Labour Vouchers

[Peoples' War]

From my understanding of the idea of labour vouchers, is that it comes form the idea of "to each according to his work", which stems from Marx in The Critique of the Gotha Programme.

In the lower phase of socialism, which comes after transition, we will need a form of socialist market economy, where vouchers are given according to quantity of work, and they allow you to get what you need. Obviously you cannot buy the means of production, so accumulation isn't possible.

This is phased out when we achieve abundance and organization that is fully prepared to go to the idea of "to each according to his need".

Am I missing anything here?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You're essentially right, but also a couple of extra things.

You say that accumulation won't be possible, but we need to add in that this will be because labour vouchers would not be relative to the inherent, exchange or 'money' value of any good. That is, there won't be a situation where good 1 has a value of 10 labour vouchers and good 2 has a value of 20 labour vouchers. Rather, as I understand it, labour vouchers will be allocated for a basket of produced goods. Similar to a ration system, except there will be no ration upper limit as - as you correctly point out - the rationale behind 'to each according to his work' is that you get out what you put in.

I'm pretty sympathetic to this idea. I think it's pretty utopian to think that we can simply abolish money. Like it or not, society is based on the idea of money, of accumulation and of value being seen at the point of exchange, rather than at the point of production with the value of labour, raw materials etc. Labour vouchers abstract the ability of people to consume from their ability to match their labour income to the exchange value of a basket of goods they demand, but still retain the link between labour time inputted, and labour income outputted.

Of course, the next step, 'to each according to his need', is both contentious and difficult to really plan for.

My personal view is that only once Capitalism has been demolished, the idea of accumulation of capital and 'money' abolished, that we will have a clearer idea of what the world will look like according to the mantra, 'to each according to his need.'

[shinjuku dori]

Not really "The Boss." Already there is a crisis of overproduction. One example: There are 3 or 4 times more empty houses than homesless people in America right now! There is more food produced than there are empty stomachs. And necessary labor time has been brought to almost nothing by automation for so many things. It will be even more so when profit is not a motivation for production. How about all of the digital goods? Consumer electronics? Almost effortless to create now. Big televisions dropped price about 75% in 2-3 years!

How about all of the people in the world not used in useful sense? 75-80% of the world contributes nothing of use value - unemployed, underemployed, employed in something like insurance, accounting, finance, selling things, advertising, law, taking tickets in train or movie theatre, like that.

The real problem is to break the domination of capital itself. To abolish it. Producing what we need is not real problem now.

Labor voucher will not be like money with an amount. It will just show that you did you work for that period. If we decide everyone gotta do 5 hours of work in one kind of job and 1 hour of work in social work (like cleaning up) per week, then in the early period, it will show that you did your 6 hours and so are entitled to partake in the benefits of social production.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think you're kind of agreeing with what I said, if you read my post a bit more carefully.

You're of course right to critique Capitalism as, generally speaking, a crisis of over-production and mis-management of the distribution of resources, as opposed to a crisis of under-production/over-population. What labour vouchers - in the form of a unit abstracted from the value ascribed to exchange - will do is help to end over-production by moving the production process towards a more democratic one whereby needs are catered for first, before wants. So, without capital, without the profit motive where Capitalists have an incentive to keep wages down and prices high (so you have a poor working class and a salaried consumer middle strata in society), the abolition of money and the introduction of vouchers would lead to a situation where there is no 'price' for a good, and no 'wages'. Merely, people get out the equivalent (in goods, services received) that they put in. Combined with democratic planning this, in theory, would lead to both the greatest possible number of units produced, with a greater emphasis on efficient distribution and production for need first, only producing for luxurious wants when needs have been satisfied. This surely has to be our aim. It seems quite logical and obvious to me.

[ckaihatsu]

[L]abour vouchers would not be relative to the inherent, exchange or 'money' value of any good. That is, there won't be a situation where good 1 has a value of 10 labour vouchers and good 2 has a value of 20 labour vouchers. Rather, as I understand it, labour vouchers will be allocated for a basket of produced goods.




[S]ociety is based on the idea of money, of accumulation and of value being seen at the point of exchange, rather than at the point of production





Labor voucher will not be like money with an amount. It will just show that you did you work for that period. If we decide everyone gotta do 5 hours of work in one kind of job and 1 hour of work in social work (like cleaning up) per week, then in the early period, it will show that you did your 6 hours and so are entitled to partake in the benefits of social production.


From cumulative discussions here at RevLeft on this topic I've come to the conclusion that it's inherently too complicated to try to find a suitable ratio of labor-to-vouchers, or even labor-to-goods, because of the complexity of the supply chains that go into producing any manufactured good these days. (Consider how cumbersome it would be to track down all of the component labor inputs that go into each of the component parts, proportionally, for any given electronics consumer good, for example.)

And even if all of this *were* possible, such a system of valuation calculations may not necessarily take into account the relative *scarcity* or *difficulty* involved in *sourcing* the various materials needed from different areas on the globe -- not to mention the different types of labor required for the same.

As a result of these logistical concerns I've developed a position on this issue that provides flexible, floating valuations for varying types of liberated labor, with the world's means of mass production at its disposal:








To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269

[shinjuku dori]

Not so difficult. Each corporation already knows the labor cost of a product. Labor cost plus profit equals labor time involved. Follow the chain with component parts.

Calculate the total amount of production needed. Divide by the amount of labor time needed. Now you know how much work needs to be done, and how much per person.

Most things are already computerized and databased. We just have to take over the databases.

[ckaihatsu]

Not so difficult. Each corporation already knows the labor cost of a product. Labor cost plus profit equals labor time involved. Follow the chain with component parts.

Calculate the total amount of production needed. Divide by the amount of labor time needed. Now you know how much work needs to be done, and how much per person.

Most things are already computerized and databased. We just have to take over the databases.


I appreciate this, and I also tend to agree with the process you've presented since it implies a centralization of planning.

One concern that's been raised, though -- which is the reason why I developed an alternative model -- is that of different *types* of liberated labor, in that some work roles would be more difficult (more education, training, and experience) and/or more hazardous to do than others. The argument has been made that an egalitarian post-capitalist society *shouldn't* ignore such differences, even while it eliminates the most odious tasks through automation.

So, for example, if mass demand existed for computers, and a rare earth metal like coltan was required for its manufacture and couldn't be avoided, some people would not be so 'liberated' if they had to do the dirty work of mining such metals under hazardous and life-threatening conditions. If the geographical locations were sparse there would be a practical limit to how much the work could be shared among greater numbers.

Other examples might exist as well, and of course the point would be to minimize dependence on specialization as much as possible, but the degree to which the revolution *relies* on specialization is the degree to which political power becomes concentrated in fewer hands. All the enlightened, co-participatory revolutionary politics in the world won't be able to mitigate such a material reality, and I'd rather see an agreeable system all ready to be put in place for such contingencies than to see a kind of forced-politicking taking place if and when such conditions arise on their own.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Chris said:

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity

First, i don't understand how you come to the conclusion that commodities' value according to labor cannot be measured in a labor voucher "centrally" planned economy (computerised calculations could and can in fact calculate the value of material goods), but let's assume not; what makes you think that we can go from a capitalist economy to a *half* labor credit economy without transition? It is quite obvious for economic and practical reasons that there will need to be a state capitalist money transition to a socialist labor voucher economy; given that this is a necessary step to take before reaching socialism, why could not manual labor be shortened drastically (say an immediate two hour less proletarian work day and at least half each year from annual labor productivity growth) to an extent of getting nearly rid of it within 30-60 years of transition? But whichever, calculation of individual commidity value of labor is a practical possibilty, given that (competition within economic sectors abolished, whole economic sectors monopolised and nationalised) economies have successfully been socialised and hence "centralised".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not so difficult. Each corporation already knows the labor cost of a product. Labor cost plus profit equals labor time involved. Follow the chain with component parts.

Calculate the total amount of production needed. Divide by the amount of labor time needed. Now you know how much work needs to be done, and how much per person.

Most things are already computerized and databased. We just have to take over the databases.

I'm not sure this holds. In capitalist markets, wages are not rigid, but depend largely on inflation, inflation expectations and, as you say, the mark-up (profit). Simply adding current wages together with the mark-up will NOT produce an accurate value of labour. Rather, it is seriously more complicated than that. Moreover, the current labour market wage is distorted by government interventions, unemployment benefits, minimum wages and the actual existence of unemployment, none of which would (theoretically) occur in a post-monetary, post-Capitalist system where labour vouchers were the means of 'remuneration'.

So really we will need to actually construct ourselves a new calculation of the value of labour, that is free of the shackles of 'invisible hand' market considerations, free of the pro-money ideas of inflation, inflation expectations, and free of the type of distortions that the monetary system curently brings in the form of minimum wage, welfare transfers and unemployment. This will need to be constructed more with the following in mind:

The cost of extraction of raw materials (safety equipment, technology etc.
The 'natural' value of raw materials
The cost of depreciation of technology (capital) [ties in with the first point re: the cost of extraction of raw materials]


With the above in mind, I have a question in mind. I'd be interested in particular to hear Chris' thoughts on the matter.

If the consumer economy is dominated by labour vouchers, how is the production process dominated? I.e. by what mechanism does production replace capital (i.e. deal with the natural and inevitable depreciation of technological capital), and by what mechanism does a production collective, a sector or an industry commission R&D, or actually invest in new technology, more automation etc.? How are we going to value the machinery and technology that previously came under the auspices of capital investment and accumulation?

[ckaihatsu]

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.)





First, i don't understand how you come to the conclusion that commodities' value according to labor cannot be measured in a labor voucher "centrally" planned economy


I'm not sure who you're addressing, but to clarify, the labor credits system would be congruent with orthodox socialism in that it would be a *post-commodity* economy -- with all material items open-access there could be no commodity production. (Either people are using readily available implements to produce for their own immediate needs, or else some kind of political economy and planning would have to be organized for more-socialized, complex production arrangements.)





[C]alculation of individual commidity value of labor is a practical possibilty, given that (competition within economic sectors abolished, whole economic sectors monopolised and nationalised) economies have successfully been socialised and hence "centralised".


Okay, if you want to consider liberated labor *only* as being "commodified" within that model, then that would be a term of convenience for it, as long as it's understood that no liberated labor would be under any material duress to actually *actively perform* as a commodity -- unlike the way things are now.

(The reason why this arrangement wouldn't be problematic is that there would either be enough available production, through mechanized and automated means, to have a 'commons' of open-access goods and services freely available for general consumption, or else anyone could just go ahead and freely produce for themselves, or as part of a larger social arrangement, to satisfy their personal requirements.)

(The advantage of retaining a system of floating values for liberated labor only, by the hour, is so that larger-scale projects and production runs can be properly materially valuated and planned-for. If there was mass demand for moon rocks, for example, that could actually be doable through this model since enough people would have to "put up the cash" to effectively organize enough liberated laborers to do the requisite work for such. "Cash"-in-hand directly reflects proportional labor already performed, while a 'debt' for labor indicates an outstanding promise for future work to be performed, like an I.O.U.)

[ckaihatsu]

With the above in mind, I have a question in mind. I'd be interested in particular to hear Chris' thoughts on the matter.


Certainly. Glad to oblige.





If the consumer economy is dominated by labour vouchers,


The model is distinct from the orthodox understanding / model of labor vouchers, so it's more accurate to refer to them as 'labor credits'.





how is the production process dominated?


The production process, at whatever scales and extents, would necessarily fall under a socialized political economy of some sort, pretty much *any* sort, since all material implements -- the means of mass industrial production -- would be fully open-access and not subject to valuation.





I.e. by what mechanism does production replace capital (i.e. deal with the natural and inevitable depreciation of technological capital), and by what mechanism does a production collective, a sector or an industry commission R&D, or actually invest in new technology, more automation etc.? How are we going to value the machinery and technology that previously came under the auspices of capital investment and accumulation?


Material items like technology and machinery would *not* be valued abstractly -- there would be no financial-type valuations.

Considerations of wear-and-tear, deprecation of older equipment, etc., would be wholly political and would be done explicitly as part of a collectively conscious social process of planning.

"Investment" to produce new equipment (or any goods and services) would either require voluntarism of effort on the part of liberated labor, or would require the pooling of existing labor credits and debt to enable the organization of sufficient liberated labor for the same.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is phased out when we achieve abundance and organization that is fully prepared to go to the idea of "to each according to his need".

I generally agree with what you wrote, but just wanted to expand on this part.

I think abundance is the main thing - don't know if it's a matter of being prepared in the sense of consciousness. I doubt there'd be a moment when people got together and said: "Ok, ready... three... two... one Communism!" and then discontinued all voucher or credit systems or whatnot.

I think it would probably just happen gradually as people improved production methods and organized them around needs and wants rather than just trying to catch up to demand where there are still some shortages or whatnot. Major things like Education and Healthcare and maybe transportation and maybe basic food levels could be made "free" pretty quickly assuming a relatively solid and stable post-revolution society. Then as things like housing are reorganized, then it could be possible to grantee free housing in pretty short-order, and so on. At some point a voucher or credit might just become something like a certificate - like if you work and are in good standing, then you are allowed access to all food and rooming and product services in the community. So credits or vouchers would just become increasingly meaningless until they are basically just a way to ration rare items or personal luxury things that can't be mass produced to meet demand but no one would need them 99% of the time. Any remaining rare goods or services could be decided based on a sort of time-share system (for lack of a better term) or through lottery or signing up a request and waiting until the supply allows for it.

At any rate, the point would be to reach this state of relative abundance and with that achieved some kind of rationing system or whatnot just wouldn't be necessary and would end either by conscious decision and decree or by an organic development (which is my best guess).

[ckaihatsu]

[C]redits or vouchers would just become increasingly meaningless until they are basically just a way to ration rare items or personal luxury things that can't be mass produced to meet demand but no one would need them 99% of the time. Any remaining rare goods or services could be decided based on a sort of time-share system (for lack of a better term) or through lottery or signing up a request and waiting until the supply allows for it.


I'll note and contend that, even post-capitalism, once society has been fully reorganized on a solidly humane basis, there would be an ongoing usefulness for using a labor credits system. Not all items would or *could* be made fully abundant -- certainly they would obviously be of lesser importance, by definition -- and a labor-hour credits method would be a way to assess labor-effort "costs", versus 'benefits', as an integral part of any exploratory social planning considerations.

Finding a common denominator for all liberated labor, as the labor credits system does, would be the missing 'material valuation index' that, I argue, a post-capitalist society would *require* as part of the breaking-away from dependence on the hands-off market mechanism system of material valuations.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'll note and contend that, even post-capitalism, once society has been fully reorganized on a solidly humane basis, there would be an ongoing usefulness for using a labor credits system. Not all items would or *could* be made fully abundant -- certainly they would obviously be of lesser importance, by definition -- and a labor-hour credits method would be a way to assess labor-effort "costs", versus 'benefits', as an integral part of any exploratory social planning considerations.

Finding a common denominator for all liberated labor, as the labor credits system does, would be the missing 'material valuation index' that, I argue, a post-capitalist society would *require* as part of the breaking-away from dependence on the hands-off market mechanism system of material valuations.No, I don't doubt that possibility - I just wanted to comment on the idea of the "withering away" of certain transitional systems workers would need to initially set up. I don't think there would be a time when people said: "Ok, we've transitioned, now let's start communism. It seems more likely to me that a credit-system that acts more like money as we know it would develop into something else as people remove more and more daily necessities from the unequal and artificial "scarcity" of capitalism become more abundant and readily available. As you said, credits might still be useful for rare items but abundance would take most basic necessities "out of the market".

I think there are any number of democratic and fair ways workers could set this up to ensure that the labor needed by society can be done in a fair and unobtrusive way (to individual's lives) as possible.

[ckaihatsu]

No, I don't doubt that possibility - I just wanted to comment on the idea of the "withering away" of certain transitional systems workers would need to initially set up.


Okay.





As you said, credits might still be useful for rare items but abundance would take most basic necessities "out of the market".

I think there are any number of democratic and fair ways workers could set this up to ensure that the labor needed by society can be done in a fair and unobtrusive way (to individual's lives) as possible.


Okay, certainly.





I don't think there would be a time when people said: "Ok, we've transitioned, now let's start communism.


Without meaning to be too contentious, I think that the very *definition* of an intentionally planned collectivized economy means that this kind of transition *would* be planned-out.

(It's easy to go by the default of what we have in front of us currently, which is the 'hands-off' method of automatic market functioning, for better or worse. Large-scale events just *happen*, like a perverse social 'natural selection' on fast-forward. A revolution to take us beyond capitalism would allow us to finally consciously determine the pace of world events.)





It seems more likely to me that a credit-system that acts more like money as we know it would develop into something else as people remove more and more daily necessities from the unequal and artificial "scarcity" of capitalism become more abundant and readily available.


Well, again, it would have to be *consciously* determined. Also, I don't think it has to be an either-or implementation.

The following visual model is a good resource for conceptualizing what you've just stated -- as an attachment the graphic is automatically downsized too much by the discussion board software, so I'll recommend using the link to an off-site image hosting service:


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

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Material items like technology and machinery would *not* be valued abstractly -- there would be no financial-type valuations.

Considerations of wear-and-tear, deprecation of older equipment, etc., would be wholly political and would be done explicitly as part of a collectively conscious social process of planning.

"Investment" to produce new equipment (or any goods and services) would either require voluntarism of effort on the part of liberated labor, or would require the pooling of existing labor credits and debt to enable the organization of sufficient liberated labor for the same.

I hate to come across as technocratic, but for all the will in the world, how can non-specialists actually value - accurately - the depreciation of the tangible aspects of capital investment (i.e. the wear and tear of machines, of automated aspects of the production process etc.?)

In a socialised political economy, democratic planning would require as it says on the tin - planning. To plan, we need forecasts for at least 12 months (I would presume that would not change!) to be as accurate as possible. Can this really be done by 'voluntarism' or 'collectively conscious social planning'? I'm pretty sceptical that this could be achieved. As i've said in previous threads, even when the ordinary worker become class and politically conscious, I still don't see the future (and wouldn't want a future) where people swap casual reading for Capital, and swap sports club membership or having a few brewskis on a Saturday afternoon for voluntary political activism, deciding planning quotas and other, let's be frank, quite mundane stuff.

[ckaihatsu]

I hate to come across as technocratic, but for all the will in the world, how can non-specialists actually value - accurately - the depreciation of the tangible aspects of capital investment (i.e. the wear and tear of machines, of automated aspects of the production process etc.?)


Really?? You're saying that those workers who actually work on the equipment all the time and know it inside and out would somehow *not* be aware of wear-and-tear, and of what improvements could be used in the production line -- ?

If you're really arguing this you're treading near the edge of your political credentials.

To clarify, there would be *no* 'non-specialists' since the point would be -- not to de-specialize, but to *commonize* all current specialities. Today it's the ethos behind public education -- that humanity's accumulated *knowledge* should be interwoven into our social development. For a future communist society this ethos would be extended to *utility* as well, so that society's implements would all be known and workable by all -- actually not that far-fetched since almost everything has a standard computer interface on it these days....





In a socialised political economy, democratic planning would require as it says on the tin - planning. To plan, we need forecasts for at least 12 months (I would presume that would not change!) to be as accurate as possible. Can this really be done by 'voluntarism' or 'collectively conscious social planning'? I'm pretty sceptical that this could be achieved. As i've said in previous threads, even when the ordinary worker become class and politically conscious, I still don't see the future (and wouldn't want a future) where people swap casual reading for Capital, and swap sports club membership or having a few brewskis on a Saturday afternoon for voluntary political activism, deciding planning quotas and other, let's be frank, quite mundane stuff.


Are you more concerned about the bulk *numbers* of people available for such tasks or about the *skill level* of those in active roles?

I can't speak to proposed specifics, nor do I need to attempt to overcome your skepticism -- it should suffice to say that a genuine revolution's political momentum would enable those who want active roles in collectivized production to do exactly that. I don't share your concerns about its feasibility here.