What do you think of a voucher system?

[The Man]

Like for an Anarcho-Communist society.

For example?

If you work 4-5 hours a day you get your needed items.
If you work 6-8 hours a day you get vouchers for luxuries such as Books, MP3s, and etc..

What do you think of that type of system?



Also, put down your suggestion on how obtain on needed items in an AnCom society such the ones said above.

[Goatpie]

How would this be any different than money?
Iv always taught of the voucher system for the unemployed and money for the workers but that well goes against communism :/

[The Man]

They couldn't be circulated once used.

[Goatpie]

I guess thats an upside
I dunno it would need alot of work to set up and keep secure,But i guess its plausabile.

[revolution inaction]

Like for an Anarcho-Communist society.

For example?

If you work 4-5 hours a day you get your needed items.
If you work 6-8 hours a day you get vouchers for luxuries such as Books, MP3s, and etc..

What do you think of that type of system?



Also, put down your suggestion on how obtain on needed items in an AnCom society such the ones said above.


books and music are needs, if people are paid for time worked its not communism.

I suggest from each according to ability, to each according to need.

[Theory&Action]

If you're looking for more in-depth analysis, Peter Kropotkin writes about how a voucher system is inherently flawed in The Conquest of Bread from an anarcho-communist POV.

[Obzervi]

I vote against it. Everything should be free.

[Tablo]

Agree with all of you. I want the socialist gift economy that is communism, not some collectivist wage system. Labor vouchers are perfectly acceptable in the transition to communism though.

[Kotze]

I am absolutely against artificially imposed copy restrictions on text and audio data. But even with better examples for luxuries I find it problematic to have a binary distinction luxury/non-luxury.

I have proposed to measure degree of "luxuriness" via the K-Ratio, which is based on these premises:
1) High degree of luxuriness means little utility for high cost of production.
2) As one's income rises, as a solid rule of thumb one's happiness rises in a less than proportional way.

People receive electronic buying points to buy stuff. Regardless of income differences, everybody receives the same amount of signal points which are embedded in and evenly divided among the buying points you have. If you have twice my income, this means you have twice the amount of buying points and in one of your buying points the embedded amount of signal points is half of what it is with one of my buying points.

For any type of item you can look at how buying points spent on units of it relate to the signal points embedded in these buying points. An item's K-Ratio is the number of signal points spent on it divided by the number of buying points spent on it. A high number is an indicator that it's an important item. So instead of some high council making the decision whether something is a luxury or essential to curb or support its production, this ratio can be used more directly. It might be a good idea to use cryptography, so that the ratio isn't revealed with the individual purchase, but only in aggregates.

However, this wouldn't curb a specific problem that a less unequal income distribution would curb, the wasteful use of something that is yours, eg. feeding subsidized high-quality food intended for human consumption to your pets or throwing much of it away.


If you're looking for more in-depth analysis, Peter Kropotkin writes about how a voucher system is inherently flawed in The Conquest of Bread from an anarcho-communist POV.I had a look at Conquest of Bread (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23428/23428-h/23428-h.htm)'s chapter 13, and I found the arguments against labour vouchers unconvincing.
We have said that certain collectivist writers desire that a distinction should be made between qualified or professional work and simple work. They pretend that an hour's work of an engineer, an architect, or a doctor, must be considered as two or three hours' work of a blacksmith, a mason, or a hospital nurse. And the same distinction must be made between all sorts of trades necessitating apprenticeship, and the simple toil of day labourers.

Well, to establish this distinction would be to maintain all the inequalities of present society. It would mean fixing a dividing line, from the beginning, between the workers and those who pretend to govern them. It would mean dividing society into two very distinct classes—the aristocracy of knowledge placed above the horny-handed lower orders—the one doomed to serve the other; the one working with its hands to feed and clothe those who, profiting by their leisure, study how to govern their fosterers.He doesn't make a distinction here between the price of a produced thing and the payment a person receives. If society pays for your education and you even get a training income, this cost should be included in considerations when planning production in your sector and it should be included in calculating the price of what you produce (usually that is, it doesn't apply to doctors). This does not imply a higher income for you.

To prevent that a caste forms out of high-paid groups it's important to uphold the principle that deciding on pay differentials has to be democratic, the power of an individual's vote regarding these decisions must always be independent of that person's own income level.
Services rendered to society, be they work in factory or field, or mental services, cannot be valued in money.There is a little problem with his statement and that is that stuff actually happens to be valued in money, and for all it's shortcomings it is widely agreed to be a useful measure when it comes to many questions.

He goes into some rant about two things:
a) While you could say that two people work the same when you look at the long run, you can't really know what this or that particular minute of work is worth.
b) Often people who perform different tasks within production of something (example given is a mine) are all needed, so you can't say this or that work is more important.

He doesn't seem to grasp the consequence of the micro-macro difference he himself brought up. You can use labour values to calculate stuff when work is done in huge groups. Of course people have different abilities, some work a bit faster, some slower. The tails of a distribution tend to cancel out; the bigger the group under consideration is, the better this works. This can be used for the rough allocation of funds based on labour time.

On the micro level it of course happens that some work harder than others, so there should be some localized decisions among the workers who deserves to get a bit more. Even when every group member is pivotal for a project, it still doesn't follow that they all should be paid the same if the tasks differ in how arduous they are.

Kropotkin doesn't really offer an alternative.

[mikelepore]

I think it would require each person to have an hour total kept by a computer. If you work 4 hours, then 4 hours are added to your total. If you want that chair, and it takes 18 minutes to manufacture that chair, 18 minutes get subtracted from your total. More precisely, everyone has to work additional time to allow some product to be free, and almost all of us would agree some products should be free, a list that I would begin with medicine and education and so forth. There has to be a correction in the accounting for that. Maybe to get that 18 minute chair you will have to work 25 minutes. With such a correction, society's inventory can distribute some products for free and other products individually accounted for.

[ckaihatsu]

I think it would require each person to have an hour total kept by a computer. If you work 4 hours, then 4 hours are added to your total. If you want that chair, and it takes 18 minutes to manufacture that chair, 18 minutes get subtracted from your total. More precisely, everyone has to work additional time to allow some product to be free, and almost all of us would agree some products should be free, a list that I would begin with medicine and education and so forth. There has to be a correction in the accounting for that. Maybe to get that 18 minute chair you will have to work 25 minutes. With such a correction, society's inventory can distribute some products for free and other products individually accounted for.


Just for the record, I like the simplicity and ease-of-use of this time-for-time approach to laboring in a post-capitalist society.

My only concern would be back to the "doctor-vs.-janitor" issue that's been popping up lately, namely that not all job roles and tasks are the same in hazard and difficulty -- even the most selfless and well-intentioned people will not gravitate towards the less desirable positions unless they had personal reasons for doing so or were somehow well-compensated for it. This leaves an unresolved societal-type issue outstanding with this proposal.

[ckaihatsu]

People receive electronic buying points to buy stuff. Regardless of income differences, everybody receives the same amount of signal points which are embedded in and evenly divided among the buying points you have. If you have twice my income, this means you have twice the amount of buying points and in one of your buying points the embedded amount of signal points is half of what it is with one of my buying points.

For any type of item you can look at how buying points spent on units of it relate to the signal points embedded in these buying points. An item's K-Ratio is the number of signal points spent on it divided by the number of buying points spent on it. A high number is an indicator that it's an important item. So instead of some high council making the decision whether something is a luxury or essential to curb or support its production, this ratio can be used more directly. It might be a good idea to use cryptography, so that the ratio isn't revealed with the individual purchase, but only in aggregates.


I think what you're *getting at* is that you want to have a *quantitative* representation (and utility) of the equality that we would realize with a communism-type society. This is where the 'signal points' come into play. At the same time you want to retain the *flexibility* of individual prerogative and self-directed work ability, so that no one is "capped" or inhibited against the free exercise of their full abilities, and rewarded appropriately for such. This is where the 'buying points' are used, basically the same as cash income today.

What's fascinating about your "K-Ratio" is that is crystalizes these two components into two separate working variables, respectively, and puts them into diametrical (mathematical) *opposition* to each other, on either side of the division bar. The only way to transcend this formalized contradiction, then, is with some sort of state-like planning oversight entity that makes judgment calls for production based on these K-Ratios.

At this point in my description so far I actually have no objections, but I'd like to note that there's still the oil-and-water issue of how could the regulatory agency (that derives its authority on the basis of mass K-Ratio values) win out over the more market-oriented pressures for expanded production on the basis of accumulations of buying points? And what would prevent the emergence of black markets using only buying points, thus making an end run around the central authority's insistence on going by K-Ratio values -- ?

I'd like to go further and suggest an alteration -- what if, instead of *dividing*, a universal signal-points scale of 1-100 for each individual was used as a *percentage* (1% to 100%) to represent the *total sum of their assigned political importance on consumption from the greater society* -- ?

This would mean that everyone -- anyone -- would have 100 signal points to assign within any uniform, set time period. For this time period their actual earned income of varying buying points would be *politicized* by being multiplied by some fraction of their 100 total signal points. All of their purchases within this set time period would add up to all 100 of their signal points, no matter who they were. In this way the political component would *complement* a person's raw buying power -- however that came to be defined -- by *qualifying* those buying points according to the person's *own* politicization distributions of signal points.

Perhaps the societal administration would be tasked to sort all consumer orders according to signal points *first*, to reveal people's political *priorities* in purchases -- this would be informative just for the survey-like statistics it would generate, in a way not even done today, though certainly doable. From the individual through to the highest levels of potential planning, such a rating and sorting system would be enlightening and revealing, motivating a move in the direction of a real mass-inclusively-planned political economy. (!)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Probably a better system is from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

In this sort of system, labour vouchers can certainly be used. However, we'd need to set up some sort of categorisation. I'd suggest splitting 'normal' goods and 'luxury' goods; normal goods to be freely available at the point of use (perhaps incurring some sort of labour voucher tax that pools into a social fund), luxury goods to require the use of vouchers.

Vouchers could then be split into several types: labour vouchers (essentially, hard currency), holiday vouchers, food vouchers, gym/sport vouchers etc., all to be put into a bundle that is paid periodically per labour completed.

Note: this should only be a transitionary measure until some enlightened soul(s) can find a way of utilising organisational capacity to be able to manage the economy without the corrupting institution of money/vouchers/currency of any kind.

[ckaihatsu]

Probably a better system is from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

In this sort of system, labour vouchers can certainly be used. However, we'd need to set up some sort of categorisation. I'd suggest splitting 'normal' goods and 'luxury' goods; normal goods to be freely available at the point of use (perhaps incurring some sort of labour voucher tax that pools into a social fund), luxury goods to require the use of vouchers.

Vouchers could then be split into several types: labour vouchers (essentially, hard currency), holiday vouchers, food vouchers, gym/sport vouchers etc., all to be put into a bundle that is paid periodically per labour completed.

Note: this should only be a transitionary measure until some enlightened soul(s) can find a way of utilising organisational capacity to be able to manage the economy without the corrupting institution of money/vouchers/currency of any kind.


I for one have a position that it is not a good idea to juxtapose labor hours against the provision of material goods and services. This only invites the obvious calculations in people's heads and the entire set of politics (and economics) to provide some kind of matching-up from the former component to the latter.

I advocate an approach that is premised on mass human-needs demand being fulfilled with whatever liberated mass collectivized society is able and willing to produce, with liberated labor having "veto power" over the mass demand while also self-organizing its own ranks.

Nonetheless what I advocate is not just a hazy one-big-potluck dream -- there's a model that spells out structural specifics with a mind towards material-based tracking and balancing:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[PoliticalNightmare]

From each, blah blah blah is just a totally stupid idea and totally unworkable. It would be unfair on the more productive member's of society. I am not saying we shouldn't look out for those genuinely unable to work, but a small deduction from labour vouchers is all that is necessary.

I would definitely go with distribution according to labour time. Over time, perhaps there will not be a need to keep such strict measures, in which case there can be a general rule of thumb that you can take what you need provided you (a) work and (b) don't go overboard but you would need a massive degree of mutual trust in the local community for it to work. But calculation is still needed to be able to determine the value of goods to be able to make rational decision making, so it seems rather pointless to me to deviate from the labour voucher system.

[revolution inaction]

From each, blah blah blah is just a totally stupid idea and totally unworkable. It would be unfair on the more productive member's of society.


no it wouldn't, in a communist system if someone is significantly more productive than average the its because they want to be.
paining people according to hours worked could be unfair to the more productive people though, they would get more done but get paid the same as less productive people.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think labor time is a very useful accounting tool for socialism. Why? It imposes instant egalitarianism and labor power: you - and every worker like you - is contributing equal quantities of your life-time to socially-necessary production. However, I don't see why this would have to be the only thing that goes into 'cost-of-product-in-labor-points'. We could easily assess given taxes to discourage anti-social forms of consumption. We might also want to impose other forms of economy - energy or raw-material accounting, intrinsically taking on qualities of scarcity in supply. The key issue is you are paid in labor notes based on your labor-time performed. Additional "bonus" labor may be paid to people who do less-desired jobs, relative to how less-desired they are (here we can consider Hahnel and Albert's critical analysis of the modern division of labor). However, labor-points or labor-notes are not able to be circulated. Furthermore, in a less individualist-consumerist society, many more goods and services would be appropriated socially. Your cooperative housing might acquire certain goods and services to be rationed, shared, or perhaps raffled off to member-residents from the local consumer organization. Your workplace might do the same, partnering to cover the costs of workers' dining halls and recreational rooms.

[PoliticalNightmare]

no it wouldn't, in a communist system if someone is significantly more productive than average the its because they want to be.

Yes but why would they want to be more productive if their goods were distributed to labourers less productive than they were and they were receiving less than what they would do, under, lets say a labour voucher system which directly rewards productivity?


paining people according to hours worked could be unfair to the more productive people though, they would get more done but get paid the same as less productive people.

That's why hours worked takes into account the average labour time required to produce an article.

E.g., if, by measuring the average labour time of 100 people, it is found that on average, a person cleans 5 windows per hour, then it is taken for granted that a person who has cleaned 5 windows has worked for one hour.

5 windows cleaned = 1 hour of labour = x

If I clean 5 windows in an hour, I am given a labour voucher worth x. If I take a lot of tea breaks and it takes me two hours to clean 5 windows, I won't be paid for two hours' work, only one hours' work because I have been "lazy"; my labour voucher will be worth x and not 2x, despite working for 2 hours. If, I am super productive and can clean 10 windows in one hour, then it is assumed I have worked two hours and I can get a labour voucher worth 2x despite only working 2 hours.

Also important is the mode of production; the processes used in the delivery and production of goods.

10 apples = The sum of(x hours of apple picking + x hours of delivery) = 2 x

For cleaning 10 windows (2x), I can deposit my labour vouchers (which are immediately destroyed), worth 2x into the community bank and withdraw 10 apples, as an example. In this way, quantity of goods is maximised.

If the apples have gone rotten or taste bad, it is a fault of the producer, and I decide not to consume them. If no-one consumes them, the community bank will not pay the producer any labour vouchers. In this way, quality of goods is maximised, by making the producer accountable for to the consumer.

The fact that the mode of production can be calculated in terms of labour time means that producers can compare various modes of production in terms of costs and then pick the most efficient mode of production. This way, they can not only distribute consumption goods but they can also form the most effective manner of producing consumption goods to provide for everyone in the community.

[ckaihatsu]

Hope you don't mind *too* much, but I have to question the examples you're using -- washing windows and apple-picking -- ? -- !

Are *these* really the kinds of tasks that a post-capitalist political economy would be *most* concerned with?

(Consider that if most of the existing grandiose building structures -- like skyscrapers -- meant solely for capitalist business purposes were to be decommissioned it would free up a lot of labor time for more humane and meaningful uses, rather than tending to the minutiae of the current societal material world.)

In a post-commodified world people could tend to their immediate environments for the most part and that would be more than sufficient for their own living requirements. Beyond that would be socialized inputs into the greater, more-civilizational society, as for scientific research and artistic pursuits. But in all cases the bare comfortable minimum for everyday living would *not* take much effort, especially if it leveraged some modest degree of local social organization.

More to the point would be how *industrial* implements would be collectively co-administered and how its component blue-collar labor would self-organize and interface with the larger mass society regarding productive capacities.

[Hoplite]

For those arguing that everything should be free, in principal I do agree however I think this is an overly-idealistic idea that does not address the problem of resource shortage.

Not everything can be free when you only have a limited amount of resources. What do you do to ensure resources are not squandered?

[Rooster]

Can't we just add up all the stuff we've made at the end of the day and divy it up between everyone?

[Rooster]

My only concern would be back to the "doctor-vs.-janitor" issue that's been popping up lately, namely that not all job roles and tasks are the same in hazard and difficulty -- even the most selfless and well-intentioned people will not gravitate towards the less desirable positions unless they had personal reasons for doing so or were somehow well-compensated for it. This leaves an unresolved societal-type issue outstanding with this proposal.

I would argue that the role of janitor would not exist in a communist society. I don't think being a janitor is socially necessary labour. If your job created use-value then it would survive into a post-capital society, more or less.

I also don't think dangerous of difficult jobs would last very long. Either more people help out with the job making it less difficult and dangerous, or it'll just disappear all together. You'd have to provide some examples though.

[The Militant]

Like for an Anarcho-Communist society.

For example?

If you work 4-5 hours a day you get your needed items.
If you work 6-8 hours a day you get vouchers for luxuries such as Books, MP3s, and etc..

What do you think of that type of system?



Also, put down your suggestion on how obtain on needed items in an AnCom society such the ones said above.
For a socialist system that is not a bad idea albeit flawed but communism is the mere exchange of goods so that renders the voucher system unnecessary.

[ckaihatsu]

For those arguing that everything should be free, in principal I do agree however I think this is an overly-idealistic idea that does not address the problem of resource shortage.

Not everything can be free when you only have a limited amount of resources. What do you do to ensure resources are not squandered?


'Squandered' is a value judgment, and possibly a moral judgment. If it's a moral judgment then it's stemming from someone's own subjective system of personal values which may or may not be based in objective material social reality.

If it's strictly a value judgment then either it's a sound one -- taking relevant material factors into account -- or it isn't.

I'd go so far as to say that 'squandered' only applies if the overall situation is *truly* a zero-sum one -- meaning that using something up in one place will cause someone somewhere else to have to go without the same kind of thing and/or utility. The classic example, of course, is food in our present world situation -- it's *not* a zero-sum situation since there's plenty of surplus that is systematically destroyed every day, keeping it from reaching those who are hungry and could use it the best. Additionally, wasting food that's already been purchased has no effect on the larger whole, either, unless that portion is also somehow re-distributed (delivered) directly to those who would eat it.





Can't we just add up all the stuff we've made at the end of the day and divy it up between everyone?


Geography and the various locations of where things are sourced from, and need to go to, make this a more complex problem than we'd like it to be.

[Hoplite]

'Squandered' is a value judgment, and possibly a moral judgment. If it's a moral judgment then it's stemming from someone's own subjective system of personal values which may or may not be based in objective material social reality Feeding part of a limited supply to the squirrels to see them dance is squandering resources. Be as idealistic as you want, supplies in any community are not (yet) unlimited and the first priority of any community is seeing that the bare essentials are available for all members of the community. If someone is wasting resources by using those resources in a fashion that does not in any way help himself or the community, that is squandering.

[ckaihatsu]

Feeding part of a limited supply to the squirrels to see them dance is squandering resources. Be as idealistic as you want, supplies in any community are not (yet) unlimited and the first priority of any community is seeing that the bare essentials are available for all members of the community. If someone is wasting resources by using those resources in a fashion that does not in any way help himself or the community, that is squandering.


Yes, of course you're correct in your example -- at the same time I have to note that your context is *the community*. Politically we have to inquire if and why more (bread) *isn't* making it into the community -- is there any good reason why more resources *can't* be brought into the community?

The frustrating thing is that under the current capitalist status quo the term 'supply' is invariably used to refer to the supply of *capital*, and then it's an insular matter, limited to those circles that already deal in the stuff. The term 'supply' *isn't* used in the sense of 'what actual helpful resources can be brought in as supplies'. So, by extension, 'supply-side' *really* means 'from the perspective of those who have capital in supply', *not* 'concerned with making available the supply of provisions that can fulfill human-needs demand'.

[robbo203]

I largely agree with the postion of the WSM (see below) - that labour vouchers are unnecessary.

I would add that I think the very adminstration of a labour voucher system would be hugely bureaucratic with high transaction costs, socially divisive and inherently problematic (how do you measure the relative input of different grades/kinds of labour; on the other hand, treating all labour time units as equal will be disincentivising and divisive). Not only that. while labour vouchers are said to be distinguishable from money in that they do not circulate I think, in the end, they will come to circulate and so a labour voucher system stands a high chance of returning us back in the blissful embrace of capitalism.

Free access communism, by contrast, pares down all transactions costs to the bare minimum. It is the most highly efficient or least wasteful system on offer. The arguments that are predictably made against it are those same old hoary chestnuts we keep hearing from the defenders of capitalism - that human beings are inherently lazy or greedy. These have been more than adequately dealt with elsewhere.

Insofar as some form of rationing may be needed for some goods in short supply (which, because of the systematic bias in communist resource allocation towards prioritising the satisfaction of basic needs, will tend to be luxury goods) there are simpler more straitforward and less problematic models of rationing than labour vouchers. I advocate a compensation model of rationing as far as these scarce goods are concerned

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/labour_vouchers.php

Labour Vouchers

What are labour vouchers?

Labour vouchers (or labour cheques, labour certificates, labour-time vouchers) are a device suggested to govern demand for goods in "socialism", much as money does today under capitalism.
Originally proposed by Robert Owen in 1820, they were later taken up by Marx in 1875, to deal with the immediate and temporary shortages remaining from capitalism, if socialism had been established at that time.
The World Socialist Movement opposes labour vouchers entirely, because they will not be needed or desirable.
Those who support labour vouchers have several different approaches or definitions of them. We try here to clarify what labour vouchers are, and why we oppose them. In the rest of this section we use the words "paid", "earned", "purchase" and similar words to mean actions in "labour voucher socialism" that would be similar to what those words mean today.
Labour voucher supporters hold the following general beliefs:


Most labour voucher supporters agree that:
Labour vouchers are paid for hours of labour performed.
Labour vouchers are not money.
Labour vouchers are used to purchase goods and services.
But they disagree with each other:
How are labour vouchers apportioned?
Each worker gets the same quantity for each hour worked. If the agreed upon rate is 100 labour vouchers for 1 hour, everyone who works for one hour gets 100 labour vouchers.
The number of labour vouchers paid per hour depends upon the difficulty or desirability of the work performed.

Temporary or Permanent?
Labour vouchers are a temporary measure. The general feeling here seems to be that people are used to money now and need time to wean themselves from it.
Labour vouchers will be permanent. These advocates say that society needs some method to restrict access to goods, and/or that without them there is no way to determine what items should be produced in what quantity when there are conflicting desires for goods.

What about those who do not or cannot work?
Basic necessities should be free to all.
Enough labour vouchers should be given out to those who do not work (or don't work enough) to ensure that they can afford basic necessities (and perhaps more).
Enough labour vouchers should be given out to those determined (by someone or some group) to be needy, or justifiably unable to work, to ensure that they can afford basic necessities (and perhaps more).

What about non-traditional work, or work not paid today? (housework, art, etc.)
Pay for housework, art etc. on an hourly basis like any other work. (possibly including difficulty factors, etc.)
Pay for art based upon desirability: how many people go to see it or some such measure.
Straight exchange: art is purchased with labour vouchers for whatever the buyer and seller agree upon.

Can labour vouchers circulate?
No. Once a purchase is made the labour vouchers are either destroyed, or must be re-earned through labour.
Yes. It appears that there are few who believe that labour vouchers should circulate like money, but there are those who believe that they can be "invested" (although not for profit, proponents assure), or that when something is purchased, the seller could use them for their own purchases.

While supporters of labour vouchers have different approaches or ways of stating their beliefs, this broad-brush approach does give a good general feel for the range of ideas of those supporting labour vouchers.
Socialism means free access to the goods and services produced by society without any exchange, barter, trading, labour vouchers, or money. Instead of arguing specifics socialists argue against the whole concept of labour vouchers.
Why the World Socialist Movement opposes Labour Vouchers

Labour vouchers are not necessary


The technical ability exists today to produce, in an ecologically responsible manner, more than enough to satisfy the self-defined needs of the world's population. There will not be a shortage of goods (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/labour_vouchers.php#NOSHORT) and therefore, artificial access limitations—labour vouchers—will not be required.
It is obvious that if everyone decided that they needed everything, free access could not work. If people want socialism to work, they must decide that they will not work to destroy it. Common sense will prevent outrageous overconsumption.
The WSM has always said that socialism cannot be established by 51% of the working class. The conscious support for socialism by the vast majority is key to the success of socialism. If only 51% of the working class support socialism and they haven't thought it out, then failure is certain. If the vast majority of the working class understands and supports the ramifications of socialism, then success is guaranteed.
Labour vouchers, given that they are unnecessary, are undesirable


Labour vouchers would tend to maintain the idea that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can own (or produce).
Labour vouchers require administration. People must spend time administering the labour vouchers themselves—who gets them (and how many), how they are reused or destroyed, etc.
Labour vouchers imply that someone must police who takes the goods produced by society. In other words there must be people who spend their time ensuring that other people do not take things without paying for them. That is normal in a profit oriented society, but a waste of human labour in socialism.
Labour vouchers, as suggested by some, are money


If "labour vouchers" circulate, they are money, no different from today and should be called money. Labour vouchers cannot circulate.
If used as originally intended, to account for hours worked, and goods taken, they are not money as meant in the broader capitalist sense. Although for workers the everyday use of labour vouchers would be very similar, labour vouchers could not be used to accumulate the means of producing wealth, which is a very important difference. Their only purpose would be to limit consumption and enforce work. Note that enforcing work was not the initial idea, but has become, to some, an important feature.
In any case, socialism will be a society of free access and voluntary labour. There will be no need for labour vouchers.
Shortages will not be a problem


In socialism, perhaps 50% or more of the work done under capitalism will not be needed. The people currently doing that work will then be available to perform useful work. This will allow for a significant reduction in the average work day.
Instead of the profit motive standing in the way of production and responsible production techniques, production will be able to meet people's needs.
People will make rational consumption choices.

Today, goods are produced to make a profit. It is therefore important to sell them, and in order to do that people must be convinced to buy the goods. It does not matter that the goods may have little or no real utility, the important consideration is selling them. With this in mind, advertising creates needs. Goods which never existed before, suddenly become absolute requirements—then they sit in closets, unused.
A large section of the genre of time-saving appliances is geared to a market that must be convinced that taking 5 seconds to chop a carrot (or whatever) for supper is too long: it can supposedly be done in 1 second if only the consumer purchases the latest, greatest appliance. That is wasteful of the earth's resources and of the labour required to produce those appliances. Without a huge advertising industry pushing the consume, consume, consume ethic at us, most people will not object to spending an extra few seconds doing household chores.
Many consumer goods are used rarely. Perhaps sharing them in a neighbourhood will replace the idea that everyone needs one of everything. This will reduce the number of these items required. That means reduced production and reduced scarcity (and therefore no need to limit access to these goods).


Some simple examples:

Lawn mowers: Maybe five or ten per block will supply the needs of everyone on the block. And maybe some avid gardeners, because they enjoy it, will do the yards of other neighbours.
Automobiles: Most cars sit idle for most of the day, some are used only a few times a month. Combined with intelligent changes in how we work, an appropriate transit system in most towns and cities can easily eliminate the need for many cars, without significantly increasing inconvenience to people who, today, drive to work. There is no reason that every family will want to own one or more cars (as is almost an accepted norm in countries such as the United States and Canada).

[ckaihatsu]

Free access communism, by contrast, pares down all transactions costs to the bare minimum. It is the most highly efficient or least wasteful system on offer. The arguments that are predictably made against it are those same old hoary chestnuts we keep hearing from the defenders of capitalism - that human beings are inherently lazy or greedy. These have been more than adequately dealt with elsewhere.


I agree with this overall approach to labor and consumption, in general, especially for the bulk of common goods and services that also happen to be most critical to people's everyday well-being. I think only the more-specialized and less-common items would be more requiring of formalized systems of material accounting, as for liberated labor hours.





Insofar as some form of rationing may be needed for some goods in short supply (which, because of the systematic bias in communist resource allocation towards prioritising the satisfaction of basic needs, will tend to be luxury goods) there are simpler more straitforward and less problematic models of rationing than labour vouchers. I advocate a compensation model of rationing as far as these scarce goods are concerned


You may want to specify what this compensation model is, exactly, considering the scope and enormity of the topic here. I developed a model that addresses all of the concerns below -- it's at post #14 and also at my blog entry.





I largely agree with the postion of the WSM (see below) - that labour vouchers are unnecessary.

I would add that I think the very adminstration of a labour voucher system would be hugely bureaucratic with high transaction costs, socially divisive and inherently problematic (how do you measure the relative input of different grades/kinds of labour; on the other hand, treating all labour time units as equal will be disincentivising and divisive). Not only that. while labour vouchers are said to be distinguishable from money in that they do not circulate I think, in the end, they will come to circulate and so a labour voucher system stands a high chance of returning us back in the blissful embrace of capitalism.


All of the variables / dynamics you've listed are valid ones and should be addressed with feasible responses. I agree with most of the position piece you posted, and I have specific replies to some points here:





Labour vouchers, given that they are unnecessary, are undesirable

* Labour vouchers would tend to maintain the idea that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can own (or produce).


A well-founded system of material accounting of some sort for maintaining the particulars of an orderly political economy does *not* imply anything about "human worth" as long as human labor is *not* being commodified -- to suggest otherwise, as is being done here, is simply a moralistic assertion.





* Labour vouchers require administration. People must spend time administering the labour vouchers themselves—who gets them (and how many), how they are reused or destroyed, etc.




Labour vouchers, as suggested by some, are money

* If "labour vouchers" circulate, they are money, no different from today and should be called money. Labour vouchers cannot circulate.


As explain in post #14, I do not advocate any kind of material accounting that attempts to translate value from labor to material goods and services, and vice-versa -- such a system of abstracted values would tend to take on a life of its own and would have to be consciously regulated (administered) to prevent it from doing so.

A good way to prevent re-commodification while still providing orderliness would be to gauge all productive activity according to labor magnitude-times-time, *only*. Those who freely provide their own liberated labor would be formally compensated with the ability to authorize future allocations of liberated labor in like amounts from others, going forward.





Labour vouchers, as suggested by some, are money

* Labour vouchers imply that someone must police who takes the goods produced by society. In other words there must be people who spend their time ensuring that other people do not take things without paying for them. That is normal in a profit oriented society, but a waste of human labour in socialism.


Some degree of administration is unavoidable, but it can be minimized and strictly defined and contained on a per-project basis, according to the outcomes of a mass-demand prioritization process of post-capitalist politics. The administration of liberated-labor-representing labor credits can be limited to their validation within a publicly transparent political economy.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Hope you don't mind *too* much, but I have to question the examples you're using -- washing windows and apple-picking -- ? -- !

Are *these* really the kinds of tasks that a post-capitalist political economy would be *most* concerned with?

Err...no they were just arbitrary examples. However, they would be just two of a whole multitude of labour that is required from farming, to steel production to highway maintenance to transportation of produce.

Given the massive variety of economic activity, I think there are certain people on this board (not you) who need to stop saying things like, "yah, goods will be given according to need, man" and "like, I think we should just be able to take whatever we want, man". There is rational economic decision making that needs to be carried out by the community and an efficient system to take over from the management provided by private and state entities that operate under the capitalist economic order.


(Consider that if most of the existing grandiose building structures -- like skyscrapers -- meant solely for capitalist business purposes were to be decommissioned it would free up a lot of labor time for more humane and meaningful uses, rather than tending to the minutiae of the current societal material world.)

Yes, *if* things go properly the necessity for labour should be greatly reduced.

[ckaihatsu]

Err...no they were just arbitrary examples. However, they would be just two of a whole multitude of labour that is required from farming, to steel production to highway maintenance to transportation of produce.




There is rational economic decision making that needs to be carried out by the community and an efficient system to take over from the management provided by private and state entities that operate under the capitalist economic order.


The rebellion playing out in Cairo and other major cities in Egypt is instructive -- much may hinge on workers' control of the railways, by which transportation for the army's armaments may be denied to them. If the army is denied their weaponry then they cannot perform their political role of "neutrality" in which they stand by while thugs loyal to Mubarak's regime are tolerated on the streets.

For immediate purposes of workers' control, decision-making and authority can be readily done on the basis of strategy against the police and military junta that act in the interests of the power-hungry regime.

In past worker occupations all that was needed was a workers' council to take care of the political matters at hand and issue authorization cards for certain types of payloads to pass through on the rail lines, while *denying* authorization to any and all payloads of artillery meant to repress protestors.

Once the *political* struggle is over, worldwide, then more-routine methods / systems of mass worker decision-making and implementation may be used, along the lines of what we're discussing on this thread.