Income in a communist society?

[Obzervi]

This is something I'm sort of confused about. I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is? Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need? Also should a person who is lazy and doesn't contribute much be allowed to take as much as a person who is hard working?

[danyboy27]

This is something I'm sort of confused about. I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is? Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need? Also should a person who is lazy and doesn't contribute much be allowed to take as much as a person who is hard working?

labor voucher could replace money.

[Obzervi]

labor voucher could replace money.
If the definition of money is "A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services"", than how would labor vouchers be any different from the current capitalistic system?

[Kotze]

I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is?Individuals will determine it themselves, they will have a limited amount of points to spend. The difference to now is that the income distribution will be very egalitarian and there will be some limits to what an individual can do with her points that don't exist with today's money (buying means of production, passing it on to your offspring).
Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need?Umm, their income? I know, a few idealists on this board say people are nice enough, or will soon be nice enough, that they will limit themselves without being forced to. Maybe one day technology will be advanced enough that limiting access will become pointless, and when it comes to a few things, the technology is already there (music, text, films, public transport), but for the foreseeable future that can't be the usual way of obtaining stuff.
Also should a person who is lazy and doesn't contribute much be allowed to take as much as a person who is hard working?No. A related question is whether these able but unwilling people should get nothing at all. You could make an argument that they should get something based on the fact that not everything is produced by humans, there is land and air and water and other stuff. Since no human produced that stuff, one could argue that everybody deserves an equal part of it. So, the government could rent out the land, the frequency spectrum etc. and everybody could get paid an equal share from that.

[danyboy27]

If the definition of money is "A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services"", than how would labor vouchers be any different from the current capitalistic system?

well, for instance, you couldnt use it to purchase a mean of production or land, and the accumulation of voucher would be limited.

[Obzervi]

well, for instance, you couldnt use it to purchase a mean of production or land, and the accumulation of voucher would be limited.
Sorry, but with a medium of exchange like this I don't see how it won't end up being the same capitalistic mess we are in right now. Whats going to stop a few individuals from pooling their vouchers together and purchasing enough means of production to form a corporation?

[DaComm]

This is something I'm sort of confused about. I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is? Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need? Also should a person who is lazy and doesn't contribute much be allowed to take as much as a person who is hard working?

The apparatus that determines need is the consumers themselves. If they want X number of TV's, H number of chairs, or L number of beds, they can take them because of the ultra-productivity of common ownership. Having said that, people will be able to take pleasure in work and creating prodcuts that reflect their creative will and intelligence, and do not have to rely on luxuries for happiness, so in all likeliness, people would not want the burden of tons and tons of luxuries that they won't use. But by some chance that someone does take a little more than they need...big deal XD. There's enough to go around. The idea of Communism is that work is no longer something that is forced, and is a source of fun, happiness, succcess, creative expression, etc. One who does not take part in the production process, first of all who would be pretty rare if not non-existent, and secondly would be an unhappy slob that would sooner or later resort to performing labor in order to bring about non-artificial happiness.

[Zanthorus]

If the definition of money is "A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services"", than how would labor vouchers be any different from the current capitalistic system?

Because everything is rationed out according to a common plan, because labour is communal labour, the producers appropriate the conditions of production in union with each other bridging the alienation of humans from each other and the conditions of production etc.


Sorry, but with a medium of exchange like this I don't see how it won't end up being the same capitalistic mess we are in right now. Whats going to stop a few individuals from pooling their vouchers together and purchasing enough means of production to form a corporation?

What's to stop them doing likewise with free access and with a hell of a lot less difficulty since they don't even have to work for it?

Also it would be illegal.

[StoneFrog]

TBH i don't like the idea of labour vouchers, still keeps some of the mentality of the capitalists that you have to be rewarded for your labour or people won't do anything.
Good that's are produced should imo be distributed by community organizations, where all goods being produced are kept account of. The community organization is made up of all whom live within the community, so if someone is not pulling their weight it is up to the whole community to decide what is to be done of that person. We should not speculate at what consequences are going to be in place, for this is something the community should deal with as a whole.

[Kotze]

Whats going to stop a few individuals from pooling their vouchers together and purchasing enough means of production to form a corporation?The same thing that will stop a few individuals from pooling their vouchers together to buy some slaves: The law and its enforcement. A corporation is a legal entity. The concept of companies with limited liability will be erased. That people working in groups have a democratic decision structure will be required by law, just like it already is the case with the minimum wage, work breaks, and other measures that protect workers.

[Invincible Summer]

I think vouchers/credits/what have you are only really necessary in a scarcity economy. Once societies reach a stable level of post-scarcity, then I think it's safe to say that open access to resources could occur without people hoarding or anything like that.

A stable level means having post-scarcity for say a decade, in order for people to grasp the new cultural norms that are associated with free access, and to work out bugs that will be bound to appear.

[robbo203]

This is something I'm sort of confused about. I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is? Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need? Also should a person who is lazy and doesn't contribute much be allowed to take as much as a person who is hard working?

"Taking according to their need" relates to Marx's higher phase of communism when rationing is dispensed with. Who determines what one needs? Obviously, the individuals themselves otherwise you would have rationing. Needs are self determined in other words.

This presupposes a capacity to produce enough to satisfy people's self determined needs. That capacity already exists but remains trapped within capitalism. For example a large and growing chunk of the work done in capitalism performs no socially useful function whatsover but merely exists to keep the system ticking over. This will disappear, releasing huge amounts of labour and resoruces for socially useful work.

Not only can we increase the production of socially usefully wealth by getting getting rid of capitalism but, with free access to goods and services, many of the things we apparently need now we will no longer need. For example, conspicuous consumption in order to gain status will become utterly meaningless. The only way you could gain esteem is through you contribution to society not what you take out of it (this partly deals with the "lazy person" argument)

The combinatiuon of increased production of socially useful wealth and a reduction in the demand for some things will bring about a situation of comparative plenty. Much like water in public drinking fountain, you dont take more than you need when you know what what you will need will always be there for you to take

[Weezer]

Here's what I've always thought:

For resources like food, water, and shelter, they should be free no matter what . People should be able to take the food, water, etc. that they NEED. You wouldn't able to take all the world's resources, the community wouldn't let it happen.

However, for things like toasters, televisions, ie things you don't need, labor vouchers would come in. Labor Vouchers aren't money because money always has value, no matter how many hours you've worked. Labor Vouchers would be based on how many hours you worked.

[Tablo]

Here's what I've always thought:

For resources like food, water, and shelter, they should be free no matter. People should be able to take the food, water, etc. that they NEED. You wouldn't able to take all the world's resources, the community wouldn't let it happen.
I agree.



However, for things like toasters, televisions, ie things you don't need, labor vouchers would come in. Labor Vouchers aren't money because money always has value, no matter how many hours you've worked. Labor Vouchers would be based on how many hours you worked.
Wage slavery.

Does money now actually have any real value? Labor vouchers are still currency though they are applied outside of a market economy. Labor vouchers don't have any use outside of extreme circumstances in a socialized gift economy.

Communism has no currency. People should have free access to goods and resources without the need to use features of market economies like currency(including labor vouchers with the exception of times of emergency when there actually is some level of scarcity). No community would tolerate some guy taking 500 pairs of shoes from the store, that's just rubbish.

[Weezer]

Wage slavery.

Does money now actually have any real value? Labor vouchers are still currency though they are applied outside of a market economy. Labor vouchers don't have any use outside of extreme circumstances in a socialized gift economy.

Communism has no currency. People should have free access to goods and resources without the need to use features of market economies like currency(including labor vouchers with the exception of times of emergency when there actually is some level of scarcity). No community would tolerate some guy taking 500 pairs of shoes from the store, that's just rubbish.

So Anarchist Catalonia practiced wage slavery?

[danyboy27]

Wage slavery.

Labor voucher are not wage slavery, its perfectly normal for someone who work more to earn more so he can get more luxury good.

Marx said that.

[Zanthorus]

Wage slavery.

I could swear I've had this exact same argument with you before.

"Wage slavery" refers to the fact that the worker only recieves payment for her means of subsistence while the capitalist reaps surplus-value. The consumption of the commodities bought with the wages forces the worker back onto the labour market to sell his or her labour and again increase the surplus-value of the capitalist.

In the scheme we're talking about the producers collectively appropriate the conditions of production instead of having their labour commodified.


Does money now actually have any real value?

Yes, it represents a certain quantum of social labour time.

[Amado]

However, for things like toasters, televisions, ie things you don't needMy problem with this is always the "who defines what you need?" question. A need is a need, regardless of whether it comes "from stomach or from fancy". What is "necessary" is not a constant that you can apply equally to everyone at all times. And as soon as you restrict access to something, you just created a group of people who control that something, and we're back to a class system (if an alleviated one, like "People who get to give you TVs" x "People who want to get a TV").

I say free access to everything, to hell with labor vouchers. Why can't that work? Who really will amass tons and tons of, say, TVs/computers, when there is no possible use for that be worth the effort (as commodity exchange would be done with)?

[Shinigami]

My problem with this is always the "who defines what you need?" question. A need is a need, regardless of whether it comes "from stomach or from fancy". What is "necessary" is not a constant that you can apply equally to everyone at all times. And as soon as you restrict access to something, you just created a group of people who control that something, and we're back to a class system (if an alleviated one, like "People who get to give you TVs" x "People who want to get a TV").


Err, the community? Nobody here's suggesting that we should have a certain class of higher-ups deciding who gets what. Everyone decides on it.

[F9]

labor voucher could replace money.

If we are gonna replace money with something else that does the same exact job, then its stupid to replace it and confuse the people..

Obzervi:yes everyone will get what s/he needs, and the one to judge will be him/herself and only.What would stop them to getting more than they need?The fact that communism is in practice, in first, the fact that they wont need all those things and will be unnecessary.
Hard working and lazyness are not terms that can be used in communism, as they are not real measurements, there cant be measurements on working, those "terms" are just production of capitalism and reactionary forces to find a way to repress working class more.How will you judge hard working?What consists hard working?Is a doctors job more hard working than a cleaner?And bettween doctors, a surgeon, with a doctor that just sees the patient for a simple result dont put the same effort, though there jobs are equally important.Those terms cannot describe anything in communism,

Fuserg9:star:

[Terminator X]

I say free access to everything, to hell with labor vouchers. Why can't that work? Who really will amass tons and tons of, say, TVs/computers, when there is no possible use for that be worth the effort (as commodity exchange would be done with)?

I completely agree with this. Once people realize there is no need to hoard 52 TVs, demand for these "unneeded" items will lessen and production will subsequently compensate. The "status" of owning a bunch of shit will cease to be of importance and people will learn to live with what they actually need.

[-A-kRud-A-]

This is something I'm sort of confused about. I've seen some people say that everybody will take according to their need, but who determines what that need is? Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need?

when you drink water from the tap do you take more than you need?

[Invincible Summer]

when you drink water from the tap do you take more than you need?

That's a bit different though, since being full starts to feel uncomfortable. Having like 10 TVs won't necessarily be so.

[samofshs]

abolish currency. income is provided in food, shelter, and health care. this solves all the problems imposed by a capitalist society

[Die Rote Fahne]

Everybody is provided for. If you need food, then you go to a food depot (essentially a grocery store where you just take what you need), clothes to a clothing depot, etc etc etc.

No need for pieces of paper to exchange. Giving worth to stupid things such as paper and gold is absurd.

[samofshs]

Everybody is provided for. If you need food, then you go to a food depot (essentially a grocery store where you just take what you need), clothes to a clothing depot, etc etc etc.

No need for pieces of paper to exchange. Giving worth to stupid things such as paper and gold is absurd.
well, i believe in assessing people's needs by the number of people in a family or group of people that live together and based on any illnesses, and based on age and then giving them something similar to food stamps or clothing stamps to trade in. and of course respecting reasonable requests to make exceptions. all of this to stop overuse. people COULD trade stamps, but you wouldn't really need to because you could just send a letter to the local government saying that you use more flour or whatever and getting more. and i don't really see the harm if somebody trades a clothes stamp for a poundcake (or other commodity) or another kind of stamp.
EDIT: and of course putting reasonable expiration dates on stamps.

[Tablo]

So Anarchist Catalonia practiced wage slavery?
Catalonia never achieved Communism so I don't see how this is applicable.


I could swear I've had this exact same argument with you before.

"Wage slavery" refers to the fact that the worker only recieves payment for her means of subsistence while the capitalist reaps surplus-value. The consumption of the commodities bought with the wages forces the worker back onto the labour market to sell his or her labour and again increase the surplus-value of the capitalist.

In the scheme we're talking about the producers collectively appropriate the conditions of production instead of having their labour commodified.



Yes, it represents a certain quantum of social labour time.
Whatever the case the worker is still working for what is still essentially a wage. Labor vouchers are still currency as they are used to exchange their hours of labor for goods and services. Currency does not exist in Communism. This was one of the debates between the Collectivist Anarchists and the Communist Anarchists. There is no need to maintain a feature of a market economy in a post-scarcity society. During transition and in times of scarcity I can see the necessity of labor vouchers, but they are not in any way Communist.

[AK]

Whats going to stop a few individuals from pooling their vouchers together and purchasing enough means of production to form a corporation?
Do you honestly think the community will allow other workers to go and buy private property using labour vouchers?

[mikelepore]

I say free access to everything, to hell with labor vouchers. Why can't that work?

It relies on the assumption that people would work because they will know intellectually that it needs to be done, and that people wouldn't create excuses to let someone else do it. The viability of that is only a guess. Socialists who form that guess are the ones who say free access.

Another common assumption is that work in a classless society will become enjoyable to the extent that there will be no desire to avoid it. Marx projected this when he wrote, "... after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want...." There's no evidence that this will occur. Socialists who believe it are only guessing.


Who really will amass tons and tons of, say, TVs/computers, when there is no possible use for that be worth the effort (as commodity exchange would be done with)?

In the past I have expressed the the amass tons objection, but it really isn't necessary. Even if the rate of consumption is reasonable, there would still be a problem if total work hours don't produce goods and services at a rate that matches the rate of consumption. If agriculture needs 400 million hours per week, and volunteerism brings in only 100 million hours, then there would be a shortage of food. I believe that the risk is too great to suggest such a method.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

It has been said that we today could manage our society if we just chared the burden, wich means that if we just allowed evryone to work if they want and not keeping a hughe portion in the work force reserve (unemployment) we would only need to work for about 4 hours a day.

Think of that in a class/state-less society, i dont think someone would be that lazy that they wont work just a few houres per day (minimum) and if they still refuse well eighther the rest of the communisty will probably look down at them ore we could just live with it. I mean if i just had to work for 4 hours and like 99% of all healthy adults would share it and society dont just provide us with the absolute necessary but also much more to make life fun, comfortable and meaningsful then i wouldnt care if 1% where just lazy.

[robbo203]

well, i believe in assessing people's needs by the number of people in a family or group of people that live together and based on any illnesses, and based on age and then giving them something similar to food stamps or clothing stamps to trade in. and of course respecting reasonable requests to make exceptions. all of this to stop overuse. people COULD trade stamps, but you wouldn't really need to because you could just send a letter to the local government saying that you use more flour or whatever and getting more. and i don't really see the harm if somebody trades a clothes stamp for a poundcake (or other commodity) or another kind of stamp.
EDIT: and of course putting reasonable expiration dates on stamps.


But all this just adds to bureaucracy and diverts resources and labour away from direct socially useful production. Why not just let people determine their own needs and freely take from the common stores which is what real communism is about anyway? Its a far more efficient and streamlined mode of distribution because it is far less costly than any other conceivable alternative

[DenisDenis]

Whats stopping people from just taking much more than they need?

I think the easiest to compare this with is when you download (illegaly
ofcourse :p) let's say a game. You could download it as much as you want,
you could fill up your whole hard-drive or even burn extra cd's with this game,
but this is useless, you only use one instance of the download. So to
download it a couple of times would just be a waste of time...

Do mind that im speaking of a world where everything is produced in
abundance.

[Pawn Power]

What a great call to rally the working class around. Fight for communism! For a world were everyone gets a toaster except for lazy people!


Here's what I've always thought:

For resources like food, water, and shelter, they should be free no matter what . People should be able to take the food, water, etc. that they NEED. You wouldn't able to take all the world's resources, the community wouldn't let it happen.

However, for things like toasters, televisions, ie things you don't need, labor vouchers would come in. Labor Vouchers aren't money because money always has value, no matter how many hours you've worked. Labor Vouchers would be based on how many hours you worked.

[Pawn Power]

I love the split between the suspiciously capitalism like "work voucher" advocates and the "yay utopia, everyone gets everyone gets everything" folks. :lol:

Surely you all can image more create solutions?

EDIT:

Then again, I don't know how useful these practices of imagination are.

[DenisDenis]

I love the split between the suspiciously capitalism like "work voucher" advocates and the "yay utopia, everyone gets everyone gets everything" folks. :lol:

Surely you all can image more create solutions?

EDIT:

Then again, I don't know how useful these practices of imagination are.

I think that in a COMMUNIST world, the whole world can be developed
enough to a point that it can produce like there's no tommorow. i believe
the work voucher idea is more a socialist measure to graduately introduce
communism.

I dont think there's anything wrong with both of these ideas?
What would you propose then?

[Pawn Power]

I think that in a COMMUNIST world, the whole world can be developed
enough to a point that it can produce like there's no tommorow. i believe
the work voucher idea is more a socialist measure to graduately introduce
communism.

I dont think there's anything wrong with both of these ideas?
What would you propose then?

I thought the original question wasn't about if there would be enough to go around (which is debatable) but if lazy people should get certain things (like toasters :lol:). I don't know the answer to this riddle and like I said, I don't know how useful it is to debate these sorts of things. I would image communities would have different systems of distribution.

[Adil3tr]

A system of each according to his need was a socialist concept older than marx, but marx made it better with the society of abundance that would exist under communism. If there is more than you need or want, then there is no problem. :cool:

[mikelepore]

It has been said that we today could manage our society if we just chared the burden, wich means that if we just allowed evryone to work if they want and not keeping a hughe portion in the work force reserve (unemployment) we would only need to work for about 4 hours a day.

Think of that in a class/state-less society, i dont think someone would be that lazy that they wont work just a few houres per day (minimum) and if they still refuse well eighther the rest of the communisty will probably look down at them ore we could just live with it. I mean if i just had to work for 4 hours and like 99% of all healthy adults would share it and society dont just provide us with the absolute necessary but also much more to make life fun, comfortable and meaningsful then i wouldnt care if 1% where just lazy.

If you assume that a certain number of people would volunteer for work, then you figure that this corresponds to having a 4 hour workday, then you find out that only one-fourth as many people volunteer for work as you had expected, now you would have a 16 hour workday. There's no escape from the conclusion that there is a serious problem with assuming that people will volunteer.

[mikelepore]

Then again, I don't know how useful these practices of imagination are.

While some members of the working class oppose the idea of socialism no matter now we might frame it, there are many who oppose socialism solely because "it sounds like a beautiful dream, but I can't visualize how it could be practical." That places the burden on socialists to offer goals that are known to be workable, and for which we can demonstrate with specific reasons why they these goals are known to be workable. Otherwise, when the working class refuses to listen to us, it would be our own fault. Therefore discussions like this are useful. We have the responsibility to check and recheck that the case for socialism doesn't rely on any untestable assumptions. The practice of compensating individual workers for their work time has been used since ancient times. A concept of socialism that uses this practice makes the fewest unwarranted assumptions.

[Obzervi]

when you drink water from the tap do you take more than you need?
Well water is a necessity. It gets tricky though when you talk about things like cars, tvs, and clothing. These things are wants, and I believe there should be restrictions in place prohibiting people from taking more than a certain amount of these things.

[Magón]

Well water is a necessity. It gets tricky though when you talk about things like cars, tvs, and clothing. These things are wants, and I believe there should be restrictions in place prohibiting people from taking more than a certain amount of these things.

Well it's often thought that by when Communism (it's true form) comes to be, people will have the mindset that they each have according to their needs, and that anything more isn't as vital or needed as much as say a good glass of water, or whatever. But if this mindset of knowing what's needed, and what's not needed in excess, has not come to be yet in Communism, than obviously some regulations (not laws or anything like that) but basic rules set down for people to reasonable live under, that go according to food, clothing, etc. Or people could just use Common Sense, which Communism in it's true form would be. No more than to each man's needs. Anything more is able to be gotten rid of without a seconds hesitation or second thought.