Virtual currencies -> virtual labor vouchers?

And why should it? To each according to their needs from each according to their ability

All labor voucher plans work within some form of planned economy, be it the proposals of older Proudhon (see pic on mutualism above), Bakunin, Marx, Hahnel and Albert (Parecon), or Cockshott.

Labour voucher make literally no sense outside of communism. If independent firms haven't been abolished and production hasn't been socialised they would simply function as either ordinary money, or be entirely unworkable as you wouldn't be able to buy anything produced by whatever business/organisation they are attached too.
Remember, the point of labour vouchers (in the marxist sense) is to prevent, or at least hinder, the circulation of commodities, not to allow for a more idealised version of commodity production.

Spain-flag poster being retarded as usual. If society has reached the higher phase of communism (from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs), then there are no labor vouchers. The purpose of them is to limit consumption while also encouraging and organizing useful work which meets collective needs. In this respect, there's no reason for them in the modern day when you can have flawless scarcity-based currency (like the USSR but functional) or, better yet, the cookie algorithm for distribution and maybe a social insurances and bonuses system combined with sortition and collective bargaining to organize work.
Do you even understand the concept of socially necessary time? Did you hear the mudpie argument like from the user who you responded to, not refute, and still decide that you like socialism as strawman'd? You're not very bright, are you?

you are oversimplifying and it's obvious you haven't truly thought about it. if we are manufacturing shoes, and you make a great, waterproof shoe and I make a shitty shoe that falls apart in a week and is already leaky, clearly we are not doing the same amount of work. if we both then trade that shoe for a voucher of equal value, then redeem that to gain other things, you have put a lot more value than I into the system, but I draw more out. I am then a leech.

here's the problem, making a good shoe is a lot of effort. making a shitty shoe is a lot less effort. I am a rational human being, not an ideal imaginary being, thus I will put in the minimum effort achieve the desired outcome. people will make shitty shoes if the system lets them get away with it, even if they're able to put in the work to make a good shoe

okay, it makes more sense within such a system. I don't think a planned economy would work, but that's a different discussion for another thread

the concept makes sense when described like that. the "flaws" are actually the main feature. I can't help but think of pic related

You perform work that is relevant to your direct needs, as you craft for your own purposes while utilising collectivised means of production you produce more than you use because it's efficient that way and you are skilled at what you do. That part of the produce which is of no use to you, you allow others to appropriate for labour vouchers which you use to appropriate part of someone else's produce. Means of production stay collectivised while product of your labour stays your own.

So you'll make shitty shoes and you're left with this product of your labour, that likely no one will desire, and thus will not appropriate. So you'll take those shoes and boil a stew out of them because that's all your labour will be worth.

What you're arguing with is the mudpie argument, typically used as a straw man against the LTV. Here are some videos to refute it:
youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
youtube.com/watch?v=Ujk7T3hjUY0
A big part of any society's ability to sustain itself is the ability to direct collective labor by one means or another to convert energy into useful forms (food, household heating, transportation, etc.) to reproduce itself. This was not lost on the analyses of capitalism by anarchists or Marxists (and even has roots in how Adam Smith developed the first full labor theory of value based off the at-the-time cutting-edge Newtonian physics, as an elaboration on the concepts of work and energy), and it's certainly not forgotten in discussions of future possible economic management. In fact, the whole point of labor vouchers for most socialists is to simplify this entire process of management - if capitalism works by managing labor's collective application, why can't socialism too?

Well, that's late-in-life Proudhon's solution specifically (the closest to a free market of all labor voucher schemes, but still with significant elements of planning). In Bakunin's, you're part of a syndicate and collective bargaining subsumes free market trade as a mechanism of organizing production and consumption. IDK that much about Marx's specifically because I haven't read "Critique Of The Gotha Program" yet, but I would guess that it involves planning by the state (well, more decentralized than what that would imply in the light of modern states because he liked the idea of self-managed workers' councils as a DoTP and eventual organs purely of administration and management - this means it's more centralized than the anarchists cited above, but not by that much).

I subscribe to the MMT idea of a currency as a voucher against physical coercion. Long as a crypocurency fills that role, it can be a a currency of the future. Always remember that the people with the guns are in charge, mkay, no matter how fancy your theory and software.

yes, I understand what you said, and it's with this in mind that my argument was written. what you said doesn't change my argument, in other words

but I'm not discussing with youtube, I'm discussing with people in this thread. if you can't provide an argument for or against in this thread, we can't have a discussion about it in this thread, which is why I am here. if all we're going to do is to post youtube links at eachother, that's would make for a pretty shitty thread

for the reasons I stated earlier, which you skipped, see above paragraph. that's why labor vouchers as they've been described cannot work, which is what we're discussing. not socialism, not communism, not planned economies. labor vouchers.

well, at least that's what I'm interested in discussing I guess

oh, and I should point out that this doesn't sound like labor vouchers. they cannot be transferred, so you can't "sell" your goods. what you're describing sounds like normal money, or a barter economy, not the labor vouchers that were described earlier

t. peasant under feudalism, asked about the possibility of capitalism

critical-theory.com/watch-alain-badiou-explain-money-minutes/

I disagree with labor vouchers
It adds to much unpredictably to planning
You should just sign up for a set amount of goods for the year or month while services are free at point of use
Then planning is more based on per capita then trying to predict what people will spend vouchers on
And then over produce a bit, and let a small black market exist to redistribute surpluses

There are certain requirements for discussion. We all read books and elaborate upon them when we discuss. Why should we stoop down to explain everything to you? I gave a cursory explanation above and gave you some nice, short videos. Most people here are inclined to simply tell you "read a book" - Kapitalism101's videos are very well explained and don't require the attention span that reading a book does. I can't spoonfeed you everything.
You can't separate them, you tool. If we really got into depth, we could try discussing the evolution of Marx's own stances on them between "The Poverty Of Philosophy" (where he critiqued Proudhon's ideas expressed in "The Philosophy Of Poverty") and "Critique Of The Gotha Program", but that's next level because not everyone on Holla Forums has read all of Marx's works or all of Bakunin's or all of Kropotkin's, etc (although many are familiar with their general concepts from various essays and intros).

I agree. This article's section on stock control gives a good outline of a potential system for this.
worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1066-june-1993/beyond-capitalism

It's going to need to be, because labor vouchers in the 21th century would require a state to create it, centralization to give it authority, force to go after counter fitters. Because any asshole with an inkjet printer can print more.

What you do need is a collective verification system to ensure that work in demand from the calculating system was actually done. It's doable IMO, but will require something creative.

This is basically the monetary system of anarcho-individualism.

Money is not to be allowed in socialism. Allowing virtual currency would amount to bringing back capitalism again because it enables wage labor.

lol, okay. that level of effort implies I am already in agreement with all your philosophies, so that's a good way to filter out all dissenting voices

let me guess, only islamic scholars may criticize the religion of peace, and only bankers may criticize capitalism too?

I don't agree with Marx on a lot of things (I'm an anarchist), but understanding at least one viewpoint within the debate is essential to join it. Unfortunately, there aren't any readily-accessible anarchist resources on this particular topic to the best of my knowledge (you could try reading "What Is Property?", but we both know you won't).
If all you know is basic arithmetic, how do you expect to discuss set theory?
The videos are a couple minutes long. There are people here who have read all 4,200 pages of the 3 volumes of Capital.

woops, forgot to remove shitposting flag

let's say I do watch the video, but I disagree with it. do I then come here and try to argue with you, about what is said in a video that you didn't create? how is anybody else supposed to engage with those arguments? do they then also go watch the video, and link other videos that we then all watch and discuss?

if you can't provide a good argument that doesn't involve foisting me off elsewhere, you simply can't provide an argument fitting for a chan thread

No one here wants to engage your retarded strawmen. Holla Forums posts here every single hour with the same straw men. The same ones! Why should we accommodate your laziness in particular? You can ask questions in another thread if you want, but it looks like this one's gone anyways.

"Normal" money is an universal currency of wealth, property - labour voucher cannot be traded for land, for resources, just for a product of labor.

FYI information ancoms wrote 1000+ pages FAQ designed specifically to wreck lolberts. This 'read a book' routine gets really stale after a while, just gather common questions and write one, from which you can commiepasta and get lazy with Holla Forumsips

tbh it's very tankie to expect someone else to waste time on getting on your level