What are Labor credits and how're they different?

[rylasasin]

Now here's a thing that's been bothering me for quite a while.

I've heard of this system to replace money that socialists/communists "supposedly" propose (also something I'd like cleared up: whether they actually do or not.) called "Labor Credits" or "Labor Certificates".

What I'd like to know is what exactly is this "Labor Credit/Certificate" system and in what way it supposed to be different from the money we use today (other than name?)

[Aurora]

Labour-time vouchers or certificates are a way for individuals to receive products from the social stock according to the labour they supply, these differ from money in that they are not a universal equivalent and are unable to circulate, they can't be used to employ wage labour or to buy means of production, which makes them unable to be used as capital, they can only be used to acquire means of consumption.

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

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

[Prometeo liberado]

What will stop theses certificates from being exchanged for wage labour? And how would underground certificate-as-collateral for interest loans or the abuse of certificates by use as a speculative commodity be discouraged?

[ckaihatsu]

Labour-time vouchers or certificates are a way for individuals to receive products from the social stock according to the labour they supply, these differ from money in that they are not a universal equivalent and are unable to circulate, they can't be used to employ wage labour or to buy means of production, which makes them unable to be used as capital, they can only be used to acquire means of consumption.


This is the standard, orthodox position on this subject, and I certainly agree with it in spirit, and for the most part.





[T]he social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.


However, this is more a *political* statement than a specification -- it's easy to *say* "[H]e draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost."

Without meaning to be contentious, I'll suggest that this is not quite as simple as it sounds -- one overlooked variable in the labor-supply-to-mass-demand balance would be the hazard or difficulty of the labor involved.

And, if some kind of system of *abstracted material values* is to be used, as the text implies, then what exactly would that valuation system be indexed to -- ? It really smacks of market socialism, which is inherently problematic for this reason.

Some of these sub-issues are being batted around in discussion at this thread:


A few questions on incentive and competition

http://www.revleft.com/vb/few-questions-incentive-t172227/index.html?p=2458188





What will stop theses certificates from being exchanged for wage labour? And how would underground certificate-as-collateral for interest loans or the abuse of certificates by use as a speculative commodity be discouraged?


I actually *don't* have theoretical concerns over the possibility of corruption -- certainly the character of the society would be premised on the extent of success of the revolution, so such concerns would be directly answered by empirical results.

What's more important, I think, is to make sure that the framework used is *itself* sound and wouldn't *lend* itself to the possibility of corruption -- as with the use of a *subjective* valuation system that could potentially hinge on political groupthink or elitism.

[ckaihatsu]

So, for the record, and to recap:

We can do better than the market system, obviously, since it is zombie-like and continuously, automatically, calls for endless profit-making -- even past the point of primitive accumulation, through to overproduction and world wars, not to mention its intrinsic exploitation and oppression.

Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

I'll contend that I have developed a model that addresses all of these concerns in an even-handed way, and uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.

Mass demand, then as now, would be a matter of public discourse, but in a societal context of open access to all means of mass communication for all, with collectivized implements of mass production at its disposal. It would have no special claim over any liberated labor and would have no means by which to coerce it.

The administration of all of this would be dependent on the conscious political mass struggle, on a continuous, ongoing basis, to keep it running smoothly and accountably.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

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


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/