Can it be called socialism if there's C-M-C?

Engels in the Anti-Duhring:

But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose. For other purposes, however, it is by no means immaterial, as we shall see.

Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Marx In capital

Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists,[30] let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.

Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson’s island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground-work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour; but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal labour power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.

(the rest of this quote)
For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races.[31] We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour power of the family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour power by its duration, appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour.

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.

I don't even like labor vouchers, but you're retarded.

One thing I don't get about them, are they just an accounting tool or does 1 hour of labor always equal 1 hour of labor?

Yes, 1 hour of labor is always equal to 1 hour of labor.

how is it functionally different from commodity exchange then?

In what way?

Lack of valorisation.

Full value of labor is paid, and unlike currency, labor vouchers are tickets explicitly going to you, the worker, so theft wouldn't accomplish anything, and when they're spent they're worthless, just like a movie ticket.

It's a completely relevant term you cocksucker. With production for use value, and not exchange value, we will have effectively broken free from the same M-C-M chain.

The real problem with labor vouchers is lack of flexibility and deflation the closer you move to the source of output.

1 hour of labor worth of rice straight from the farm is more than 1 hour of labor worth of rice, 200 miles away. Unless you think to peg it at a fixed rate, in which case, you're in for some shit.

Unless I am not aware of a way that labor voucher account for "value added" and additional labor being put into a commodity.

Bordiga had technocratic sympathies.

I don't really think that there's a contradiction between scientifically planned production and the free association of producers.

unless freely associated means that goods are anarchically produced by local production units. I just don't see how that would ensure that a) the mediation through abstract labor is abolished and b) the basic need of every human being is met.

Plus decentralization is a step closer to independent producers, which means value.

So ship in bulk???

It would basically be what Engels called simple commodity production.
Only planned production could manage to overcome the mediation of production through abstract labor. Which means that localized private production might sound good for all the leftie weenies but would be in fact a fucking irrational disaster.

Or just peg currency to energy instead.

Yes, you have transportation costs, these are added to the product. So the product is more expensive if consumed far away from where it finished. (One can also define transport to the point of consumption as an act of production. If we use this convention, we are talking about different products when the transportation distance is different.) This is true under capitalism, and it remains true when you consciously price things according to labor input or energy. I don't see what's bad about doing that.

Under Cockshott's proposed model the transportation cost is added as well to the final product. If you buy vegetables that were produced 10 miles from you they will be cheaper than those produced 2000 miles away. In this sense the proposal is inherently more "green".

source plz

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_commodity_production
also in afterword to capital volume 3

what's wrong with the cutie mark crusaders, i think their adventures and antics are an enrichment to the show

dang beat me to it

somebody get this hothead outta here

In any kind of economic analysis you should add the costs of transportation to the value of the final product.

Say, if transporting a crate of tomatoes (valued at 10 hours) takes a 4 hour drive and 1 hour in fuel, the final value of the crate is simply 15 hours.

descentralized economy will inevitably lead to capitalism

>>>/pone/

I prefer same quantities priced differently rather than different quantities priced the same.

Vouchers cannot be used as capital because

They are issued to to individual people and are non-transferable. they are not a medium of circulation and cannot therefore be used as capital insofar as they cannot participate in an M-C-M cycle.

They demystify the exchange-relation by demonstrating that the apparent relationship between use-values is actually a relationship between producers

They have enver hoxha printed on them. who will protect the proletariat from revisionsim

The obscure critical theorist Karl Marx proved that the lower phase of communism will use labor vouchers in his critique of the gotha program

relations between producers shouldn't exist in communism because there shouldn't be any independent producers.

if the labor voucher value of the product is the amount of labor put into it, how is exchange through labor vouchers functionally different from simple commodity exchange?

there are no independent producers in history.

google the free association of producers

Tokens of exchange are tokens of exchange, I suspect corruption, black markets and book cooking will become wide spread.

How does one make a token non-transferable?

In capitalism they do exist. Idependent firms that exchange with each other.
another way of saying society as a whole controlling all production, free assocation is a lack of exchange between independent producers.

Its a system of accounting so it could just be on a computer or something like that.

No accumulation of capital occurs since labor vouchers are merely a system of accounting and not a currency; pretty much all other posts on the thread have argued this in one way or another

arguably the best feature

yes, notice how I said simple commodity exchange aka commodity exchange based on the selling of surplus without any form of wage labor.

In the same way a cheque can be written so that it is only usable by a given individual, except it'd be simpler as we would use an electronic system. When you make a purchase of any product or service a quantity is labour time is deducted from your account, it isn't transferred to the person you make the purchase from (they get paid for time worked by the state/administration of things/whatever) but rather is simply cancelled out. As a result of this there is no flow of money between individuals and private enterprise becomes near impossible.