Moneyless economics

Patreon
You cannot get a more textbook example of gift economy than that.

So voluntarily paying money to somebody is good example of moneyless gift economy?

If you're in a post-scarcity economy why would you need to worry about trade?

>returning to this paradigm with patreon and the like
It's an example of a gift economy, which will be the precursor to a moneyless gift economy. There are already people who put up Amazon wishlists for supporters to buy stuff for them directly. That's one step closer.

And by "developing a model" you mean anything aside from posting a thread here ("Approval voting of allocation of manufacturing time") where everybody shat on your idea?

I should warn you that I'm not a communist in the classical sense, but from my perspective labor vouchers are the answer, my friend. They would be a direct representation of your contribution to society, and would enable you to get a reciprocal amount of goods out of it.

Once given to a person they are single use and non-communicable. (In this vein I doubt there would ever be a case where vouchers would need to be a physical thing.) They could be exchanged for all non-essential goods offered in society. Goods would be priced based both on supply and demand and the total labor that went into them. In this way, people would be incentivized to contribute to society, society would be able to weigh what production was most needed, and the economy could be run entirely in the public sphere. The only limit to the amount of personal property you could accumulate would be how much you were willing to contribute in return.

I imagine the economy itself as operating on two distinct levels – that of individual workplaces, and that of the greater coordination of resources throughout the whole economy. In a workplace, those that own the capital and direct it are the workers themselves, deciding how much they need in inputs and how much they would like to produce. In the greater economy, I imagine a central authority could coordinate all the inputs and outputs of various workplaces, and manage the way in which labor vouchers are generally distributed.

The production process would begin with a workplace requesting some inputs from the central authority, and the central authority deciding to meet this request or not (this decision being a part of a larger coordination of creating the necessary amount of goods overall without overproducing). Assuming this is met, it is then up to the workers to direct their labor and capital in such a way as to produce a finished good. Once they have completed some product, they pass it on to the central authority, and collectively receive a value of vouchers that equals the amount of socially necessary labor and dead labor needed to produce the quantity and quality of product given to the authority. They then have the free ability to distribute this among themselves in accordance to what each one of them contributed – I assume that for the sake of convenience, this would mostly end up being done in reference to hours worked with some variation for exceptionally productive or unproductive workers. In the case of service jobs, it would be much the same, only the collective of workers would be given vouchers equal to the calculated total labor that they provided.

Imagine this, but throughout production chains and encompassing whole industries, and you have yourself an economy without money.

God no.
Just have everyone contribute to a central state, then keep all resources in distribution centers. Citizens are freely allowed to withdraw anything they want from the distribution centers. Do this electronically, tied to a citizen's ID number, to ensure that no citizen over-withdraws based on a complex algorithm to determine how many of each resource a citizen should reasonably need. If a citizen attempts to withdraw a larger amount then acceptable, then the withdrawal is blocked.

So, instead of money, a supermarket with a debit card?

This sounds shitty tbh

No, there's no debt involved.
The only reason that an ID would be required is to ensure that someone couldn't walk in and claim all of the food.

So rule by the manipulative, the beautiful and the high autism levels. So basically nothing changes

This is why we need individualist anarchism

Who decides what's acceptable? Why the fuck would a NEET deserve the same amount of resources as an engineer?

You don't. The idea of communism is, as an end goal, where you produce what you produce, and take what you need, because money makes no sense due to overabundance of goods and the small amounts of work to be done.

I require large doses of liquor and marijuana to function properly and enjoy life to the fullest

I am also a compulsive smoker and require at least a pack a day

Will FALC be amenable to my drug abuse?

Yes

Markets are superior

Deal with it suckers

Presumably because the NEET doesn't exist in a vacuum. The NEET has parents, at least, and people around them. The theory being: if a person isn't engaging with society, it's society's problem. Either way, it's unlikely that they will reproduce, so in the long-run it's a non-issue.

Not that I agree with the idea. The potential for exploitation and mismanagement from the top is absurd. Not to mention the issue of incentive which Labor vouchers deals with.

Currency is not the problem per se, but rather the way currency accumulates and is used in a capitalist society.

Not to mention labor vouchers behave very differently from normal money.

ahem
youtube.com/watch?v=PKHGxu7vd-g&t=118s

That's an obsolete model. In that thread I later said voting wasn't needed.

Reasonable, and it could be fine-tuned so that certain people and groups/structures could have better access to the resources they need. As well as that, the internet can be a great system for publicly tracking resources so people know what needs to be contributed and when.
The ID number seems a little big-brother, which is the problem with central states - at risk to concentrate power and leadership in a specific area by dictating a lack of power in others, and make resource sharing inefficient by transporting resources before any calculations are made as to where they actually need to go. Almost like resource hoarding, for to be dished out to the waving hands; rather than a genuine instance of the resources being controlled, on the ground, by the citizens responsible. As well as that, this strangely utilitarian system ignores all the fuzzy goodness of things like farmers' markets, locally-sourced stores; places that tend to be in the higher tiers of culture and food quality

I do like how you dig that people do what they wanna do because they wanna do it. So many systems such as seem like an echo of current business models, complete with the drudgery, direction, and scarcity bargaining. Freeing people from faceless or restrictive labour will let people collect naturally as larger groups when needed, while giving them the freedom to learn and experiment with different interests and industries at their own discretion. One major problem of inefficiency is that people - without happenstance leading them to the areas in which they really shine - end up in the wrong places due to some kind of obligation.

Imagine what people could achieve with the prime of local and global resources, and the freedom to use them to the benefit of their fellow people as well as themselves. Imagine what Etsy will look like.

Arrrrrrrrrr ye fucking retarded?

Did the corporatist system crush your dreams to the point that your dilapidated creativity and directionless angst can only escape as simplistic trolling?

Hark, comrades, another soul lost to the machine! I weep for the nameless fallen, but this pain shall be the drive that seeks a brighter future! Your sacrifice will not be in vain, user; every dog will have its day!!

If citizen A wants a bigger share of X than the normal allowance and a much smaller share of Y than allowance, and with citizen B it is the other way around, the wise Computer God tells both to get fucked? And that's better than labor vouchers how?

So shit will magically happen, that's your "model"?

Namely because it doesn't force people into a similar system of toil-for-profit, instead allowing people the freedom to take what they need without effectively having 'that card that says you can go take a shit and buy a loaf of bread'. In the labour-ticket scenario, people who can't actively contribute in the eyes of others would be left to starve and suffer - the builder who is crippled on the job, for instance, or the creative industries like music that could only be paid as such via publicly-donated tickets (which would then effectively become money tokens).
Some folks without a natural distaste for eugenics would argue this creates a strong humanity of able and willing workers, but in reality it demonstrates a justification for an inability to show kindness and charity for fellow living creatures - a rather grim disposition for a budding intelligent species to have. Ironically, it's blatantly working backwards to the brutish systems of classical nature.

Rather than just substitute money for another abstract concept that can be hoarded, traded, and in a similar way can overtake its own purpose as money has, a free-resource market would instead instate a maximum withdrawal, so somebody can't up and hoard a whole bunch of particular resources to create artificial scarcity. Also, it would allow for markets of cultural goods like art and music, as well as utility and food resources.

That's a fair critique, though, as no one man has a copy (Not yet, at least; and when that happens, concepts like that and self-aware AI and such will be as existentially menial as people allow them to be). Of course, these systems are still hypothetical, and will end up being fine-tuned to practical examples when we surpass our current social trials and begin to use them.

P.S obviously the 'state' could institute some kind of pension or dole, but that's once again just following the same path as capitalism.

Labour voucher advocates usually have some exceptions for frail old people and the disabled. Besides, the point about different preferences stands irrespective of that.

Suppose everybody had the same monthly budget of consumption points to bid on things, citizen A could then obtain an above average share of X and B could obtain and above average share of Y. In the scenario with separate allowance limits for each item, A could demand more of Y than what he wants and likewise B could ask for more X than what he wants, in order to trade with each other. So, it's the same result, except for the added hassle of meeting and trading. But what if at least one of the items here isn't even a thing that you could even give to another person? (It might be something that perishes quickly or is hard to transport or it is even a thing, but a service.) Both people are then less happy with the distribution than what they could have obtained with budget points for bidding.

Don't you now think that per-item limits are a bit silly?

(It might be something that perishes quickly or is hard to transport or it is not even a thing, but a service.)

ditch communism and embrace market socialism with a degree of central planning running off of post-Keynesian economic principles

I already did!

I reckon that, even if we're not all on the same page, we're reading from the same book. I like this speculative open-forum discussion stuff :)

This dude gets it. Planning is an underappreciated must in most anarchistic circles, too - just gotta ensure the groups doing the planning are transparent and open to anybody with the ability and desire to assist them. Community organization and politics don't have to be dirty words, ya know?