coherent logic, too. So, "piss off, cunt" is not logical by any stretch of the imagination: insults and comparisons to vaginas are not responses or coherent counter-arguments. You should "Learn2logic".

If your "super business entity" encompasses all of the production in the world, then yeah, that's basically what communism is.

You told me the more I love it, the more value it has. So I should pay a higher price, right? Or isn't the price determined by this subjective value of yours?

You know, its in indicative sign of a certain condition when you cant understand context and take everything litterally. If you post two books, i say "x book", you say "this one", then I say "no not that one, the other one" then it should be pretty cleat what I mean.

Except it literally is because real world debate and politics do not follow the perfect model of logic that you claim to support. I know how debate groups work, they break their own rules almost every 5 minutes. Arguments in real life arent won by pure logic and good arguments. Economics is not a natural science, its politics.

So im not sure what your point is.

I said that the more demand there is for it, the higher the price (because the supply will be lower, more often than not). However, there are exceptions. You may LOVE McDonalds: that doesn't mean the price will necessarily fall: it's precisely BECAUSE of the demand that the supply has increased with it. Imagine a lone branch of McDonalds in a city in Africa: you would be pretty pressed to find a meal from McDonalds, and the ones you come across will be very expensive. The issue is that the objective value isn't increased just because your subjective interpretation is positive (of the object).
No. If you really love McDonalds, then you will want more and more of it. Finding the best deal is the most rational choice, not finding the most expensive deal. Really depends on how much expendable cash you have. If you're average, then choose the best deal.
The point is that when demand is high and supply is low, then the price will increase. But my central premise is that I, as an individual, do not care what the supply/demand of McDonalds meals are if I am, for example, a Wendy's fan only: the meals are worthless to me. To you and your preferences, it may be a different story. The worth of an object is determined by what YOU set on it. You may love McDonalds, so you will put out many offers. They will mostly be rejected, as you are just an individual. But let's say there is a massive boycott of like-minded fans, like you, who want the price lowered. When McDonalds sees that they are negatively effected by the drop in the African city (lots of their income, for example), they will follow suit to what you, the collective consumers, have set forth.
It is. If you never buy the item, it is worthless because you are indifferent to it.

I am not in your head, it would be much easier if you copy-pasted the title, which you have not done. That's my issue: you can't cite things properly. You just said "the actual Mises book". The one he wrote, or the one on the actual Mises site?
Ad hominem attacks are not accepted as arguments in debates, like we are in, and in the real world. They are illogical in most every context involved, unless the central premise is demonstrated to be valid.
Personal experiences are not really worth a damn, sorry.
What arguments are you listening to? No wonder you call people names and expect to be taken seriously with your "proper citations".
Economics is not a natural science, correct. I think it is involved in politics, but economies can exist outside of political paradigms.

...

Trump's arguments are dismissed if he relies on personal attacks instead of a refutation of the central points.
Bear in mind, this argument applies doubly so for the 'racist, sexist, homophobic…' appeals to motivations, too. An opinion different from yours is not a phobia; if it cannot be demonstrated properly and as just cause to dismiss the actual argument, it is dismissed.

I invoke the hiatus again, a bit longer this time, though. I retract the 'good arguments so far' bit, though. Except the one guy who didn't attack me for criticizing and pushing back on his views.

The supply of rice in my local store is higher than the demand more often than not though: like I said, I've never seen an empty shelf.
Keeping that in mind, how does the subjective value I attribute to rice reflects on its price?
You say it works only on average: the less my fellow consumers and I like rice, the less demand there will be, and thus the lower price will be (since the store will try to get rid of its stock of rice).
Besides the fact that such a collation of subjective values becomes an objective one, that doesn't tell me anything about the final price of my pack of rice anyway: once the store has got rid of its stock, it will order less rice to its furnishers, therefore there will be less supply, and the supply/demand ratio will be back to what it used to be – and so will the price of my pack of rice.
In other words, the subjective value we attribute to rice has no influence on its price through this process?

So I ask again: how does this subjective value of yours influence prices?

This is why i love you guys.

You come up with a system that looks like it is designed for toddlers or kids.
With ur vouchers… "get 1 soda drink if you turn in this voucher to the nearest adult"
you know, to make sure the kids dont OD on sugar.

This is hilarious to watch and read.
"lets make vouchers"
-"why not just make money?"
"becaue people can steal money and take advantage of it"
-"they cant steal vouchers?"

To make this system work.. you'd probably have to live in a super-autoritarian system.

Yes it did, because you were answering to me and I started this whole conversation by mentioning specifically the cashier on purpose, precisely in order to stress out the fact that the person you deal with when you take something from a store doesn't care about the validity of your currency, he is just doing what he's told, and therefore the whole "shopkeepers won't accept labour vouchers" argument is invalid, as it would make sense only in a petit-bourgeois fantasy where the person you deal with in a store is its owner, directly interested in trading with you.

If you have another way to distribute goods and services in a planned production, we'll be happy to hear it.

what about currency

I said: "in a planned production".

I love you capitalists. You unironically take the position that being able to steal other peoples stuff is a good thing in an economic system.

And no, by simply making labour vouchers digital you can prevent theft, much like today.

Not the autist who endlessly shifted the goalposts during the whole thread, but I have a question.

How do you prevent the emergence of a bureaucratic class, which in effect would become a new bourgeoisie (nomenklatura) ?
In a labour voucher system, I imagine that the vouchers has to be approved by an authority, to make sure they are valid, that the person who hold them has effectively worked. In short, we all need to have trust in vouchers.
How can we establish this trust without relying on an authoritarian state apparatus ? I don't want to be surrounded by cameras at my workplace or deal with smug bureaucrats.

By implementing a functioning democracy by which there are no career politicians. So all the people ultimately have the final say, not a group of burocrats. Cockshott proposes a neo-athenian democracy wherein there is a maximum limit of terms and representatives for non-expertise jobs (ie not things like an army general, but a dicision maker for day to day dicisions) are chosen by lot out of the population. Expertise jobs are chosen by popular vote.
You dont really need cameras. The results of your production reflect on your whole factory and your workers cooperative (self management and all) will have to face the consequences of sub-par performance. This will incentivise people to have social control between themselves.

This goes back to
This question. If the whole cooperative underperforms, then its easy to address without big brother NSA. If one person underperforms, it drags the group down, so the others will notice and do something about it, because ultimately they all control the workplace. Someone slacking off will get the sack or a reduction in payment (if thats allowed in your system). And if everybody slacks off the whole cooperative drags down and they all suffer from it.

An analogy would be that today, the CEO only deals with middle management and middle management deals with the workers. In a labourvouchers system, the council would deal with the representative chosen by the cooperative, and the cooperative deals with itself.

The most important bit is getting the democracy right. Democratic centralism (ie leninism) didnt work that well in the past.

Trust and an authoritarian state apparatus seem pretty antinomic to me, as I'm not sure the latter needs your trust.

And you your are surrounded by cameras and you deal with smug bureaucrats in capitalist firms everyday.

And yet you

Okay, the neo-athenian democracy + co-ops idea seems pretty good to avoid repeating ML past mistakes. Guess I should fall for the Cockshott meme.

That said, I don't totally understand this point :
Why ? It is not like labour vouchers can be accumulated and M-C-M' would exist anymore. It can only be problem for them if there is a mechanism in place that would prevent them to get labour vouchers in such case.
So we would need a system in which the activity of co-ops would be assessed, to see if they effectively work, and if the use value of what they are producing is effectively useful and consumed.
How can we implement this, without resorting to authoritarianism and prevent corruption (e.g. the guy who do the assessment is good friends with the workers of a given co-op) ?

Also, if I understood correctly, exchange value isn't abolished in this system, as we also need to quantify use value in a way or another, no ?
If it is the case, then where do we go from there in order to transition to pure production for use ?
Yes, I know, I should read a book

Exactly. That's why I want to live in another social system.

Yes, if you choose to allow this (and cockshott allows it within reason) then yes.
Random assignment, multiple watching, limited terms etc should prevent these problems. It might happen that one time someone with ties to the people in the coop gets assigned there but if there is rotation and random assignment, that should limit the effects to rare one time encounters.

Well I would argue there is no production for exchange. The cooperatives would produce as decided by The Plan capitalized for dramatic effect. They would need not worry directly about profitability, but about making the best product they think society wants. I would argue this is production for use.
The only time we get something that resembles exchange value is when consumer goods are sold, which is just a rationing system based on how much you worked. The prices in the shop would be set to the demand of them so that all are sold with no shortage. This is then a reflection of the use value of these products, measured in labour time. If someone is more expensive than its cost (in labour time), too little labour is put to produce use value, and if its cheaper than its cost, too much labour is put into it. You then adjust production to aim to make the cost (in time) match the price (in time). This maximizes the use value.

I would argue that this is not production for exchange, for the following reason:
Overall, production is not done for exchange. A cooperative does not make cakes or cars to sell for money to pay its employees. The employees get paid whatever the products sell at, their costs arent really a factor directly for them because they dont have to pay anything for it, it is given to them and just written down. The only place where the something like an exchange value would impact is overall societal adjustments in production, which directly serves use value, rather than profitability. All workers are guaranteed a job somewhere. Society can easily put in place laws to prevent certain practices, or mandate certain rules or techniques are set in place or abolished, without corporations resisting. After all, cooperatives stand nothing to lose from improved safety conditions or a ban of certain chemicals, they dont have to really compete, and nobodies wealth or livelihood is threatened by these laws or rules. In capitalism or market socialism there is, because every law that bans the cheapest option reduces profits of the capitalist or workers, makes them worse off or put them at a disadvantage with foreign competitors. Capitalism is a prisonors dilemma, where you have to fuck everyone over to not be fucked over. In cockshotts system this would be very minimal to non existent, as nobodies livelihood directly depends on competition.

I agree its not "make what you can take what you need" yes, but its a hell of a lot closer than what we had before or what we tried before.

Worded that poorly:
The workers are paid regardless of the price the product sells at, their costs arent really a factor directly for them because they dont have to pay anything for it, it is given to them and just written down.

So the supply must be high, too: you've never seen an empty shelf. They realize the demand and order tons of rice to meet the supply requirements. Doesn't cost a lot to make, obviously, so they can ship tons and make lots of money off of it. But you're missing my point: the rice you don't buy because you're (for example) allergic to it is worthless. Only when you choose to buy something does it have worth to you. It's entirely subjective.
You, and your neighbours, determine the demand. Let's say nobody wants to buy rice anymore in your neighbourhood. They stop ordering rice and its spot on the shelf shrinks over time. Then, when you get a hankering for rice and try to get some, you'll find that the price has increased because they only have a tenth of what they used to have.
The price will not be lower, it will be higher if they realize the demand has lowered and the store's supply shrinks. Less rice=higher price per kilo because there isn't as much in the store anymore. The only thing that has lowered is the worth it has to you and your consumers in your neighbourhood: it is worth $0.00 because you don't buy it at all, full stop. The worth increases when you buy it, to $5 per kilo, for example. That's my point: worth is determined by your interest because if you never buy it, it might as well be worth nothing to YOU.
In that regard, yes, the price will be lowered because they have tons of rice they just ordered, but no demand. That's when you buy low to sell high (if you want to resell the rice because you don't want to eat it yourself).
It depends: how big is your neighbourhood's net worth on the store?
If you buy it, it has worth to you enough that you wanted to buy it to begin with. If you don't buy it, you never have the rice and it has, obviously, no value to you because you value your money more than the rice.
The demand will have diminished significantly because they realize you and your neighbourhood do not want rice as much as you used to, so they order 5 tons instead of 10. The supply will also decrease, so there is less rice available at the store. The ratio is dependent on the effect you/your neighbourhood's demand really had. If you were a negligible amount of rice consumers, then the supply doesn't diminish that much (because they still order a bunch to feed the main consumers).
Except it does because it's the demand. It matters to you, not to anybody else. If you never buy a Tesla car, the value of it is exactly zero dollars. That's my point. I'm not making a claim on the entire market: only the individual. Your tastes mean you prefer a Benz over a Tesla, so you never buy the Tesla, so it is worth zero dollars. If the entire market in your neighbourhood boycotts Tesla and if they need to make up the losses, the overall demand lowers, so they must lower their prices to sell their cars to you at a better price.
I just described it above. It's a claim to truth based on the individual choice, but it can become more universal if the trends are observed market-wide/nation-wide.

Shopkeep=/=cashier.
"( Professions) a person who owns or manages a shop or small store"
"a person handling payments and receipts in a store, bank, or other business."
Difference between the definitions. The shopkeep being the owner, who will summarily dismiss worthless points that might as well turn to dust or, if they are stored bits of data, become deleted once they are utilized for transfer. I made the analogy above: it's as if a blood clot circulates from the leg to the brain, resulting in a stroke. It is suicidal to accept such a concept as a shopkeep.

Except theft presupposes an infarction of criminal code, which presupposes ownership. For example, US Code on theft: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/668.
"A person who—
(1) steals or obtains by fraud from the care, custody, or control of a museum any object of cultural heritage; or
(2) knowing that an object of cultural heritage has been stolen or obtained by fraud, if in fact the object was stolen or obtained from the care, custody, or control of a museum (whether or not that fact is known to the person), receives, conceals, exhibits, or disposes of the object"
Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.
Without defending your claim to ownership in a court of law or by means of establishing your property by might, you own nothing. You can say you will defend your positions, but I can take them from you if I am more powerful than you and those who defend you.
If it's 'labour' that is being stolen and unfairly compensated, then this relies on the archaic example of 'labour' Marx could talk about a century ago because it was observable then more than it is now (in the civilized world, at least). It isn't simply "I pay you to dig this ditch, then fill it back up again", it's an inter-connected network of effort that is utilized in order to produce a service/item. People advertise it, people develop it, people test it, people work to pass by the regulations, people assemble it, people can harvest/mine the components, etc. Assuming that "this plate of food was sold for 'x' dollars, and I am the chef, ergo I deserve that amount" presupposes both the paradox of 'theft' (which you never owned it to begin with, so it's a null point) and that you are the singular component responsible for its 'creation', when in reality, you just assembled it. It also assumes that you are self-employed and set the rules of the business yourself, which you do not.

Shifting the goalposts=/=asking for evidence for your hypotheses.

Wait so are labor vouchers strictly tied to the number of hours worked regardless of the job?

"evidence for a hypothesis" is an oxymoron

Then how do you falsify it? Test the hypothesis and examine the results. Evidence in favour of the hypothesis proves it, evidence against it disproves it. You've yet to demonstrate a shred of historical implementation of the hypothesis because it's literally utopianism.

asking for a change in the status quo =/= utopianism

I'd like many things to change with the status quo, too. I think that democracy should be abolished because there are many conflicts of interest (with the proverbial sweetshop owner and the doctor), but that doesn't mean that my pipe dreams can be extended to a massive shift in reality. When you base your worldview on untested hypotheses, it is utopianism, by definition. You are outside of the bounds of reality, only operating on your personal ideals which seem too good to be true: because you haven't even tried them to see what the result is. Whereas in reality, if you want to examine the attempts of said ideals, the results lead to millions of sparrows killed because Mao said so.

utopianism: the belief in or pursuit of a state in which everything is perfect
???
labor vouchers means killing sparrows?

Yes, an apt comparison because pussying out of attempting to falsify your hypothesis is utopian if, and only if, you continue to laud it around as feasible (despite lacking pragmatic grounds to do so).
Ideals, as in plural, as in the 'vouchers' in addition to the system changes that must arrive in order to necessitate the vouchers, so sayeth the 'academics' with worldviews… grounded in "reality".

in what way am I pussying out of attempting to falsify my hypothesis?
you are aware that sparrow extermination can occur regardless of what economic system you're on? I don't see how it relates.

Then please, be the first to provide a successful example of an economy based on the foundational concept of a voucher that cannot circulate, is distributed by an entity calculating the labour worked, and can be exchanged for goods/services BUT cannot be utilized after the exchange occurs. That's the definition I came up with from discussing the concept with you lot. If you think it is inaccurate or not complete, amend the definition to whatever you see fit so long as it actually resembles the main premise of labour vouchers, then provide a real-world example that has been successful in implementing these ideas. Here's a snippet of the last time I asked, here:
"Well we would like to test them someday but for now they're just theoretical in nature which really does nothing to discredit them, if we tried it and failed that would be another thing but you're simply dismissing it for not actually having been done which is ridiculous I hope your not a scientist lol."
They are theoretical (even though that's not what a theory is), but I'm still going to laud them around as if there have been attempts to falsify the hypothesis. How scientifically honest! Let's hope you can do better.

That's not what I said, I didn't say that it was dependent on the system at-hand. I said that "Whereas in reality, if you want to examine the attempts of said ideals, the results lead to millions of sparrows killed because Mao said so."
So, in one case study of Maoism, millions of sparrows were killed when an attempt was made. I never said that "only Maoism kills sparrows".

so, I'm supposed to provide evidence for the existence of my proposed system even though it has never existed?
that doesn't really make any sense. if I have to do that in order for the necessary changes to be made, how would I go about implementing my system in the first place?

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Let's extend this argument further. Why has Lamarckism been rejected and dismissed? Why has Lysenkoism been rejected and dismissed? A set of beliefs about natural phenomenon which, when attempts were made to test and corroborate the core premises, have been falsified are rejected as false. If you cannot falsify a hypothesis or a theory, then you dismiss it. I elaborated here:
"Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".
If I have a set of beliefs that have never existed in reality, I have no grounds (based on tried-and-true experiments to observe the hypothesis and its results in action) to make a positive or negative claim on behalf of the beliefs.
Extending the point: I have no evidence that Russel's teapot exists. I cannot state that it can never exist or that it does exist UNTIL we test a hypothesis in reality (not in our heads) to see if it actually exists.
I touched on the arrival of those conditions here:
Communism has never actually existed, really. If it is an a priori resolution, then we can always make assertions on its behalf outside of relevant experience.
Well, that doesn't answer my question: by what stretch of the imagination are you "working" on anything? You have an entire global populous to convince, many of which want nothing to do with your ideas. Freedom of association and all that.
Consider the following: hasn't it been a consistent decline since 1917, then? Hasn't the system of ideas been gradually declining into un-Communist states until it finally collapsed in 1989 (in the USSR, at least)? So how have you been working on it? It seems to me as if it has been failure after failure leading up to total collapse and reversal.

I don't see how my hypothesis can't be falsified. >Russell's Teapot
this is not the same thing at all. I'm proposing a change, that's not the same fucking thing as a UFO that may or may not exist in space. I'm not trying to "prove" that it exists (IT DOESNT EXIST), I'm saying that it can.
Are you asking me what changes would need to be made in order to implement it? Is that what you're asking? You're being extremely confusing (probably on purpose).

Do you think the French revolutionaries gave to monarchists examples of successful liberal democracies before they cut their heads off ? No they did not. And here we are now, in an era where most of the main world powers have liberal democracy as their political system.

It has never been attempted, as you just said. It's an empty assertion without evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable.
Why can it exist? You just said it doesn't exist. Why can you say that "I'm saying that it can [exist]"? On what grounds do you base this belief? You just said that it has never been tried here:
So, you are admitting to an unrealistic and idealistic set of beliefs that have never been attempted/do not exist. Alright: that is unfalsifiable. You have a pipe dream in your head or on some paper that has no basis in reality because it never exists.

No, I asked you the question, quite clearly, here:
"Then please, be the first to provide a successful example of an economy based on the foundational concept of a voucher that…"

They didn't care about the monarchs' opinions: they cared about the people. Liberty, fraternity, equality. They won the hearts and minds of the people because their ideas were appealing and, once implemented, were successful because they worked. Your ideas have never existed, you have not won the hearts and minds of the people, and the attempts at getting close to bringing the conditions for your ideas have resulted in catastrophe, like the USSR. Quickly devolving into totalitarianism that is necessary for the "distribution of vouchers" or counter-measures to 'counter-revolutionary' behaviour.
They can be falsified because they have been implemented to examine the results of the hypothesis, to observe the results and deduce conclusions based on the success/failure. Your ideas are unfalsifiable because they have never existed. Attempts of which have failed spectacularly, what with the Red Terror and the Great Leap Forward.

you have failed to explain how this is true, again.

Oh, I've already addressed this issue here:
"I would like to introduce you to another concept: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat". Or, "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies".
Let's extend your same logic.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which Russel's teapot exists can't work?"
Presupposing a truthful conclusion without first proving it to be valid is not how you argue. We've been over this for decades as a society, why is this still a thing? That's why the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing exists.
"Show me why the hypothetical scenario in which the accused is guilty can't work?""

Oh, and that's not actually what I said. The absence of evidence=/=evidence of absence, so it CAN exist. But that's the onus of evidence which is on YOUR shoulders to demonstrate, not mine. You have presented no such evidence, so your assertion is dismissed as nonsense. Presupposing that it is inevitable without actually demonstrating how and why you arrived at the conclusion shifts the burden of proof, quite befitting if you have no rational grounds to come to a conclusion.

Russel's teapot isn't a system, it's a hypothetical object. It in fact can exist and can "work".
I'm not trying to prove that my system exists, I'm trying to prove it can work. That's what you do, you know, when debating a hypothetical system.

It is an object that cannot have positive/negative claims made on its existence until the burden of proof is fulfilled either way. Again, "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat".
It CAN exist, but only DOES if you fulfil the burden of proof showing that it DOES. It can "work"? You mean, it can work as a teapot? It's in orbit, liquid doesn't "pour" like it does on Earth, it very much so cannot "work" like a teapot does. See: youtube.com/watch?v=jn5KuSHguUE.
A good place to start if you want to prove it can work is to show how it can be implemented in the real world. If you lack examples of this application, then your hypothesis has not been tested and can be dismissed as unfalsifiable.
Sure, so I await your justification for its feasibility/if it can even work properly. Some evidence is on order, which you've been avoiding this entire time. You admitted above that it has never existed. I wonder what Keynesians would say when they defend their system by stating "well, it's never existed but I think it can work if we try it. How do I know this? Well, uh…."

I'm like 90% positive you're trolling right now, but I'll take this bait anyway
are you saying we can't send a teapot into space?
Russell's Teapot is a teapot that orbits earth. If it can do that, it's working.
I have already said there are no examples of its application
for the last fucking time. "has not been tasted" =/= "cannot be tested"
that's exactly how Keynesians defended their system though? someone in this thread already posted a pdf for Towards a New Socialism. plenty of people in this thread described how it could work. all you've been saying is "it can't work because it doesn't exist". And I'm sure you're gonna reply with something like "t-this is a strawman! homo paleas! Ego fruar sodomiticum!"
so I'll just quote you directly
you are essentially saying that my system can't work because it doesn't exist, and that's all you have been saying when you shitted up this entire thread.
Actually, after typing this, I'm 100% positive you are a troll.

This whole board is nothing but a -tism storm. You fucking aspies back yourselves into corners with circular logic but you are too stupid or too ideological to get this shit sorted out.

Appealing to my possible motivations instead of defending your positions isn't telling of your certainty towards said positions. Stop making up excuses to wuss out.
Well, if you observe the shuttle's assembly, testing the propulsion, and it, finally, launching off into the atmosphere, that's different from Russel's assertion of a teapot just 'existing' in space.

Notice the context you are denying here: there is no shuttle that launches a teapot on board into the atmosphere. We have evidence OF that if that were the case: it is not because there is NO evidence, it's just an empty assertion.
Working to do what? Just floating around? I took issue with the statement because the only way a teapot 'works' is if it holds liquid to be poured once it has been heated up for a beverage. That is the utility of a teapot. Your 'works' is arbitrary and not related to the definition and purpose of a teapot.
I pointed out that liquid doesn't work as it does in orbit, so the teapot has no purpose being in orbit because it cannot 'work'.
Yes: an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That's why I am dismissing it: there is no way to prove it wrong.
So test it. While you wait to test your ideas to see if they are feasible, you CANNOT make claims to truth on evidence THAT DOESN'T EXIST. It's unscientific.
Can you cite such an example of a Keynesian making such a claim?
Not actually properly citing any arguments within to demonstrate their position, though.
Alright, now test the hypotheses to examine the results. Otherwise, it's an unfalsifiable claim.
You really do enjoy operating off of evidence you cannot observe or record, don't you?
No, I'm saying that the system cannot have positive/negative assertions made on its behalf because there is no evidence of its implementation that has been successful. Therefore, claiming that it can work is a statement that is outside of reality or any data/observations because it has never existed. I think that Lamarckism can exist, it should be able to work. But if I have no actual implementations of the hypothesis in order to falsify it, then I cannot state that it is a "good idea" or a "bad idea": I can only say that it is untested and that I want to test it and see what the results are. Lamarckism has been tested and disproved. Your ideas have not even been tested. I'm asking you why you are making claims on a set of beliefs that have not been tested? Where is your evidence? If it has never existed/never been tested, then you have no grounds to state it is "inevitable" or "beneficial" if you can't even observe it in reality.
Whatever makes you feel better for believing in faith-over-facts pseudo-intellectualism.

It's always funny to observe the reactions when you point out the issues with their reasoning. Okay, so Communism or anything of the sort has never been tried. Sure, we'll accept that for the purposes of this argument. No such example of any implementation of a set of concepts/beliefs about an economy and a society. Okay, so "x" has never been implemented in society.
On what grounds should the masses of the nation/the world accept these beliefs of "x" if there is literally no such example of its implementation? It's a guess, an estimation, that can only be proven wrong once it's too late. "I think we should have a revolution in order to reach 'x'." "Well, why should I believe you that 'x' is a beneficial/superior position to wish to reach, where is your evidence?" "Well, it's never actually existed for me to be able to comment on it, but if you just trust me, we will be able to succeed!" "Well, okay, I'll trust you."
Fast forward to whatever the result of the implementation is.
"Wow, that was really good/really bad/did not change, you were right!"
"Well, yeah I sure was right about 'x'!"
FALSE. You GUESSED, you didn't actually come to a truth based on knowledge, you took a shot in the dark. And all of this assumes that there have literally been no negative examples of any Communistic system being put in motion, by any stretch of the imagination. I'd imagine that all the intellectuals they both cite and dismiss as non-examples would take issue with this, though. Quite contradictory, though…

Let me rephrase it for you: non one gives a s**t about shopkeepers; only in your petit-bourgeois Fantasyland do they have any kind of relevance. What people deal with in the actual world is cashiers.

Is this the same autist from last night? You still don't get it do you? And you seem pretty clever, probably cleverer than me.
But you seem to be investing an awful lot of energy in maintaining your mental blocks. Stop that.

so you just hate every idea ever?

That's not what you should have rephrased. You conflated shopkeeps with cashiers: it is your own statement that you should be revising, not self-censoring yourself to make a cool quip.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper
So, it's the same working class in the third world, like that lady in Mexico who is selling clothes or other garments, who are 'shopkeeps': they are self-employed.
On managers:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management
You can read on if you want. The definition of a fantasy: the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
Now, when such a structure or concept exists in reality, can be easily observed, and just as easily proven to exist, it is not a fantasy. In the USA, for example: usdebtclock.org/.
Small business assets are valued at around 11 trillion by the Federal Reserve. Small business in the USA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business#Size_definitions.
So, they actually DO have a huge relevance.
And indirectly with the business, via the employees. This argument extends to any place which has employees. You pay the waitress, but indirectly pay the establishment you ate at.

Calling people autistic doesn't dispute the points they make. I can call you names, does that mean you are wrong if you say something?
I am only as sound as my arguments are. Calling me autistic, then clever, neither assists or dismisses my points. If you want to respond to me and attack my points, do so without referencing my character.
I will defend my positions regardless of your opinion. It really isn't that much energy, it's quite easy. I'm just pointing out that the hypotheses are unfalsifiable, so we can dismiss them until we can falsify them.

Idea: a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.
Darwinism was an idea to describe the world around us and how organisms function and exist to reproduce and so on.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
>darwinwasright.org/divergence.html
No, not "every idea ever". There is a difference between "maybe this can work if we try it… in the meantime, just trust me lol" versus "here is a set of beliefs about how 'x' operates, I tested it and voila: it is as I describe. Here, I replicate it. Once again, and again, and again, and again…."

Oh, and just to point out: if your "ideas" can also be called theories, then you are doing a disservice to all other 'theories'. Call it what it is: an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

In your own definition:
>>A shopkeeper is an individual who owns or runs a shop.
As far as accepting a labour voucher is concerned, it is wage workers cashiers that run shops.
And this is precisely the only thing that matters: who runs it? Not: who owns it?

In your own definition:
I stand by that. It's a managerial position.
Well, nobody has ever actually accepted a "labour voucher", it's already been admitted that they have never existed as a concept. You mean welfare cheques or foodstamps? Those have monetary value and are basically IOUs from the state. Also, taken from the taxpayer, so not a fair comparison, but it's preemptive if you want to make that false comparison.
By "running" a store to own it, it is just a pleonasm. They are equivalent, you don't need to specify because one replaces the other. The on-site manager IS still the manager, be it the cashier, janitor, or the actual manager. The person who runs the store is the person who owns it when the till closes and after you've paid: the manager. It doesn't matter if the owner takes a sick day and the cashier runs the show, that is not the purpose OF a cashier and it would be circumstantial if you find the cashier operating in that manner one day.

No, I'll find that the price hasn't changed because the labour time required to produce rice hasn't.

So the less my fellow consumers and I want something, the higher the price? I guess no one in the world wants diamond then.

If no one buys it, then it is not even "worth $0.00": it isn't produced in the first place, and therefore doesn't exist, full stop.
And if it does exist, that is if someone buys it, then it has a price. Where does this price come from?

But the price of a pack of rice isn't a price to me; it is an objective quantity.

And here comes the petit-bourgeois fantasy again.

And for the tenth time: the person I have to deal with when I go to the supermarket doesn't care if what I give has a monetary value or not. He's just doing what he is told.

Such idealism…

Breaking news: history isn't about "winning the hearts and minds of the people" with appealing ideas and implementing this or that ideas.

It actually isn't dependent on the farmers who harvest the rice from the fields in, say, Vietnam. If it's imported, there is no metric that describes how many 'hours' or 'how hard' the rice farmers worked to harvest it: yet we still observe constant price fluctuation of various goods, including rice. There is an ebb and flow even though the 'effort as hours' is not included when the material is shipped.
You're also not responding to the point I made about the quantity of rice available having an effect on the price it is sold at. If the store stocks a tenth of the rice that it used to, it will have to charge more because stores buy their rice in bulk, so buying a tiny amount instead of buying from the exporter in bulk will necessitate an increase in price. None of this is actually dependent on the hours worked because we can disprove that simply by observing the ebb and flow that operates without any knowledge OF hours worked. The counter would be that it operates despite the fact that the stores are not cognizant of the 'hours worked', which is a preposterous claim that collapses upon itself: how can the stores realize the hours worked if the price point is shifted, as we observe it today, despite the fact that they are NOT cognizant of the effort exerted by the rice farmers halfway around the world? Because the value is subjective, not determined by the effort exerted, but by the wallet of the consumer.
The more you want something, the more expensive it will be if there is a specific ratio between supply and demand. Diamonds are low in supply available on the market (no total supply, full stop), so there is a higher price point. You want more diamonds, go mine for them and hand them out to everyone, see how much people want them.
Using this logic, there ought to be no shifts in consumer desire resulting in corporate losses. No net operating losses whatsoever. Gosh, I wish somebody would have told Blockbuster that years ago.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. An item can exist without being bought, ever: it is a loss.
The consumer who just set a price point on it. I want 'x' for this that's been sitting on your shelf for months. Bargaining.
The quantity does not change, sure. But the market demand does, and it only has worth to you if you are willing to part ways with 'x' dollars. If not, you lose nothing and gain nothing, meaning that its worth is zero dollars to you.

Rhetorical questions aren't points. Elaborate, because a wage worker is a worker who works for a wage. That definition is not related to the managerial issue.

You are indirectly dealing with the enterprise as a whole, directly through the cashier.

Lol, tell that to the United States army, they need a wakeup call!

What has never existed yet is a communist society. Communism, aka: "the actual movement that abolishes the present state of things", has existed for about two centuries now. And Marxism, the science of communism that can indeed explain its existence and foresee its outcome, for 150 years.

By preserving the party, which the proletariat will need to turn the next revolutionary crisis into a proper revolution.

No, we do not have an entire world to convince. As a matter of fact, even convincing the majority of the sole proletariat would be impossible. But once again, history isn't about convincing people.

Haha.

No. There has been a brutal fall in the 1920's, with the victory of the counter-revolution. And we have been living in a counter-revolutionary period since then.

"The system of ideas"? What the hell?
As for 1989, if anything it was the start of the next revolutionary period.

By what method can you examine and conclude that the current state of things can be described as "Communism"? I thought a central issue was concerned with private property ownership. Kind of runs right into the face of the UK or Australia being 'Communist' if private property is being sold. I can buy a car in the US and loan it out to people who want to use my car for a month. I thought this great injustice against human rights ('he should be able to do that without any effort because any lack of ownership can be equated to an infarction of human rights done against me!') would not exist in a 'Communist' society. The issue isn't that an idea has existed, its judgement can never exist alongside the idea because, like I said, it exists outside of observation and evidence, convenient if you want to dissociate Communism from negative events.
Also, Marxism is not a 'science' of anything. The scientific method dismisses hypotheses which cannot be falsified, and it's already been admitted that the hypotheses, such as labour vouchers, have not been implemented in reality, yet sophists assume that there is positive evidence that exists proving their feasibility.
How is the party preserved? How many seats does the Communist party hold in the Senate? The House? In any cabinet, anywhere in the Western world?
Lol, how do you think revolutions come to become required? If you don't convince the people, you'll be replacing farmers for pigs. They will still hate you.
That's the same freedom you're using to speak to me right now. You are free to associate with whatever site you want to, speak with any individual, etc.You are not barred from that right now. Kind of hypocritical, but I digress.
So Communism was initially implemented, but fell in the 1920's? So I guess the Red Terror of 1918 can be attributed to the new Communist regime, that it occurred under their provisional government?
Referring to a collection of concepts/ideas.
Where is the revolution, then? I only saw the Dot Com boom.

Worded that poorly:
The workers are paid regardless of the price the product sells at, their costs arent really a factor directly for them because they dont have to pay anything for it, it is given to them and just written down.>>2003088
Except that is not at all what anyone proposes you stupid cunt. You get the amount of value you added, its not a difficult concept, its what the VAT is based on.
Also stop moving the goalpost this massively, you uses "people being able to steal from you" as in both taking your money and exploiting you, "is good".

Oopsies

Because what the worker does for the company is unrelated to the product that is sold. Attributing ownership (that would necessitate wage increases) of the product to the worker is a concept that overlooks the inter-connected nature of labour in our modern workplaces.
Which the employer determines. The value that you add is determined by you, who doesn't own the business? Seems like a conflict of interest if you ask me. The employer must pay you a wage that isn't so low that will cause you to leave and go to his competition, who will pay you n+1, but not too high so as to result in loss.
This sentence is not grammatically sound. You "uses", "is good"? Not being nitpicky, but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.