If "communism isn't equal pay" then what exactly are labor vouchers?

*the paper they're printed on.

you can fly in real life if you sit on a plane so i'm not sure what your point is? you can imagine theoretically possible scenarios or you can't?

You're operating under the assumption that the shops are non-state owned businesses, that's wrong, they are state owned and shopk employees are given their own vouchers for running it. People aren't being paid for high-fives, they're being paid a value measuring their contribution which they can get a return on in state owned ditribution centers, without which they can't get anything they want unless they make it themselves.

I'm not going to defend labor vouchers against your criticisms, since said in my first post I support traditional currency. A labor voucher system would probably ecourage a black market.

it still makes no sense. a high five is an action. credit is not. you're better off saying "UFOs" and the analogy would make more fucking sense
How exactly do you believe currency works user? You sound very confused.

Lol you're so far up your ass you refuse to understand anything I explain because you have an axe to grind against the very idea of the labor voucher which you'll refuse to accept no matter what anyone says.
Well we would like to test them someday but for now they're just theoretical in nature which really does nothing to discredit them, if we tried it and failed that would be another thing but you're simply dismissing it for not actually having been done which is ridiculous I hope your not a scientist lol.
Vouchers don't do that though, they're generated then deleted, then generated again and deleted again they don't "live on" and accumulate somewhere like they do in capitalist economy I don't even know why I'm wasting time writing this again anyway since you'll just ignore it.
>About as honest as "points that are deleted".
What is dishonest about this? Who is secretly hoarding them? The government who can create them at will anytime?
Lol you and this again, last i checked you don't work to make a high five its just something you can do so i really don't see how a high-five is even a comparable example at all to labor vouchers.

Fair point, I retract/revise my statement as follows: In my imagination, I can fly unassisted by machines/vehicles by the sheer force of my farts propelling me into the sky and maintaining enough thrust to allow for flight. Theoretical models work in everyone's imagination, that' why you need to test it out in real life. How is nobody seeing this, isn't this a gaping hole in your logic?

Wait, what? The 'shopkeep employees' don't run it, the state does. You just said I was wrong in assuming they were 'non-state owned'. The state is not equivalent to shopkeep employees, they aren't bureaucrats or politicians writing legislation.
What the hell is state owned distribution centre. You mean a marketplace regulated by a state? Sure, that's feasible. Plenty of mixed economies exist. But if you think that state regulation of distribution of goods/services will not lead to black markets, you are poorly mistaken, my friend. The war on drugs hasn't 'ended drug trade' just because the distribution centres were shut down.
Honest to god, I didn't read the next part of your post when I typed the war on drugs stuff. We are in agreement on that point, then.

The lower stage of communism is "equal pay for equal labour", hence the need for labour vouchers. It's not specific to communism though: it's capitalism's legacy.
The higher stage of communism can precisely be defined as the moment when we will get rid of this legacy (and thus of labour vouchers).

No it isn't, thank to capitalism, which developed the division of labour to the maximum, effectively turning most of the jobs into simple tasks.

No. You don't buy anything in a communist society, labour vouchers.

is not equal pay, where did you hear that?

1: No, your five hours of labor are not equal to another person's labor.
Say you sell burgers and I work in a nuclear power station. My labor is FAR more valuable.

2: People who are in the party always get payed better. People who are connected with the Socialist government are always better off in every way.

3: Personally, I prefer money and private property.

I revised the point, as the high five issue is valid insofar as it is as ephemeral as the vouchers are, but not much more beyond that.
Yes, finally! You understand my point: the vouchers that are exchanged will be tossed back in your face by the shopkeep PRECISELY BECAUSE they are worthless. It IS NEVER EXCHANGED. The entire premise is based on flawed reasoning with no supporting evidence, because we have no reason to believe in the model as it is internally inconsistent. It is never actually exchanged properly because vouchers that might as well turn to dust when they're exchanged will never be exchanged in the first place.

Okay, using your own logic, I can call you a troll for deviating from the point, too. Where does that leave us? Try and focus on proofs and your argument instead
I'd like to introduce you to the concept of falsifiability.
"Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."