Money shuts people up

One argument against labor vouchers is determining the value of ones labor. Stems from the question of is all labor paid equally, or is it paid based on the skill/effort/training it takes to conduct such labor. One could argue paying everybody equally would generate disparity, those working harder jobs than others are getting jipped, and would encourage people toward easier jobs. Conversely, one could argue how paying people based on the type of labor they do (0.5 labor hours of being a miner = 1 hour of being a janitor = 2 hours of being a pencil pusher) is too arbirary to measure, especially in a system where division of labor is a principle. There would be no real objective way to divide this up, as there are often multiple disparate jobs that require different skills needed to complete a task/generate a resource. So one argument against labor vouchers in their entirety is the issue is too complex to resolve, in and some ways fails to abolish wage labor.

yes

Money, money, money!

It's all money's fault!

If we just ban the concept of transferable tender and revert back to trading sticks and stones, your masters degree in ethnic studies will suddenly be worth more than minimum wage!!!!!!!

Alienation. Distribution should be decided through local councils governed by direct face-to-face democracy.

Well it's a noble goal but easier said than done. Whenever a similar topic comes up, it seems there's no other way to manage scarcity in a socialist State other than money or begging for resources before a million committees.

...

have any alternatives?

Without money or labour vouchers anyone could collect massive amounts of capital causing a shortage for others

If people make same amount they will just do what they like to do not what is just easy. The janitor who disinfects an operating room is just as important as the surgeon for example. No job is an isolated task.

Resource based economy or Mutual Credit. First isn't possible right now and later you have similar issues as labour vouchers. I think mutual credit is more practical though because there is more flex room

So when I want to buy some milk I go before the council?

People would go every week to discus what they’ll need throughout the week.If it’s an emergency there’ll be stockpiles. Alternatively you can get a cow.

read

What if it's something you need that is personal that you don't want there to know about? That's a huge invasion of privacy. What about things you just want that aren't exactly vital?

this
you don't need to ban currency when you make the circumstance necessary for currency impossible.

That's dumb as fuck my man. How are you supposed to run an industrial society like that? Better to determine everything electronically/centrally and if there's some thing that's a big issue for people let them vote on it. You can't possibly individually approve everyone's consumption.

the problem is not necessarily money itself but the role it plays and the power it wields in this society. a common medium of exchange makes sense in pure practical terms, since barter is very limited. still i think a moneyless society should be the goal

It’s the only way for direct face to face democracy. Production would also be as decentralized as possible.

The history of the world is one of increasing centralization of the means of survival and necessity though. But under communism it would be for the commons instead.

Centralization ignores local needs and desires.

Then you fall to tyranny of the majority

How exactly are you gonna decide who gets how much of a scarce resource without some way of keeping track of the production and consumption of scarce goods?

Obviously once we go full Star Trek and have replicators and pleasure planets and shit you don't need them (then again, the population is ever-growing and people need places to live, so how do you decide who gets assigned to cold-as-shit bumfuck Northern Alaska and who gets to live in Tahiti?)

Money doesn't do any of these things, it's just numbers and occasionally papers

It's the society that imbues these numbers and paper with power, so we need to change the society os a whole, banning currency is not as important as making it useless

But it won't become useless till you have advanced technology that can accurately measure available resources and who needs them and for what as well as technology to replace resources that are scarce. You also need to improve education and have to have a global socialist system or else people will just keep turning to religion and attempting to constantly increase the population. Not all of this will happen in our life time and we would be lucky for even one to.

No, population growth is slowing down with the exception of Africa. Most people in post-idustrial societies have two kids or less.

You chose based on who wants to live there.