In a world of labour vouchers, how would you prevent currencies to reappear?

In a world of labour vouchers, how would you prevent currencies to reappear?
Bitcoin is an example of a new currency that is being used.
How would the emergence of cryptocurrencies be squashed in a socialist, currency-less society?
Education? Internet censorship? Social engineering? Financial police?

Other urls found in this thread:;jsessionid=B7D494B3ED3C1159EC56B4319EEC7F19

regulating technology. all internet access must be linked to your personal identity, preferably via biometrics.

Literally Theresa May.

A currency that is not endorsed by the central authority is valueless in the present day, why would it be otherwise in the future ?
Let them toy around with their bitcoin, if they get too noisy about it arrest them for traffic.


Bitcoins aren't worthless today and they're not endorsed by a central authority.

Outside of illegal, niche circles, yes they are.
You don't go buy groceries, cars, books and other necessities with your bitcoin. Which makes it valueless for 95% of the population.

How else do you prevent something like a currency to re-emerge?

with la our vouchers all the stores would only accept labour vouchers and you would be paid in labour vouchers. Where would you spend your crypto autism bucks? It's not on an underpaid cleaning lady because there would be full employment. It is not on items in a store. Only thing would be on drugs, which is illegal anyway, not produced collectively and thus the sale of drugs isn't an issue for the labour voucher system. The drug dealer wouldn't be able to spend or launder his money anywhere, which makes it even more unlikely.

This is what you can do today:

A giftcard is functionally similar to a labour voucher.

You convert bitcoin to labour vouchers, just like you do today with giftcards.

You don't endorse it, ignore it, make the labour vouchers much easier to use, and have a police force tracking down the creators if it's starting to be used for nefarious purposes, something like the Silk Road.
Money is based on people accepting it has value. If people refuse it, it has no value.

People doing the conversion would be judged as traffickers. It would be much less Orwellian to trace the Labour Vouchers in a similar fashion Money is traced today than to regulate the entire internet.;jsessionid=B7D494B3ED3C1159EC56B4319EEC7F19

By definition of what a labour voucher is, you can't. They are not exchangeable, only spend able at official points.

So labour vouchers would have to be personally tied to me. I cannot give someone labour vouchers as a birthday gift, for instance?

Labour vouchers cannot be transferred between people. They are going to be digital and person bound. Also posting links of stores that accept money doesn't mean shit because in a socialist society they won't accept currencies.

Not tied to you, just easily tracable. You would know where, when and why said voucher had been issued (same way you can trace money now), and this way it would be fairly easy to detect fraud.

Sounds like this:

I could give someone bitcoins, then they'd buy stuff for me from the official points and give it to me. That part where they give me something they bought for labour vouchers wouldn't be illegal.

That's what a labour voucher is. Otherwise it's just a currency.


How would that scenario be prevented with labour vouchers?

You retarded nazi labour vouchers are bound to you. That's what makes them labour vouchers and not a currency.

It wouldn't. Have fun running errants like that for every transaction you try to make.

If I hoard or mine bitcoins, I don't have to work.
I just need to find people who accept bitcoins and they will buy goods I need and mail it to me.

Can't fucking wait for BTC to be banned and made illegal and see it collapse.

Or are you gonna ban parcel delivery too?

There are other cryptocurrencies available.
Also, not an argument.

No that isn't the same at all. Issuing your own currency, transferable between people, is something almost every country does. Labour vouchers are by definition not currencies and definately not hard currencies.


It's literally a game for retards. Gamblers are stupid as obviously evidenced here, people who mine are basically just turning electricity into heat to make some buck on the side with no value created whatsoever.
Cryptocurrencies are a nerd's utopia. It's interesting as a concept but hardly brings anything to the table.

Sure go and do that buddy. Why would people want to accept your bitcoin though? You can't exchange them for goods in stores. The only use for bitcoin would be to ex change them with other people for goods. So you buy them with goods to sell them for goods. Just like today, the only people who would really use bitcoin are criminals and speculators. Speculation would be pretty hard to do if the worth of your bitcoin is denoted in physical goods you have to store or consume.

This. You waste lots of electric power to solve meaningless maths to make virtual coins which don't have any use besides being traded for other currencies.

Black markets were a huge issue in the former Eastern European countries, so I wouldn't dismiss this as casually as you do.

Gold and silver is speculated on and you cannot exchange a piece of gold for food, you need to convert to a currency first.

The worth of bitcoins would be denoted in labour vouchers.

Sure, but you can't just trade away tons of bitcoin to labour vouchers. You would need to store tons of goods that you need to use, which would be very easy to detect.

No, it would be a marketplace like eBay.
I sell a widget I bought with labour vouchers in bitcoins, then I ship it to the buyer. No need for storage.

Black markets appeared because the planning system was fucked. There was constant shortages of basic goods. Also the black market consisted mainly of stolen consumer goods, a black market within a system where they used normal currency.

There will be flaws in the planning system no matter what. We're only human, after all.
And when those flaws emerge, a black market will also emerge.

And why would you want that? You now have a bitcoin you can only use to buy stuff that you can already buy with labour vouchers, but probably cheaper with labour vouchers due to a lack of profits in the middlemen of the widget trade. What's the point of buying bitcoin if you can only use them to buy things you already bought with labour voucher? But now you have to pay for shipping and wait. Why would anybody buy bitcoin? And if nobody would buy bitcoin, why mine them?

You can't entirely prevent black markets and other payment forms. All you can do is implement measures that make your currency or labor vouchers or whatever the dominant thing. If there are a few key points in the economy where people absolutely can only use one specific token system, it will be the widespread number one method of paying. If everybody has to pay taxes or fines and the state only accepts one particular currency for that, that will be the dominant currency.

Of course, labor vouchers don't magically erase all black markets. If a lot of activities get criminalized that many people in society don't think of as horrible, these activities will continue to exist. Think what the effect was of alcohol prohibition in the US. The mafia structures that came into being because of that still exist today.

Even if the payment system is strictly tied to the person (you can use labor vouchers for consumption items, you can't give labor vouchers to other persons) and accurately tracked, that's not necessarily true of the objects you obtain with it. So, it's entirely possible to have trades like this: Person A gives crypto-currency to person B, person B uses the official personal consumption points to obtain item X, and gives item X to person A. Now, the crypto-currency doesn't sound so hot, but if a lot of common activities like smoking weed are criminalized by unrealistic zealots, the crypto-currency can get big and undermine the entire system. (Would that be really a bad thing then? I think the threat of this happening could keep the zealots in check.)

There will always be geographical differences in quality, in taste, in all things.
Or are you going to enforce one kind of food, one kind of computer, one kind of television set without any regional variation?

They might not always been cheaper.
If bitcoin value goes up, then I can convert those to more labour vouchers than previously.

False. Read "towards a new socialism" and "calculation in natura". A socialist economy can and will be planned more efficient tly than capitalist economies, with less crashes.

The black market emerged because of a mismatch between real price and set price. The system proposed in towards a new socialism doesn't have fixed prices, but has market clearing prices. This eliminates these differences in the same way capitalism does. A black market in illegal goods only happen s, or any new trade for that matter, if the price is goods is because there is a mismatch between the price people are willing to pay and the cost of getting it. If the cost to get it is 39 cents but people will pay 10 bucks because it's illegal, a black market will occur. If the price is 39 cents but the supply is too low, people will buy in the shops and sell higher. In a socialist system where prices are set to clear stock but not create shortages, there is no price mismatch.

Nothing works perfectly. Especially not when humans are involved. It's naive to assume that everything will work itself out.

So you are going to speculate? Have fun. Just know you're participating in a bubble of pure speculation and hype.

Jesus Christ this kind of scam is tough to you when you're 7 and play runescape, how can you not get price bubbles?

Sure ignore the ret of my post you fucking faggot.

I was thinking of an online marketplace where people buy and sell items they bought with their respective labour vouchers.

It's a hypothetical scenario.

Great counter-argument.

Let's see, pretty much all commodities are the same worldwide already. And I don't see any reasons why a socialist system wouldn't provide "regional" specialities to areas that want to spend their labour vouchers to obtain it at the extra cost of transportation. Or do you think your small scale postal based black market can more efficiently transport bananas to Iceland than the rest of collective society with the aid of millions of smart people and computers which calculate everything to be efficient?

yes, a hypothetical scenario that does t even work in hypothesis.

You can't gI've a counter argument to something that isn't an argument. Just saying "nuhuh" isn't an argument, you just repeated the same point I refuted.

Specialization of labour as well as cultural differences would mean that there would be geographical differences and disparities between the development of various goods and services.

The idea that the collective, big system is always better than the smaller one is flawed.

Your point is that some magic global ERP software that doesn't exist yet and labour vouchers will help us plan more effectively than a marketplace. I've not seen any proof that it's really true.

Economists (fulfilling the same role under capitalism as priests under feudalism) reduce economics to the sphere of exchange instead of that of production. How would markets arise when all MoP are collectively owned? At best people could exchange products and services which require almost no capital, like vegetables from a garden or fixing a bike.

If you would bother to read towards a new socialism and calculation in natura, you would see a mathematically proven system based on the successes of real technologies and techniques of the soviets and capitalist firms. I'm not going to write a fucking phd paper for you in a chan post of some autistic lolbertarIan who basically admitted bitcoin is only speculation based.

You exchange the goods you buy with labour vouchers or make yourself online using a currency of sorts (bitcoin, marxcoin, whatever.)
Just like eBay today.

Also said system is based on mathematics and algorithms in use right now in capitalist firms to optimize their productIoM and profit.

For what reason? So you can buy other products you can already buy yourself with they money you spend on autism coins? Minus the cost of transport of course, which takes another bite out of it.

Or are you just doing this and hope to profit from the autism bucks bubble?

I've read "towards a new socialism."
The realistic parts are basically standard ERP processes expanded nationally. The rest is just speculative.
Also, if you cannot explain yourself and you have to go "durr read a book" it mean you really don't have any arguments.
An appeal to Cockshott's authority is a fallacy.

I used bitcoin as an example. I should have used "currency that can be used online."
Don't obsess over bitcoin, that's not the point of the thread.

I am explaining to you that even with labour vouchers, an online marketplace and online currencies can reappear and probably will.

That doesn't mean it's perfect. Large, multinational corporations fuck up their resource management all the time, even with the best software money can buy.

I'm ok with black markets filling out the edges of distribution in a society where nearly all production and distribution is still societal. You can have capitalism on the fringes without getting the problems of capitalism.

I can explain my position ut if you out of hand dismiss everything because "I think it's speculation" then there's no pointernet in arguing with you. Your inability to understand the futility of using an only currency to buy everyday goods in a socialist labour voucher system makes me want to stop talking to you too. Your argument takes as a priory that economic planning is impossible, so make a new thread for that Instead instead of disguising it as another question.

*online currency.

Damn autocorrect

It wouldn't neccecary be capitalistic though. A black market in goods from one place to another wouldn't need means of production owned by a single individual.

I am stating that if you can have an online marketplace that would have its own currency and that would be used by people to buy and sell goods they made themselves or bought with labour vouchers, then that would mean the limitations of labour vouchers aren't really preventing anything such as capitalism and speculation from reoccurring.

Of course, you could prevent this from happening by having a surveillance state and making sure all your internet transactions are linking to your personal identification data (biometric or otherwise.)

If people want to exchange copper wire bracelets on etsy and use points as an intermediary medium then I don't give a fuck. It has no impact on the larger economy and any product that grows in demand will be absorbed into the labour voucher product system anyway due to the flexible nature of such a system.

A currency is more flexible than labour vouchers.

I can give you a dollar/bitcoin.
I cannot do that with labour vouchers.

I can save dollars/bitcoins.
I cannot do that with labour vouchers.

I can use dollars/bitcoins anonymously.
I cannot do that with labour vouchers.

I can buy and sell. using dollars/bitcoins, from/to individuals as well from large organizations.
I can only buy from official stores using labour vouchers.


Because labor vouchers aren't currency. You people are fucking retarded.

I mean the black market will always exist in some way or another, but in a socialist world I seriously doubt making money through other means would be preferable to the golden Each According to their Need and Ability rule.

In fact lower paying jobs now would probably be serious professions.

I mean ask yourself the same question now, what's more powerful, butcoin or the USD?

Labour vouchers are limited in their usage.
Currencies are not as limited.
It stands to reason that currencies will reappear, simply because they're more flexible.

Don't obsess over the fact that I used bitcoin as an example.
I'm merely stating that you could have a speculative marketplace even when using labour vouchers by having an intermediary currency.

1 is correct, this is an intended feature of labour vouchers
2 is incorrect, you can save labour vouchers not an issue. Not being anonymous isn't a problem for the majority of the population, as evident by the wide use of card over cash.
4.isn't true, you can't use x-currency at big orginisation in socialism, in that sense labour vouchers are more useful.

"Freedom" isn't an issue for non-lolbertarians. Personal freedom that harms freedom of others isn't freedom, it's tyranny. You are not free to kill others, you are not free to use money in a way that leads to capitalistic modes of production.

I was under the impression that labour vouchers have an expiry date in order to prevent accumulation.

And I'm saying such a marketplace would be small if one currency is particularly dominant. I'm not even sure you can call labor vouchers a currency, but for sake of argument let's do so.

Investment might exist, but as an all consuming threat to the dominant form of exchange, I just think that's a little farfetched

So if I use money as described above, I will get arrested?

If "muh freedums" is such a big motivator for people, why don't we all use bitcoin, why do we use credit and debit cards instead of anonymous cash? Why do we use restricted type safe languages instead of flexible non safe languages?

Because freedom that is harmful isn't good.

We aren't using bitcoins as much, because we have other currencies such as dollars and euros.

If you become a serious threat to society, yes. Just like how a small time coke user shouldn't be arrested but a coke moving cartel should be.

Oh but last time I remembered the great benefit of bitcoin was "freedom from government survey lend and taxes" and a bunch of other shit. Exactly the "freedom" you described.

And how would you find out?
A non-anonymous Internet?
Surveillance of the citizenry?

I ersonally don't see a good reason to have that if they are person bound. Even so there's plenty of schemes thought up to facilitate saving of labour vouchers.

Again, don't obsess with bitcoin. I meant to use it as an example of an online currency. Dollars are good too. I can give/buy with dollar bills anonymously.

If you scrounge up labour vouchers, you don't have to work as much. Therefore you're encouraging accumulation of capital, even if it's not currency-based.

Criminal investigation and sting operations will still happen to bust sex rings, catch murderers and yes, catch black market traffickers. Just like now. Most likely with less mass survey lense which doesnt solve crime but allows government suppression of anti-government groups like leftists.


You are frigide to save labour vouchers, which you get from working, in order to not have to work as much.

And this is bad because? You still get exactly what you put in, you're not a burden to anyone.

Except your "anti-revolutionary groups" would be capitalists, so you'd have to keep the surveillance apparatus to prevent capitalists from reappearing…


I thought accumulation of capital was a bad thing in Marxist thought.


Labour vouchers aren't capital. Capital is money or means of production used to gain more means of production. This isn't possible with labour vouchers, due to being non transferable.

Yes for the time being until we have the upper hand.

What do you think anarchists will do? Just ignore the nazis? Catalonia had labour camps too. It's the dictatorship of the proletariat, so long as the workers are in control, the state surprises the capitalists.

sorry for autocorrect

if a person has more labour vouchers than the other person, then that means he's consuming less, which means less work to do for others, which means less labour vouchers in "circulation."

War on drugs and war on terror, meet war on capitalism.

Yes and?

If people under consume voluntarily then they don't need any more products which means the products they would consume can get a lower price or the work can be reduced. There's no downsides.

It means they'd be allocated to perform worse jobs, I suppose. If there's a lack of good jobs because of accumulation of labour vouchers, then only the unpleasant jobs (sewage, street sweeper, and janitor) remain.

War on drugs serves the prison industrial complex and the war on terror American control of the world, the demotic security of the American governmentioned and the military industrial complex.

War on capitalism would ensure proletarian domestic control and possibly proletarian power overseas. I am a proletarian, not a rich American, the latter is in my interest and the first isn't.


Why would accumulation of labour vouchers (ie people doing work but not consuming) result in a loss of "good jobs"?
Seems to me that they are just making the workload for all of society easier by giving and not taking.
Also this wouldn't change if you destroy their labour vouchers after an X amount of time. Eternally unused vouchers are functionally the same as destroyed vouchers.

And the surveillance state would never be abused in a proletariat paradise…

Is the surveylence state abused from the perspective of those it serves? No, it does its job.
It is only "abused" if you have the hilarious delusion that the nsa and cia actually exist to protect and serve you, instead of the bouegoiesie.

Except now those with a lot of labour vouchers are rich because they don't have to work as hard and they can buy luxury goods, whereas others cannot buy anything apart from the basic necessities. So you have class differences now.

For instance, I choose to not have children, so I don't have to spend as many labour vouchers on them. That means more for me, but it also means I have more disposable income which makes me richer than those with kids.

What makes you think the surveillance apparatus would serve anyone but itself?

No that's stupid. Those with lots of labour vouchers worked just the same as the others, chose (for whatever reason) not to spend it and save up for a long time, and now take back what they put in.

There's no class difference. Just having money isn't class. Class is your relationship to the means of production. In capitalism, wherw currency can be exchanged freely, money can be used to get more money by owning means of production and employing and exploiting people without money. I a labour voucher system, saving up a thousand hours (which is a tall order to do anyway) doesn't give you the ability to exploit others. You can't buy means of production, you can only spend the money you earned by working for it just the same as everyone else did.

I can buy someone items in exchange for sex or to get someone to work under the table for me. Isn't that exploiting someone?

It doesn't serve the avarage Joe at the monitor at the nsa. At best it serves the head director who makes lots of money. And who pays those salaries? Hint, it's not himself, nor the taxpayer. It's the rich and corporations.
Being the director of a security apart us does give him some form of power so we need to carefully consider it.

Yeah, going from Okhrana to Cheka doesn't seem very appealing to me.

So you buy sex for stuff once. Ok. It was a voluntary exchange though, since whoever you fucked gets paid the same as you do per hour.

So you "pay someone under the table" with consumer goods? To do what? Whatever you make, you can't sell it for labour vouchers, so you can't make a profit. Also, you would have to pay more per hour than you made in an hour, because the other guy could just take a normal job. Makes it kind of hard to make a profit somehow. You would need to then sell whatever you made for a black market currency or products. But since you need to pay more than the wage of society in products per hour, your production methods would need to be much better than that of society or it needs to be an illegal substance. In both cases you are commiting a crime and will be cough eventually, and if you have some kind of crazy good production method it will be adopted by society.

So one thing stays the same worst case, and a lot of other things will improve.

It's can be made even simpler.
I have more labour vouchers than I use.
I find someone who spends as many labour vouchers as he gets every week.
I tell him "I will buy you food, video games, etc." worth one hour of labour tokens, but you have to work for me for two hours.
Maybe he's got many children and they use up his vouchers, maybe he really likes to eat and buys expensive food, I don't know and I don't care.
Point is that I'm exploiting him now.

I'll just have someone clean my house, do my laundry, suck my dick, etc.
I pay him/her one hour labour tokens for two hours worth of work.

And by "pay" I mean:
I'll buy him/her goods/items worth one hour labour vouchers for each two hours of work (housekeeping/dicksucking) he/she does.

In theory comrade…in theory

Why doesn't he just work more or get a second job? Accepting your job proposal would be retarded, just work overtime nigga.

If you would buy somebody two hours worth of shit for an hour of doing laundry, I would honestly not care that much. That's not exploitation.

If there's people in really tough spots that they need more than what they can buy with their work, we need to look into what's going on with that person because that's a societal problem that needs to be solved.


There's no overtime available, because the labour vouchers are being saved instead of used. There's less overall demand.

No, one hour worth of shit for two hours of work.

There will always be people in a tough spot. Either too many children (unless you want to go Chinese family planning on them) or spending unwisely.
So I exploit him/her by providing me services.

are you talking about OP or those arguing against him?

I don't think you understand how this works. There's always place for more labour to be done if you want to. If not in the production of products ( which can scale a fuck ton because more work is more products with lower prices), there's always work in imcreasing the size of the means of production, of which labour is always the limiting factor.

Product production can always be scaled up with more labour up until the point where the price approaches 0. If there's no more products with a non-near-zero price you also don't need to work more.

A socialist planned system isn't like capitalism where resources and labour can sit unused and people in hunger without houses. These kinds of situations are caused by production for profit. Socialist production is for use. So there is always room for more labour, because there's no need to worry about profits. Anything that is produced will be used.

The perceptive on his horns are all wrong and its bothering me.

Adding more people doesn't mean more gets done. That's not how scalability works.

Nine one-month pregnant women do not equal one nine-month pregnant woman.

I'm sorry, I'll try to find better images next time.

It does if you're not being a stupid little shit. Having someone operate an assembly line instead of it standing still means more gets done. There's always work that can be done that wouldn't get done otherwise. If you really wanted to work more there's always places an extra hand is needed.

Jesus Christ, you're really stuck in Taylorism and Ford assembly line thinking.
Do you know ANYONE who works at an assembly line? Or are you a third-worlder?

I do know people wio work assembly lines and I live in the first world. Are you a sheltered little shit?

mental collaborative labour isn't all labour there is you dip. There's plenty of labour where adding an extra person increases productivity. Large scale manual labour such as construction work often has its pace limited by manpower. Same goes for a lot of stuff.

When you're waiting for foundation concrete to cure, adding more manpower will not make it go faster.

Also you're limiting yourself in thinking I'm only talking about positions in existing places. If there's lots of people who want to work more, new projects can be undertaken.

20 software engineers looking to do more work should do a new task, not barge into an existing project.

You talked about scalability, now you're talking about new projects instead.
Do you work at a goalpost assembly line?

Ues because that's all you do in construction, wait for concrete to cure.

You can keep finding specific scenarios of maximum capacity projects all you want it that doesn't make my point invalid, it just means nor everything can be improved with more people.

I was talking about the scalability of sectors, not individual offices. The assembly kine was just an example. If there's more people who want to work, you can build a second assembly line for those new people and increase capacity. Or a new factory. Or build that bridge you had planned for next year, this year.

Again, adding more people to a project doesn't make it go faster.
You have to train the new team members, some of them are just out of college, other don't have the necessary skill sets, etc. I've seen your way of thinking when they introduced poo-in-loos and thought that 10 Hindus out of diploma mill college from Bangalore could do one experienced developers job.
Pro-tip: they couldn't and they stopped trying to outsource.

Keep ignoring what I wrote mate, I'm sure you feel very smart.

And now you need more raw materials, which might not be available now because the plan was for one bridge this year.
It's a planned economy, remember?

Also. If you're working in a cold climate, you cannot build during the cold months due to weather conditions.

Using construction as an example, there are considerations regarding availability of raw material, weather conditions, etc. that have nothing to do with manpower.

Anyway I'm going to stop replying cause all you dons keep repeating the same sind stuff over and over again and making up rediculous scenarios to strawman me, such as unskilled people on skilled jobs or putting people on jobs that are already at optimum capacity, instead of putting them where they are needed.

Some people are more skilled than others.
That's a fact.
If you have someone who wants to work overtime and that doesn't have as much of a skillset as the others, he needs to be taught, additional tools need to be requisitioned or made.. That slows things down, it doesn't speed things up.

I don't want to insult you, but it seems that you're lacking in experience as far as the modern workplace is concerned.

A socialist system would have buffers of resources for obvious reasons and it's unlikely that there's going to be such an influx in labour that were going to burn through that.

Millions of people are not going to immediately decide they want to work twice as much. The total amount of fluctuation will be easy to deal with.

same thing as I said in my last post, I'm not going to reply to you if you just keep doing playground "gotcha" things like saying "oh you said general scenario x but what if specific area y just got flooded and is in fire and also godzilla betcha didn't think about that huh?".

Piss off. There is no scenario in which there is literally nothing you can do because of the weather or an alien invasion.

You've never experienced a real snow storm, have you?

[citation needed]

I don't want to insult you but you seem to be an annoying little shit who tries to find any kind of way to support his own claim.

If your Indian coworker is Litterally mentally disabled and want to do more work for more money, he can always scrape gum of the sidewalk after he's done with programming at whatever company you work at.

You've never thought that planners would realise they can't build bridge x because of winter so they build building y instead.

Scraping off bubblegum seems like busywork rather than a real job.

Well its been fun talking to you samefag. Don't have nightares about bitcoin disintegrating.

Would you rather have gum on the sidewalk?

Concrete does not do well when poured over frozen ground. Frost can cause the water in the concrete to freeze before the concrete sets up.

Of course, you might build something without a foundation during the winter. No idea what that would be, though.

The street cleaning crew would have taken care of that.

I do not own any bitcoins or bitcoin fractions, but thanks anyway.

Not even socialist but I get the feeling you just said something really dumb

Because, you know, the street cleaning crew needs people to staff it, and those people have to come from somewhere.

Please elaborate.

They're already doing the work efficiently, so there's no litter or bubble gum in the socialist streets. Having someone scrape off non-existent bubble gum for labour vouchers seems like busywork.

Maybe he can build an igloo?

If the system works so efficiently that there is no unskilled task whatsoever in a 50 mile radius that needs completing, that is a huge advancement in terms of human quality of life.

But there are solutions. Either the person in question can learn to do something skilled (which would also give a teacher a job) or working hours for labourers could be limited to ensure that everyone has a fair chance at earning their keep (which would necessarily involve the worth of the vouchers going up).

You're assuming he can be or wants to be taught a new skill.
Also, when manufacturing is so automated that there's no need for laborers, then it will be busywork and UBI for the ones unable to program the machines.

or a socialist snowman!

If someone does not want to do work (or in this case, to do the minimum necessary to be useful at work), then under any economic system that person would be punished.

Maybe he's old and cannot be taught new skills.
It gets harder to learn new things, the older you get.

Nearly true. The currencies can be spent on illegal goods. That's a specific use

Or speculation. Or spending it on legal goods. Or converting it to another currency.

Vouchers are currency.

Labour vouchers are a deliberately crippled currency.