Aren't Labour vouchers just money tho
Aren't Labour vouchers just money tho
Jeremiah Peterson
James Brown
does anybody actually support labor vouchers or is this just a shitpost meme
Jayden Russell
No, because they can't circulate like money and you can't amass labor vouchers like porky amasses paper money.
Jose Ortiz
It made sense in Marx's time, but today I'd say technology is advanced enough that transitioning straight to a gift economy isn't such a pipe dream anymore.
Ayden Peterson
no because once one (a voucher) is Redeemed for the stuff the holder wants the labour voucher is then taken out of circulation thus accumulation can not occur also the vouchers would have an expiration date of sorts to prevent accumulation through method of hoarding and each voucher would be only redeemable by the recipient making them non-transferable between parties
Robert Bell
So is basically getting paid in gift cards?
Parker Torres
i….guess? depends on how you look at it
i explained it in detail the best i could in the first post but let me just summarize once more
A. vouchers are used as the commune/countries/societies form of payment for labor
B. a voucher with no signature/holders name/date/time stamped of when it was issued etc is deemed to show that it was earned legally
C. non transferable person A can not give his vouchers to person B
D. destroyed/marked as used when redeemed preventing accumalation
E. expires after a certain period to prevent accumulation
F. must have individuals name on it to make sure that person didnt steal the voucher/make via illegal means
Christopher Harris
fixed
Isaac Phillips
So is the bastard son of a gift card and a check.
Nicholas Allen
stop this meme
Lucas Ross
Are you saying that it'd be impossible to reach a point where all people have direct access to all resources and commodities? And where we don't have to work for wages because all of our material needs would already be met? Because if so, you're saying Communism is impossible, because that's literally what Communism is.
Samuel Wood
That's not what gift economy is, though.
Gabriel Stewart
Well, how else would you describe an economy without markets or money, based on mutual aid, where a commodity is taken without need for payment? You're not buying something, you're not trading something, it's a gift. Am I missing something here?
Justin Gomez
they aren’t, but they could possibly cause some alienation.
Carter Moore
I’d prefer a system where around 5,000 people or so become one commune. The commune gets resources and whatnot and the people in said commune democratically decide what to use the resorces for. Most production is extremely localized ad evreon takes part in most of there production, such assawing a door or making ice cream. Some stuff will have to be produced centrally. Becouse of alutristic morality instilled in people, people don’t take more then they need.
Oliver Morales
...
Leo Mitchell
marxists.org
>Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.
Also see: marxists.org
Logan Russell
Free exchange?
Daniel Butler
Gifts are given, not taken.
Liam Reyes
>economy without markets or money […] where a commodity
Nathaniel Mitchell
Are you completely retarded?
Gavin Powell
Lincoln Roberts
Don't be autistic, people often call goods in general commodities. It was clear what the poster meant there, there's no need to act smugly.
Sebastian Thomas
You’ve yet to disprove the ability if my theoretical system to work or not. Also admit it. It’s better then labor vouchers.
Cooper Nelson
...
Dylan Richardson
A gift economy has direct exchange. This implies commodity production, and therefore would lead inevitably to capitalism.
Joshua Baker
Then you're eschewing from the fact that with your pushing of the term "gift economy" you have no other goal than to create a neologism for a term that has before always been a descriptor for economies with delayed commodity exchange. It has little to do with smugness here; why do you need a different term for something basically describable as socialism/communism as it always has been in Marx and anarchism?
Evan James
It's clear from the context that commodity here just means a product. Whether gift economy is a shitty concept is completely irrelevant as to what the person meant when saying commodity. That autism flag really suits you.