Labour vouchers

pdf related, essays for and against various ideas of market socialisms. Labor voucher schemes are part of the discussions.

I've been here since the beginning of this board, get out of 'ere newfag.

you're a faggot ever since
stop name- and tripfagging you cancerous little cunt

Flagfagging is no better tbh.

there are at least 3 other mustaches going around, one of them another useless non-contributing tripfaggot

flags have literally no use but pointing out where you stand with your post, it's not about identification or shit

Just another form of money. If the causes for the emergence of money aren't eliminated nothing changes. You can't force communism on people by making money illegal.

labour vouchers + illegalizing capital trading = communism

…of course, whenever the means of production are of public access

If only we thought of this earlier, why did all those revolutionaries waste their time with "building socialism" they could've just outlawed capitalism!
I'm sorry lad but that's not how it works.

Labour vouchers are kind of a trippy abusable idea that i dont see the point of.

On one hand you want to reward people for doing work, but then you do not give the ability to differentiate in the quality of that work, only going by hours. This also makes it really easy for people to do the bare minimum, instead of giving their all for their job. On top of that, you need massive burocracy to determine what is and is not "real" work and how much it has to be paid. This limits the flexibility of your economic system. Lastly, you would need the state to be the sole employer and distributor of goods (which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending how what the "state" is).

So summarized you have a system that attempts to encourage working (or even mandate it), but in doing so it creates an inflexible bureaucratic system that will make people more likely to try and get as much vouchers as possible, rather than doing jobs.

On the other hand, if you solely want this system to limit distribution of products, you may as well simply give everyone a set amount of vouchers.

If you actually wanted this for reward, I don't see why you don't create a more flexible (simulated) market model with more or less regular money. This will allow citizens to do jobs that they want to do even if they are not approved and if people think its important/want it, they will pay. I know its not as cut clear as this, but in a society with more or less equal distribution of wealth its going to be closer to voting with wallets. Systems like this also manage the distribution of goods.

Convince me why labour vouchers are superior in encouraging working and/or distributing goods.

Claiming labor vouchers aren't money is almost as bad as the ancaps claiming that feudalism is not a state.

i support the second alternative, when the price is determined by the product between the work-time per the socially average goods produced by hour.
but it has it's own issues, for instances, workers could colude themselves so the price would increace without any reason, so that system have to be extremely regulated by the state.

another answer is to do what you say: to determine the price of something according to the numbers of goods produced, so that collusion will turn imposible (but im not sure if it could have another unwanted consequences).

even though, i have another argument for the [average ratio of production* work time] based prices: when collusion occurs, people have the power to make themselves their own goods since the factories are of public access, so the demand of some goods will be undoubtedly elastic and it won't be possible to increase prices above the average time that takes to produce them.

indirectly, since the jobs the workers want to execute are of free-choice so they can decide if they want to make their own goods instead of buying it, but this offer-demand stuff won't be that important since i think demand of every good produced will be extremely inelastic so their prices will always be close to the fairest one.

if a collution occurs, obviously the state will have to deal with it.

absolutely, that's like the primal axiom.

preferably, the man-hour have to worth the same everywhere in Commieland; if you travel to a city only to trade your (now more valuated) vouchers, then the work you executed traveling to that city correspond to the work that exporter trucks would have added to the original price of the good in question.

i don't really know if it's necesary, maybe interest-free loans could be possible, whenever they're regulated by the state.

Will read any replies to my post tomorrow btw, good night comrades.

Kill yourself, dprk shill.

i wanted to say "elactic" instead of "inelastic"

good night, tomorrow you have school.

No I don't. Going to the beach.

why all the hate by the way?

DPRK is an race purity close-to-fascist regime that isnt very worker controlled.

Re insisting on how it does work for service and unproductive labor. Because the way it's implemented in the health system can lead to pretty big changes in how the sick are being taken care of. If it' act based, you czn be led to prescribe useless acts to increase your havings. If it's number of patiets based, you could shorten appointments and reducing quality of medical practice, whereas number of patients heales is considering doctors as fucking gods because we're far from being able to cure everything. So you could find a way to "select" the patients to keep the easy to treat an avoid thehard to heal or the dying…

When i think of it, new class antagonism within socialism may not be a bad thing, maybe the final class antagonism is between large workers consortiums and the rest of the people instead of bourgeoisie and proletariat?
What if socialism is not the mere early stage of communism, but something more like what feudalism was to capitalism?
Do i get dialectics right or i am just being a retard?

obviously the man there refers to that juche isn't ye old sort of communism, but an evolved form of it, it's like they have almost finished the intermediate phase.

here i got a video of someone talking about how north korea actually works:

youtube.com/watch?v=bV578owID3U

but please use this thread to talk about labour vouchers.
i made a thread in /leftyb if you want to talk more about the glorious DPRK

8ch.net/leftyb/res/1934.html

just saying "your sources are wrong" is not an argument without evidence.

one of the Juche's main axioms is that everyone have the same rights to be free and to choice their form of government.

being anti-imperialists don't make them nationalists or racists, they just want freedom to every country on earth, and they're conscious that the only way to protect their independence is to develop nuclear power, to not become another imperialized country like Irak, Lybia or Afganistan.

but of course, it's easier to swallow every single thing the US propaganda say about the DPRK

youtube.com/watch?v=VvsqS5YGfSg

to make you realize how shitty US propaganda actually is.

Do i get dialectics right or i am just being a retard?

of course you did, i think you're right.

interesting point, i think true communism only could be achieved when the work became full-automatized.

in the particular case of doctors (which is a very singular one, since is a pretty hard job, a preferably public service and an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT service), i think the most prudent answer is that the prize for their work must to be strongly regulated by the state, and determine their sallary by the time they work times the average number of patient treated by hour, where the quality and rigurousness of the proedures are regulated by the state. for instances: they will be another doctor testing if the first doctor's procedures are prudent, if that's not the case, then he will notify the negligence to the state, and they will judge him, to avoid the case they could colude themselves to not notifying negligences to the state, there have to be a toss-up over every doctor in a particular city, so that they wouldn't be able to trust each other. also we could gave a gift to the second doctor whenever he notify a negligene (of course, with prudent proofs, like videos of the procedures, etc), so for a doctor is much more safe to be responsable.
if there is the case, that doctors could magically colude themselve with the previous conditions. then people would stop visiting them and start visiting responsable doctors (with diplomas granted by the state or something), or in the worst of the cases, they will start studying medicine. Of course in our dreamed Commieland will have a huge ratio of doctors over total population, just like, for example Cuba.

Money is a commodity. Labour vouchers (at least those advocated for by Marx) aren't.

We're talking about praxis though, and north koreans do not have a choice in their form of government, even though they say they do.

Also I don't give a damn about the nukes, its the rational choice for any country seeking independence from the major powers and I would press for whatever leftist state there is to make them too if they can.

If the labour vouchers directly represent how much you work wouldn't that create a new labour based class system where those who do not work as much are shamed and ridiculed? If you get it for work what do people without jobs get? I also havent figured out, if they only have a one time use how do co-op businesses obtain them to pay their employees? Also I should point out vouchers would work best as a digital system.

False. Mixed economy is enough.

What is the distinction between money and "labour vouchers"?

If we are talking Socialism - then yes.

Anything that is for sale.

All of the above.

It is uncertain if Communist society will actually use labour vouchers. Post-scarcity, remember? They are primarily Socialist thing.

They are for the discussions. I got one because people were falseflagging me and that was annoying. At least now people are quoting my actual posts, rather then some nonsense

R-right. Do we actually have contributors beyond Catgrill?

That's not enough. Communism = Central Planning + Direct Democracy + Time

False.

Because they make world more ethical.

You can pretend that money is simply "means of exchange", but if we take the role of money in Capitalist society, and compare it to the role of money/labour vouchers in Socialist - we'll have a clear difference. If you want to discuss this difference you'll need words.

Nice refutation, why is it false?
spooks
but in all seriousness this is a really empty argument.
give me a good argument

I need to correct this. Real question was completely different from the one that was written by user and I did not point it out.

Q: "Does the quality of your work matter or only time spent?"
A: "Society determines the specifics of reward for the work. And it is commonly accepted that quality of the work is relevant. Hence - quality of the work matters."

If we are talking Socialism - work might be mandatory.

Why would there be people without jobs?

Because they don't need to.

No, it's not. What do you think Socialism is?

For what? Making decisions yourself or entrusting them to the random chance and worshipping The Invisible Hand?

Is this Holla Forums?

Not everyone can or wants to work. Forcing everyone to work is absurd.

Everyone who can reasonably contribute should. I never understand this opinion. Some people should just do all the work while others do none?

Socialism does not have luxuries of Communism. If unpleasant things are to be done, it's everybody's duty to contribute.

As someone quite involved in medical milieu (europoor at least, can't say much about burgerland), the tricky part is the technical part is only a part of medicine. As one of my teachers would say, we're Shamans, scientists and lastly healers. You have to take into account the patient's will, there can be case we're the procedure can't solve everything. Some treatments make you live longer but cause terrible pin or diminsish quality of life. Medicine is full of ethical dilemna, and in my own job i have this, altough in lesser intensity.

I have a one hundred trillion dollar note and used it to trick a girl from the UK into thinking the Australian economy wasn't doing too well.

No, a socialist society will have to have incentives to contribute. 'Duty' is a spook. The incentives could be that its better for everyone to contribute, but saying it's their duty is dumb.

Sounding dangerously like capitalism there

In my mind there should only be one payscale

...

Why would anyone do anything if it wasn't in their interest to do so?

Going AGAINST their interests in the name of "duty" is a bourgeois idea, not doing what's best for themselves.

What? Is English your second language because I am having a hard time understanding what you just implied.

You are being too individualistic (and too spooked by Stirner). It's free-rider problem.

While it's in everyone's personal best interests to avoid doing [something], it is also against those interests to have nobody to do it. Thus a compromise: everybody makes concession that they will do [something] if everyone else does it too.

As you see, we need a word to describe this [something]. And the words I use is "their duty".

Your idea that every action in Socialism should be motivated by the incentive (personal profit) alone implies that people can opt out. Nothing is mandatory. The question is only what price they are ready to pay.

No, that's a cop out, and an appeal to a lower train of thought.

You don't need a word like that to describe actions that people take that make the world better for their own interests. Duty is a word that is used by those who get the working class to sacrifice in the name of nation, religion, ideology, or a false 'greater good' that only helps individual capitalists.

If we are talking about getting your little sister's cat out of a tree, then it may be your duty as a brother, if we are talking about the creation, destruction, or defense of a socio-economic system, then it can only ever be what's in your interests without an abstract idea of duty to muddy it.

Socialism is a long ongoing process in which I am sorry to inform you but people will opt out of.

Rich will exist, and will use their wealth to live comfortable lives away from dealing with building a new society. Lazy people will get by, and perhaps its time you accepted that these annoyances are a reality that we have to put up with for the time being if we want a communist world to develop. It's not the 1930s, and throwing people who don't agree with you into a prison, or executing those that spit on your plans by not conforming, simply won't work.

You can imagine blaring trumpets and red banners while glorious workers made up of 100% of the citizenship march to the factory each morning, but its not a reality in the modern world, and in fact never was. People won't do their duty "or else" without consequences.

Just because someone is not farming or working in a factory does not mean they arent contributing. Even just being a good friend is contributing because it helps stop people from killing themselves.

There already is enough food in the world for everyone though and there is only scarcity in some areas because of global capitalism moving it arround to rich countries. If people without jobs are not supported that means they dont have the time to study or plan for more skilled jobs jobs because they would be busy working low skill jobs. What if someone is sick or injured? Oh nope just kill them off. Congrats you created something worse than capitalism.

...

The thing is that there isn't any advantage for a doctor not to be responsable in a labour voucher based economy, in fact, being neglectful will be lesser useful than it is in capitalism.

...

fuck off trotskyist unt

well, yes, for instances there is war communism where there is still a state.(by the way, in north korea thete isn't classes)

state capitalism is what china have now, or what the urss had under lenin, after the civil war, north korean communism is very far from those systems, also the market is mainly statized, so there are not such a thing as "preapitalist relations".

I'm not a trotskyist
but care to provide an argument to justify the inversion of one of the most basic conclusions of Marxist science?

It's like just asserting that evolution only applies to various kinds of apples. You're gonna need to back that up.

war communism wasn't a form of communism. Nobody was even arguing that it was. War communism started literally the year after the revolution, just a few months after. Are you claiming they reached communism within a matter of months, but it was a special snowflake type of communism that still has a state?
Drink bleach

kek, are you claiming that Kim Jung Un, who went to college in Switzerland and eats gourmet meals, and the NK state has the same role in production as the starving peasant?

it's mixed, there's also relatively "free" markets

it had it longer than just under Lenin

yeah, it's more reactionary

agricultural collectives are precapitalist, a heavily statized market existed in many modes of production before capitalism, and it exists often within capitalism. It does not, however, exist after capitalism. There is no such thing as commodity production after capitalism. Socialism is the end of value. The fact that markets exist prove that labor must be abstracted to be made social, it is a private affair which must be reduced to labor "in general" to realize its social nature.

but care to provide an argument to justify the inversion of one of the most basic conclusions of Marxist science?

being anti-imperialists makes them automatically communists, a permanent, wordlwide revolution isn't the only nor the most efficient way to achieve an internationalist spread of socialism.

people want to maintain him, it's not like he is exploiting someone or something.

of course it was, barracks communism to be specific. the only problem is that you have not idea what "communism" mean. but if you want to say "north korea have not achieve the last phase of communism" then you got it right.

communism is not a model but a way to achieve the collectivization of the factories.

that's the only thing i can answer, everything else on your comment is pure fascist propaganda-based claims and personal opinions, if not pointless bullshit.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638213/Tourist-took-camera-inside-North-Korea-expected-really-really-sad-people-shocked-seemingly-ordinary-lives-citizens.html

uhh, no. There is no such thing as an "anti-imperialist" nation-state. The nation-state is the form of superstructure corresponding specifically to capitalism. Capitalism, everywhere, is in its imperialist stage. The only "anti-imperialism" is the class struggle of the world proletariat against capital and its state.

North Korea is simply against one imperialist faction (they aren't quite blocs again yet). It is still imperialist.

pic related

Yes it is, socialism can only emerge as a global mode of production. Steps towards it can be made in pockets where the revolution has already broken out, but if they remain isolated, then they have nowhere to go but back towards stabilizing capitalism.

This is what Marx and Engels concluded, and correctly so, back in the 19th century. Capitalism has only become more inter-connected and worldwide since then.

And people "want" Hillary, and people "want" Trump. People support the Koch brothers, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs when he was alive, etc. People supported Trotsky and Stalin, Hoxha and Mao, Khrushchev and Kennedy, Hitler and Mussolini, etc.

That is no argument.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

You realize that was a sarcastic comment made up by Marx as an insult to the [anti-]authoritarians, right?

The real movement to abolish the present state of things and a mode of production of free and equal producers planning production according to social needs, where production is controlled by the social whole, with consciously made and immediately intelligible relations, and there is no such thing as a state, classes, value, etc.

There's only two phases, but they are phases of the same mode of production.
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

Again:
"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. . . . He receives a certificate from society . . . The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another."
What is being described is communism, as it looks immediately after capitalism, and note that he says that labor vouchers/etc. are received "from society", not "from the state", there is no state mentioned because the state does not survive the transition to even the first stage of communism.

I assume you mean "war communism".
What you originally implied in was that "war communism" was a type of communism where the state still exists, which is bullshit.

You're referring to this part:
?
These aren't "fascist propaganda-based claims" or "personal opinions". And even if they were, that would not refute what I said.

So, the question still remains:
Care to actually make an argument against what I said and justify your revisions to the most elemental conclusions of Marxism?

forgot flag

juche says that every group of people have the fundamental right of freedom, and thus the freedom to choise their form of government whenever it doesn't damage anybody else without their consent.

there is no need for a violent, bloody global-scale war to achieve common freedom and happyness to everyone. but that groups of people respect each other's type of government.

now, if you don't want to call it communism i don't give a damn, but certainly they're against human, and particulary international alienation.

now, if you want to force someone to live under a system where the factories are collectivized without his consent, then you are supporting alienation by depriving him to choose the system he likes the most.

juche is just an evolved and superior form of marxism, that's why it has prevail so stable even after the fall of the soviet union.

So unscientific, platitude-centered, liberalism?

Ditto, but based on even more of the bourgeois idea that people are actually represented by their bourgeois state??

No North Korean worker should respect any nation-state, including both USA and North Korea.

No, NK is capitalist, and the parts that aren't yet are moving towards it.

Ok, I'm fine with that, socialism is result of society being conscioulsy taken into the hands of the great majority. To the bourgeois and reactionary workers who oppose the process: fuck 'em.

That's not what alienation means.

You may assert that, but you have still failed to explain the science behind, all I have from you are assertions of platitudes and the misuse of Marxist terminology.

Umm Anarchism is a lot more popular than Juche and has survived over a century, does that make it right?
Unless you are confusing nation-states and ideologies with one another?

unscientific? people won't support a bloody revolution that could last many years and won't cause development, socialism in one country is the best way to promote stability to the movement. science is suppose to emulate reality.

that's it, SHOULD, but they in fact DO respect and support their modern government, people are stupid and that's a fact, you decide to deal with the real world or keeping dreaming in a revolution magically supported by everyone. marxist-leninism is more pragmatic.

sallaries are determined by the difficulty of the job, also farms and factories are of public access. it isn't certainly full automated communism, but undoubtedly the state is a loyal representation of the people, and is getting even better.

the reactionary workers will kill you and your whole revolution.

sorry, i couldn't find any other synonym of "enajenación" in english, i tried to say that you will force your ideology, violating the other person's consent and fundamental rights.

here i give you some reasons why north korean regime is still alive:

1) it's supported by the people

2) it's supported by the people

..but anarchism has never been imposed in a country for more than three years im right? so your comparison is completely degenerative.

wat?

Explain difference

a liberal would argue the exact same thing

riiiiight, and even if they were, it is compatible with capitalism (notice the word "public" implying a bourgeois state)

Bourgeois to the core

You don't get this whole "great majority" thing do you?

I couldn't care less
spooks

Wow! Amazing science! The same justification someone would give of a bourgeois state! What a coinkydink!
Also, I thought that
?

Also:
I don't care about "the people". I care about the proletariat

Let me rephrase

You are saying an ideology is stable and survives, but "Juche" in its current form is different than it was in the past, and the same goes for ML during the course of the USSR, I was wondering if you were mixing up the state ideology with the state itself.

the only ifference i see is that i don't respect their thoughts because im a hippie, but beause im aware that they can beat the shit out of me

that great majority doesn't exist, proletarians don't support communism, that's why we need a vanguard with proffessional revolutionaries.

but sadly…

¿what do you propose? actually i can't think another answer besides a vanguard and a state guided by professional revolutionaries.

good luck getting you ass kicked by nazis.

i didn´t read stirner, but i think spooks are real whenever people think they are.

example: i.imgur.com/3GCCT9k.png

i don't give a damn if they support capitalism, whenever they gave me the freedom to live under the model i like the most, with the time they'll realize communism is the best answer, but i can't and i shouldn't force them into my ideology.

yes i was mixing things up.