Question About Innovation

So, we all know that under (Marx's) Socialism, workers are awarded labour vouches depending on the amount of labour the contribute that they can spend on luxuries. I'm wondering if innovation - essentially having a good idea - qualifies for a larger share of labour vouchers. For example, if one worker has an idea for a new type of really useful product and then him and the rest of his factory produce it. The other workers wouldnt of been able to make this without the one worker who had the idea, so it's fair to say that he should receive additional labour vouchers on top of the ones he got for his labour, right?

How would the amount of labour vouchers be determined for something that isnt actually tangible?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Marx explicitly criticised this kind of labour-token system, as it was proposed by Proudhon and some of the English socialists in 'The Poverty of Philosophy'.

In a nutshell, it's still based on the labour theory of value, which is the basis of value under capitalism, not socialism. For example, criticising the labour token model, he says:

leftcoms lied to me

Critique of the Gotha program disagrees.

DOUBLE BULLSHIT.

Marx wasn't against labour vouchers per se, he merely pointed out that the following combination doesn't work:
1. Tokens for doing work that can't be used to obtain means of production, consumer items only.
2. The prices are rigged exactly according to work-time calculations (may also account for intensity of work, point is, it may NOT be adjusted up or down when there is a mismatch between supply and demand).
3. The economy is very decentralized.

Marx himself said pro-voucher stuff in his critique of the Gotha programme.

So that's bullshit number one, you are bullshitting about Karl Marx. Then there is the part of your post that corresponds to what Marx said, namely what Marx said about Proudhon. However, Marx was bullshitting about Proudhon and you copied that bullshit, making your post double bullshit. Proudhon did believe under mutualism prices ratios would come closer to labour-input ratios, he did not advocate for directly fixing prices like that.

that was an early phase of communism/socialism tho.

And that's exactly what I'm asking about in the OP.

was it? I wasn't really responding to the OP. All I'm saying is that saying "Marx is pro labor voucher because Gotha" like some are saying here doesn't seem to hold up because he said he was talking about an early phase of communism when he discussed a voucher type system iirc

No. People do not get paid to be an idea guy. Ideas alone are worth NOTHING.

Forgot your flag

LTV is shit, more at eleven

???

Also, just so you fucking know, people are not paid for ideas in capitalism either. You cannot pattent ideas, only designs and inventions. For every useless idiot with grand ideas you have a thousand others. One of those thousand actually MAKES the product. That person has skills such as designing, engineering, programming or any other skill needed to make the product.

Everyone in the history of mankind who ever had an idea for "oh this would be could" has had thousands of others just like him. Nobody magically has ideas for revolutionary technology. The only thing that happens is that people put in LABOUR and WORK to design and engineer a new technology.

And after someone usefull actually made something that took effort and labour, like someone inventing a new battery, they deserve reward for that work. Making something once does not entitle you to anything made using what you made. A hammer maker does not get a cut of every job a carpenter does. A designer will not get a cut of the labour of the workers who put the batteries together if he doesnt make them.

Most inventions are done by companies who pay their engineers fixed salaries. The engineers and inventors do not get a cut from their design.

Let me guess, tradesman?

Mate. "Dude this would be cool" is not work. Ask anyone who actually designs and does shit what they think of "idea guys".

A description of a problem with a non-researched "solution" scribbled on the back of a napkin is not fucking work.

There is a MASSIVE difference between doing something that requires actual labour, such as designing, CAT, calculations, research, or the "work" OP is talking about, which is just clueless fucktards pretending their weirdly worded complaint is worth anything.

And to repeat my other post better worded:

Once you finish something, you get paid for your labour. Transaction if over, you do not get property rights over the things you are already paid for.

I suppose the question does rest on magic
Then who was design?

Lets see
Seems nobody did. See what I mean? The worker in this example wants property rights and ask money for using his idea when its nothing more than an idea.

What do you have against the Laffer Curve user?

But apart from all this bullshit about you thinking that an idea is usefull, lets go to this fucking point then:

Which is fucking wrong! They need each other. The inventing worker needs the workers just as much as the workers need the inventor.