On labour vouchers

i get it's not communism since the law of value still applies.
but does exploitation exist under a labour vouchers system?
leftcoms often quote engels explaining how production for exchange itself contains the embryo of the whole capitalist complex.
but can you tell me who is exploiting anyone and how?

Other urls found in this thread:

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/why-law-of-value-really-applies-in-socialist-economies/
marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

(you)
bring up my post

What the fuck is this image trying to convey?

It's a classcuck triggerer meme, in this case i used it to get more (you)s

I'm not surprised someone like you would have this image saved.

Im a NEET, i can't be a classcuck even if i had (which is not the case) that fucked up fetish.

Germany got really rich off it and became the richest country in the world and Winston Churchill said the Germans were destroyed for pissing off International Finance. You happy? Now shoo.

Wtf are u talkin about? Kek

This, I assume

Yeah, whar does that have to do with labour vouchers?

Are you retarded or something? Nazi Germany created a new economic system, THE USE OF LABOUR VOUCHERS and international porky financiers didn't like that so they pushed and misled the allies to war.

I didn't knew it :o
I love nazis now

Also Sources?

You literally cannot be this stupid. Like in this fucking thread.

Mods better fuck this shit thread.

Just as what i spected, you have no sources to justify your retarded bullshit.

IT'S RIGHT IN THE FUCKING THREAD YOU IDIOT

And looking at your fucking retarded posts ITT

I'm glad Marx made it clear we're going to cull the lumpen proletariat. NEETs and especially NEETs like you deserve it for being so retarded, NEETs would destroy any attempt at communism in a second.

That's what i call edgy.
If you can't answer the question in this thread please be decent enough to let less iliterated people talk about serious theory.

And no, nazis didn't used labour vouchers. And even if it was the case, it's not an argument against labour vouchers neither, you dumb cuck

Exploitation tiers:

Abolishing work, full automation

Self exploitation as free lancer
Member of co-op
In both cases, you're being exploited by inpersonal market forces

Worker under capitalism
Serving a hierarchy under corporate management or state communist bureaucracy, under your bosses thumb

In such destitution, unemployed, that you're not even being exploited by capitalism

The Nazis didn't really have a labor voucher system. They had the Reichsmark which was based on the gold standard and operated like any other standard currency. The confusion largely comes from Hitler's claims to having created a "debt-free" currency through the introduction of MEFO bills which were introduced as promissory notes that could be exchanged for Reichsmarks at a relatively fixed rate. This created the illusion of being "debt-free" in part because the amount of MEFO bills in circulation was a closely guarded state secret, and when it (as one would expect from essentially printing money) caused large-scale inflation, the government swept it under the rug further by forcing companies to buy government bonds. The whole system banked on Germany being able to either quietly pay off the debts through a massive export-based economy (which became an untenable solution pretty early on considering the advanced rate they were digging themselves into a hole) or use the massive military buildup they had been working on to directly extract wealth from their neighbors (and effectively nullify most of the foreign loans they had been taking). The economic "success" was fundamentally illusionary, existing on borrowed time and money.

You are the nazi who posted gay porn minutes ago aren't you? I didn't thought was that effective

Yes, but it is still socialism (lower stage communism)
No because workers are paid the full value of their labor
This is just stupidity, labor vouchers are not production for exchange, they are simply a method of allocating commodities that have been produced. The alternative is something like the cookie algorithm, or else people can just take anything they want. In a situation of scarcity though, you need some method of rationing which is what a labor voucher is. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his 'labor time'. It is not production for exchange because that implies a circuit of capital (the whole M-C-M), you can't reinvest labor vouchers into a circuit of capital hence to processes of exploitation and accumulation have been abolished. I mean I don't understand what these critics fucking want, for the strawman of communism to be true, to have no method of allocating scarce resources and anyone can literally just grab your toothbrush because there's no rationing mechanism? Will I just be able to go into a store and wreck up the place and take everything in the grocery isle, because i felt like a 'needed' it? hell no, there has to be rationing of consumer good and you can either use labor vouchers or some alternative to that, but unless FALC happens you need a method for rationing scare resources.

Read Critique of the Gotha Programme.

How will production expand if everybody gets the full share? Cockshott is ok when it comes to computational methods but he is not the be all end all on theory.

I'm on my phone right now so I can't find the quote but in critique of the gotha program Marx says that the law of value does not apply to Socialism, common misunderstanding.

There is no exploitation as labour vouchers are specifically designed as to serve as direct exchange for goods from labour, bar deductions for welfare however this helps the worker indirectly anyway. Exploitation is when, through wages, the exchange is not direct but inbalanced in favour of the non-worker.

Also remeber production for exchange is producing for the purpose of selling for a profit, not literally just exchanging.

That is literally the entire point of labor certificates, you can expand production without exploitation because the certificates are not a tool of circulation only of distribution. Because labor certificates are destroyed rather than exchanged, and new ones are issued on the performance of social labor, you can expand production simply by planning where to issue new certificates, You are not limited in your expansion by the rate of profitability as you are in capitalism.

Labor vouchers aren't exchanged in a way that has the law of value apply. Labor vouchers are distributed and then used. They are not exchanged further.

This creates an artificial market rather than the markets under capitalism.

It's pretty much the sole definition of labour vouchers

Yes, we all agreed that the law of value will still operate (albeit in a modified way) under socialism. However law of value is about more than simple commodities being prices at their labor content, please read vol 2.

We all have, and so has Cockshott. see:

Also,

Law of value under socialism operates, but in a limited way, see:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/why-law-of-value-really-applies-in-socialist-economies/

Wtf I like nazis now

Depends what you mean by "operate". If you have a labour voucher system then people are still being compelled to work and goods are being rationed according to work hours performed, but that is the only way in which it can be said to operate, as it no longer determines what is produced and in what quantity due to market forces having been abolished. Under such a system the production of goods is determined consciously according to needs, not in order to make a profit. In this way a "lower phase of communism" should be regarded as the abolition of the law of value in the sphere of production, making it a partial abolition rather than a "modification".

I think you're very confused here, labour vouchers is communism (there is no mode of production called socialism as separate from communism in Marx's theory), thus production for exchange has been abolished (for one produces according to need, and the vouchers can only be expended for their designed product), thus there is no exploitation

Marx details this explicitly in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but here is an extended commentary (and explanation of why Stalinism failed in these regards) by Tadayuki Tsushima marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

Let's say we have two industries: one which produces the means of production and the other which produces basic consumption goods.

Let's say a worker in the consumption goods industry produces 50 breads an hour. If he were to be paid his full share, he'd be able to buy one hours of work with his voucher, so 50 breads.
Now where does the worker in the industry where the means of production are produced get his share? If everyone is paid the full value of their labor, all the bread (or any other hypothetical consumption good) would be sold out. Therefore it is necessary for workers to give up a portion of their labor to sustain the development of the means of production (or pensions, disability funds, education, etc)

...

Yes, and Cockshott goes over social spending in TANS.The difference is that social spending is transparent and voted on directly democratically so workers can see how the work they do is related to 'free' social services.

semantics, really. There's social spending under a labor voucher system on things like healthcarelike the British NHS, and in any social-democratic society to this extent production for needmedical need in this case has already been achieved.
Again, 'according to needs' really needs to fleshed out, what exactly does this mean? its easy to see how goods with inelastic demand that are necessities like healthcare, education, housing, possibly some food basics, etc. Can be distributed according to need. However with regards to light consumption goods, luxuries, and other things like that, production for need is not realistic or even needed, so some sort of rationing system is needed. In healthcare there is an objective medical rubric of who to treat first, etc. And theres no incentive for people to grab more, as this would involve being sick on purpose (minus hypochondriacs). However, I still stand by the idea that the articles of private consumption will always need rationing and that mechanism, whether its labor vouchers or something like the cookie algorithm, will need to be laid out