"Taxes" and a socialist society.

[Creative Destruction]

This is something I've wondered about but never got around to asking till now.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx writes (where it regards the "first phase" of socialist society):


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.

Presumably, in this society, the concept of money has been revolutionized. It's no longer a fiat (or, in Marx's day, would've been gold backed) currency that is merely a representation of the economy as a whole. People are paid according to their labor contributed. I imagine this to be, you get one "dollar" for every hour of labor put in, since everyone's labor is equal to others. If you have two dollars, you get products that are equal to your two labor hours, as well.

Given that this is the case, what is the need for taxes? I understand the need for this moneyed system for a couple reasons: as Marx explains, it is a society fresh from the capitalist system. It's familiar. For another, it's a system that is still in a state of producing scarce products. It figures that an accounting system such as this would be needed to allay scarcity at this point.

However, it says nothing about the mechanism of the money itself. Since money in our society is used to buy commodities and access to services, and is pegged to the economy itself, and since it is a competitive and not a cooperative society based on private property, it makes sense that you need to collect taxes to purchase from private vendors or to pay people so they can have the opportunity to buy other crap in the market. In addition to all the other functions money serves.

But in this new revolutionary society, why wouldn't you just issue money per people's labor -- printing it up as needed and what not (or using an electronic debit system). Inflation isn't really an issue as far as I can tell, because the money doesn't depreciate or appreciate as you print more or destroy some measure of it. It has no other characteristics of previous money or debt certificates. It's not even really debt. It's a certificate that limits you to how much you can draw from the public store. And you don't need to limit the circulation or anything.

I hope this made some modicum of sense. Looking back on it, it doesn't really. I guess the confusion is, I'm not sure why there needs to be a deductions system when it'd be easy to just print up certificates to keep track of labor hours.

[Illegalitarian]

Pillow talk about the revolutionary world or post revolutionary world interests myself and many others, good subject!


Presumably, in this society, the concept of money has been revolutionized. It's no longer a fiat (or, in Marx's day, would've been gold backed) currency that is merely a representation of the economy as a whole. People are paid according to their labor contributed. I imagine this to be, you get one "dollar" for every hour of labor put in, since everyone's labor is equal to others. If you have two dollars, you get products that are equal to your two labor hours, as well.

The problems here are many and it's probably my biggest beef with many Marxists who believe the central vestiges of capitalism such as money, a centralized state, etc have to be phased out in "stages" or what have you.

It all just seems like the same arbitrary logic used in "subjective labor value", ie the market based pricing and wage system we have now... how long do we have to keep these vestiges around? Until people "get familiarized" with them and are prepared to transfer to a moneyless, stateless society system based on need? Do we need other phases in-between those phases? How do we gauge how many people are "used to it", and how do we know that people won't get too comfortable with this system as they are now and resist and further changes out of fear of another revolutionary upset? These people, at this phase, just went through what was probably a pretty scary and turbulent period with lots of fighting and destabilization, are they expected to just up and possibly face this again?

If you're getting paid these "dollars" for every hour of labor worked, there's still a system of inequality there akin to money that keeps the cycle of poverty running. What about those who work far less than others, such as part-time workers? As a part-time worker, I usually got around 20-something hours a week and around $110 dollars for that weeks pay. Will I get more for my 20 labor dollars than I would with my money? How do we calculate what products are worth what and how many labor dollars it takes to buy them?

Kropotkin said it best here, I think:


For instance, one could not measure the value of a factory worker's daily production without taking into account how transportation, food, water, shelter, relaxation, machine efficiency, emotional mood etc. contributed to their production. To truly give numerical economic value to anything, an overwhelming amount of externalities and contributing factors would need to be taken into account – especially current or past labor contributing to the ability to utilize future labor. As Kropotkin put it: "No distinction can be drawn between the work of each man. Measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing and measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity. One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.


Such a system would be still be entirely capitalist, just capitalism of a different, non-socialist name. There are no varying degrees of or weird hybrids of socialism and capitalism, there are just modes of production, which are quite set in stone as to what constitutes ones or the other. No need to complicate things with unneeded archaic practices such as taxes and money.

As for scarcity, the degree to which resources are scarce is highly over-exaggerated by those on the bourgeois side of economics. There is a LOT of perfectly good resources, food and luxury items that are horded or destroyed in order to keep market prices competitive. There's no denying that we're a species with infinite needs on a finite planet, but this is truism that transcends economics.



But in this new revolutionary society, why wouldn't you just issue money per people's labor -- printing it up as needed and what not (or using an electronic debit system). Inflation isn't really an issue as far as I can tell. It has no other characteristics of previous money or debt certificates. It's not even really debt. It's a certificate that limits you to how much you can draw from the public store. And you don't need to limit the circulation or anything.


I've always imagined a situation that possibly mirrors credit cards, where everyone is given a card, which are somehow marked digitally or otherwise when one has a job or is otherwise actively contributing to production in society in one way or the other. One would go to the "store" or whatever you want to call it, get what they want and get said card scanned by the "cashier" (I don't know what these people and establishments will be called post-revolution :P ) and be on their merry way.

But who knows! There's a wide variety of ways to go about this, but it will most likely, as it's developed by common people looking for an equal system of distribution to break the cycle of poverty, not be some unworkable over complicated deal.

[dudell65]

I imagine any "taxes" wouldn't be taxes as we know them under capitalism. Since labor certificates would be apportioned by labor-time, creating more labor positions would draw from the local pool of goods available.

As far as I understand it, it's more of a practical concern. If goods could be teleported between communities without cost, there wouldn't be any "tax". But your community's pool of goods available is inversely-proportional to how many people are laboring there.

...or something like that. Actually, all this only makes any sense if production scales poorly with consumption.

[Creative Destruction]

The problems here are many and it's probably my biggest beef with many Marxists who believe the central vestiges of capitalism such as money, a centralized state, etc have to be phased out in "stages" or what have you.

Marx doesn't argue that the "phase" requires a centralized state. The "stages" is a logical, maybe slightly conservative argument. Society is not going to undergo an entire revolution in a short amount of time. It's something that will happen through the years -- through generations, even. And it makes sense that a society still plagued with certain features of capitalism will retain these things until they're of no use anymore. But these things will take on a different character. Money, for instance, in this context, is not the money we know of today -- where it is a commodity used to purchase other commodities and where price can be subjected to many different variables. The "price" is objective: it's based on labor that was used to make the product and the money represents the amount of social labor hours contributed to society by any given person. As it is, you don't have to do socially necessary labor to obtain money. You can steal it, you can obtain it through merely owning property, etc.


It all just seems like the same arbitrary logic used in "subjective labor value", ie the market based pricing and wage system we have now... how long do we have to keep these vestiges around? Until people "get familiarized" with them and are prepared to transfer to a moneyless, stateless society system based on need? Do we need other phases in-between those phases? How do we gauge how many people are "used to it", and how do we know that people won't get too comfortable with this system as they are now and resist and further changes out of fear of another revolutionary upset? These people, at this phase, just went through what was probably a pretty scary and turbulent period with lots of fighting and destabilization, are they expected to just up and possibly face this again?

It's not really arbitrary. It's better to think of it as a "bet" that people will probably utilize things and institutions that are familiar to them and can still serve some sort of use until those things aren't necessary.

So, money: it sticks around until we've solved the issue of scarcity. In this instance, money is a mere accounting vehicle. It isn't value, it isn't a commodity. It's a representation of something concrete; an instrument with a very specific purpose. Once we've reached a society of post-scarcity, then the current vestiges of the system that are in place because of scarcity "wither away," so to speak. That's really key.

Anarchism doesn't really have an answer to how to get to post-scarcity. Murray Bookchin attempted it, and it was an admirable and helpful attempt, but it says nothing about what to do until we can actually achieve post-scarcity. He almost seemed to have went "Technology!" and left it at that.


If you're getting paid these "dollars" for every hour of labor worked, there's still a system of inequality there akin to money that keeps the cycle of poverty running.

No. Poverty is characterized by a gross lack of access to resources. Having a sort of accounting system to keep from overconsuming products doesn't necessitate that there is a cycle of poverty. More over, the issue of inequality is lessened by a whole lot. People aren't going to make millions because they're working 60 hours a week vs. someone who works 20 hours a week.

I wouldn't be against seeing what resources we have that aren't really scarce and considering them universal items to be used free of "cost." Housing, for example, or medical care. Or education, etc. But things that are scarce or could lead to an issue of scarcity due to overconsumption, like some food items (meat, some kinds of dairy) or consumables like silk or guitars, and making those tied to prices. Goods that aren't necessary, that could be detrimental to the environment and could wreck it if we're not careful about how we consume it.


What about those who work far less than others, such as part-time workers? As a part-time worker, I usually got around 20-something hours a week and around $110 dollars for that weeks pay. Will I get more for my 20 labor dollars than I would with my money? How do we calculate what products are worth what and how many labor dollars it takes to buy them?

Well, since items would be "priced" according to how many social labor hours went into producing it. It would take some figuring, but it's something that can be done. Remember: you're taking an equal amount of the social product as you're putting in.


Kropotkin said it best here, I think:

I don't think so. Just because something seems overbearing doesn't automatically mean that it is. It would take some word, but it'd be valuable work.


Such a system would be still be entirely capitalist, just capitalism of a different, non-socialist name.

Absolutely not. Capitalism is an economy based on private property ownership for production of profit. The means of production in this context is already socialized. There's not even an assumption of a market, as we know it today, where commodities are traded based on supply and demand. It's run for need, with some considerations about scarcity and taking into account how people might behave in a post-capitalist system they just overthrew. Taking into account that there might be some "stamps" of capitalism, as Marx put, on the system doesn't mean that it is "entirely capitalist." That's complete nonsense.


There are no varying degrees of or weird hybrids of socialism and capitalism, there are just modes of production, which are quite set in stone as to what constitutes ones or the other. No need to complicate things with unneeded archaic practices such as taxes and money.

Until you can solve the issue of scarcity, some sort of accounting method would be necessary, as well as taking into account human behavior about something new. No one is arguing "weird hybrids of socialism and capitalism." The mode of production is still socialist.


As for scarcity, the degree to which resources are scarce is highly over-exaggerated by those on the bourgeois side of economics. There is a LOT of perfectly good resources, food and luxury items that are horded or destroyed in order to keep market prices competitive. There's no denying that we're a species with infinite needs on a finite planet, but this is truism that transcends economics.

This isn't what I'm talking about when I talk about scarcity. There are items that are truly scarce that we still consume. Potable water, for instance. If you tell someone -- where potable water is scarce -- that they can just have at it without regard for what it's going to do to the overall water supply -- and you multiply this by thousands, maybe millions, of people, that is going to lead to disaster. Until we can find a way to make water not scarce -- like building desalination plants all over the place, which carry their own problems -- that is something may need to be "tolled," in a sense, to use. It's not a way to make profit, since there is literally no way to accumulate profit (I also make the assumption that these "dollars" are worthless once they've been used to "buy" whatever it is the person is getting.) What's a water plant going to do with a bunch of labor certificates, if they're just for the purpose of accounting?

[Illegalitarian]

Marx doesn't argue that the "phase" requires a centralized state. The "stages" is a logical, maybe slightly conservative argument. Society is not going to undergo an entire revolution in a short amount of time. It's something that will happen through the years -- through generations, even. And it makes sense that a society still plagued with certain features of capitalism will retain these things until they're of no use anymore. But these things will take on a different character. Money, for instance, in this context, is not the money we know of today -- where it is a commodity used to purchase other commodities and where price can be subjective. The "price" is objective: it's based on labor that was used to make the product and the money represents the amount of social labor hours contributed to society by any given person. As it is, you don't have to do socially necessary labor to obtain money. You can steal it, you can obtain it through merely owning property, etc.


It's not logical at all because it's all entirely arbitrary. No one is saying revolution will happen over night, but to break it down into "stages" and try and quantify every little step is nonsensical. There's no rule saying revolution has to happen over the period of several years, there's no way of knowing that things will have to be changes slowly because they have to be "phased out", those old capitalist ways. It will happen as it happens, there is no way to know exactly how long or how quickly the new society will be built, but surely it will be built at once as a lengthy process (no several years), and surely there will not be some strict set of rules imposed on everyone for the sake of random "stages".

How many stages? How long does each one last? What characterizes each stage? How do you "objectively" measure someone's labor value? Too many unnecessary processes that are pulled from the air, I say.



It's not really arbitrary. It's better to think of it as a "bet" that people will probably utilize things and institutions that are familiar to them and can still serve some sort of use until those things aren't necessary.


I think "guess" is a better word, and I'm guessing a revolution against the capitalist mode of production did not just happen only for the majority of people to still be "used to" how the old way was and thus cling to its vestiges.



So, money: it sticks around until we've solved the issue of scarcity. In this instance, money is a mere accounting vehicle. It isn't value, it isn't a commodity. It's a representation of something concrete; an instrument with a very specific purpose. Once we've reached a society of post-scarcity, then the current vestiges of the system that are in place because of scarcity "wither away," so to speak. That's really key.


There is no issue of scarcity, but this is your last point so I'll wait until then to address it




Anarchism doesn't really have an answer to how to get to post-scarcity. Murray Bookchin attempted it, and it was an admirable and helpful attempt, but it says nothing about what to do until we can actually achieve post-scarcity. He almost seemed to have went "Technology!" and left it at that.


re: above


No. Poverty is characterized by a gross lack of access to resources. Having a sort of accounting system to keep from overconsuming products doesn't necessitate that there is a cycle of poverty. More over, the issue of inequality is lessened by a whole lot. People aren't going to make millions because they're working 60 hours a week vs. someone who works 20 hours a week.


So there will be, let's call them labor vouchers, that cannot be accumulated and are basically symbolic of the hours of labor, which means all people have access to resources equally.. but there will also need to be barriers stop "overconsuming". How do you determine who gets more access to resources, then? It would almost have to be a system based on accumulation, and that makes it a capitalistic commodity-based monetary system where accumulation reigns supreme.


I wouldn't be against seeing what resources we have that aren't really scarce and considering them universal items to be used free of "cost." Housing, for example, or medical care. Or education, etc. But things that are scarce or could lead to an issue of scarcity due to overconsumption, like some food items (meat, some kinds of dairy) or consumables like silk or guitars, and making those tied to prices. Goods that aren't necessary, that could be detrimental to the environment and could wreck it if we're not careful about how we consume it.


See, such a system for luxury items I could maybe see happening, but again, only in a system where scarcity is truly an issue.




Well, since items would be "priced" according to how many social labor hours went into producing it. It would take some figuring, but it's something that can be done. Remember: you're taking an equal amount of the social product as you're putting in.

I don't think so. Just because something seems overbearing doesn't automatically mean that it is. It would take some word, but it'd be valuable work.


It would take all of the externalities mentioned in the quote and then some to truly be fair. Tying product directly to labor time would, in the end, be impossible to make objective and be almost every bit as arbitrary and pointless as market-based pricing.



Absolutely not. Capitalism is an economy based on private property ownership for production of profit. The means of production in this context is already socialized. It's run for need, with some considerations about scarcity and taking into account how people might behave in a post-capitalist system they just overthrew. Taking into account that there might be some "stamps" of capitalism, as Marx put, on the system doesn't mean that it is "entirely capitalist." That's complete nonsense.


As I said above, I'm afraid not. This creates a division among people and still, in essence, maintains class society, creating "haves" and "have-nots" based on what is extremely arbitrary reasoning.



Until you can solve the issue of scarcity, some sort of accounting method would be necessary, as well as taking into account human behavior about something new. No one is arguing "weird hybrids of socialism and capitalism." The mode of production is still socialist.


No, it's really not. If there is still effectively wage labor and divisions on who can and cannot have access to the things they produce and need, it is not a communist mode of production. I again don't see why a global proletarian revolution specifically against capitalism necessitates a soft "socialism" that still retains most of the exploitative organs of capital. A revolutionary movement in favor of the mode of production to advance forward on a global scale is, I would venture to say, soooo over capitalism :grin:




This isn't what I'm talking about when I talk about scarcity. There are items that are truly scarce that we still consume. Potable water, for instance. If you tell someone -- where potable water is scarce -- that they can just have at it without regard for what it's going to do to the overall water supply -- and you multiply this by thousands, maybe millions, of people, that is going to lead to disaster. Until we can find a way to make water not scarce -- like building desalination plants all over the place, which carry their own problems -- that is something may need to be "tolled," in a sense, to use. It's not a way to make profit, since there is literally no way to accumulate profit. What's a water plant going to do with a bunch of labor certificates, if they're just for the purpose of accounting?

Now we get to the very soul of the issue: What is truly scarce? Again, the majority of what is produced on earth is destroyed each year or otherwise kept from the market, so I have a hard time believing that removing barriers on resource consumption would end in a Malthusian catastrophe.

Let's take potable water for example. Economic water scarcity, according to the UN and many other organizations, is the main cause of people having to do without. That is, situations where it's not a matter of the existence of enough potable water for consumption that is the issue, but rather, a lack of man power of infrastructural capacity to make that water accessible, caused again by a lack of money.

This is the nature of scarcity, for the vast majority of so-called "scarce" things: It's a social construct, entirely imposed by a bourgeois mode of production constantly seeking profit over all other things by its nature.



No scarcity means no need to keep up such trivial barriers to consumption

[Tim Cornelis]

I object to your use of money. It will not be "revolutionised". This implies continuity between money as universal equivalent for the exchange of commodities and labour credits. It's more a point system used as rationing mechanism.

I also object to the use of taxation. Taxation is coercively imposed and takes a share of money ex-post. In socialism, resources are reserved ex-ante for collective consumption? Why is there a need to reserve this? Various reasons.

If we were to express all resources we are estimated to be able to employ in terms of their labour value, and we dub this 'Gross Value Product' (in place of Gross Domestic Product) as Cockshott and Cotrell do, then we can see how much we may need to reserve for collective consumption and other non-individual forms of consumption. Satellite services are not individual services, for instance, those who do not work still need taken care of, etc.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11834


--------------------------------

Illegalitarian. I think you need to invest a little bit more time in understanding the Marxist perspective on the revolutionary transformation. All objections can easily be answered.

"How many stages? How long does each one last? What characterizes each stage? How do you "objectively" measure someone's labor value? Too many unnecessary processes that are pulled from the air, I say."

Stages: there's no clear cut demarcation between two or more stages, it's a development in accordance with the development of the productive forces. We will have an initial, less advanced phase that gradually phases into a more advanced, higher stage.

Characterisation: is determined by the development of the productive forces. Less advanced stage, more rationing via labour credits; more advanced stage, less rationing via labour credits.

measuring: labour-time. It's objective but I think everyone will recognise its arbitrary character.

"How do you determine who gets more access to resources, then? It would almost have to be a system based on accumulation, and that makes it a capitalistic commodity-based monetary system where accumulation reigns supreme."

This is just an absurd non-sequitur leap. You need to back this up with an argument. Where all of a sudden do money and commodities come from?

"If there is still effectively wage labor and divisions on who can and cannot have access to the things they produce and need,"

Again a non-sequitur. Where does wage-labour come from all of a sudden? Why would producers suddenly start selling their labour-power on a labour-market to (private) owners of means of production?

As for scarcity (technically it's shortage and not scarcity). There's no shortages for basic means of life, as you say. But this is far from proving there's no shortages overall.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is something I've wondered about but never got around to asking till now.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx writes (where it regards the "first phase" of socialist society):

[...]

Presumably, in this society, the concept of money has been revolutionized. It's no longer a fiat (or, in Marx's day, would've been gold backed) currency that is merely a representation of the economy as a whole. People are paid according to their labor contributed. I imagine this to be, you get one "dollar" for every hour of labor put in, since everyone's labor is equal to others. If you have two dollars, you get products that are equal to your two labor hours, as well.

Well, no. Labour certificates are not money since they do not accumulate (so you wouldn't be able to save up labour credits and buy an airbus), they do not circulate (you wouldn't be able to give your labour credits or points to anyone else), and so on - and in any case, Marx was merely giving an example of how consumption might be regulated (and to be honest I think he almost dropped the ball by suggesting something like the law of value would operate in the lower phase of the communist society - obviously it won't be as simple as that, but as I said Marx wasn't drawing up a detailed plan for consumption, but attacking Lassalle's "undiminished proceeds" by showing they would become diminished almost immediately).


Given that this is the case, what is the need for taxes?

There isn't any. Marx isn't talking about taxes, but the fact that labour and goods are necessary to keep the system of public administration, and all public services (schools etc.) functioning. So the productive worker would see a portion of the goods he produces be given to an unproductive sector such as public administration, lowering (diminishing) his share in the general social product.

[Illegalitarian]

Stages: there's no clear cut demarcation between two or more stages, it's a development in accordance with the development of the productive forces. We will have an initial, less advanced phase that gradually phases into a more advanced, higher stage.

If you're speaking of Lenin's (this could have came from Marx maybe?) "lower phase" and "higher phase" of communism describing the period where the dotp is in the process of cleansing all bourgeois vestiges and seizing the means of production, and then the phase of actual communism, I have no qualms. I reject any notion of this taking "years" though.


As for labor time, how can it be objective and arbitrary?



This is just an absurd non-sequitur leap. You need to back this up with an argument. Where all of a sudden do money and commodities come from?


Not really. If you still have to pay these vouchers as he described, in exchange for goods in a market where things are rationed out at random, that's still a monied commodity-based society effectively.




Again a non-sequitur. Where does wage-labour come from all of a sudden? Why would producers suddenly start selling their labour-power on a labour-market to (private) owners of means of production?


That is absolutely not non-sequitur. If you are working in exchange for a certificate in which you need to purchase goods with, a certificate worth an arbitrary amount which is most likely not worth your labor due to the absurdity of trying to quantify labor value, there is not much of a difference there from capitalism. Selling your labor power to one group with a monopoly on capital is no better than selling it to a private individual/


As for scarcity (technically it's shortage and not scarcity). There's no shortages for basic means of life, as you say. But this is far from proving there's no shortages overall.

I'm sure there are shortages of some things as there always has and always will be, but there is no evidence to suggest that we must ration out goods based on some sort of labor currency lest mass shortages occur

[Tim Cornelis]

If you're speaking of Lenin's (this could have came from Marx maybe?) "lower phase" and "higher phase" of communism describing the period where the dotp is in the process of cleansing all bourgeois vestiges and seizing the means of production, and then the phase of actual communism, I have no qualms. I reject any notion of this taking "years" though.

It is Marx's concept of first and higher phase. Yes, a revolutionary dictatorship and communism/socialism are mutually exclusive. This will undoubtedly take years since the spread and victory of the revolution will take years. It's unrealistic to suggest otherwise; if we simply look at the Spanish revolution of 1936. After three years, there was still no communism (and of course there was defeat). How likely do you think it is that revolution will spread around the world in less than a matter of years?


As for labor time, how can it be objective and arbitrary?

It simply is. Arbitrary and objective are not mutually exclusive. If people labour an hour, and receive the same number of labour credits, it is objectively for the same number of hours. But since the intensity of labour has not been equal, it is still arbitrary.


Not really. If you still have to pay these vouchers as he described, in exchange for goods in a market where things are rationed out at random, that's still a monied commodity-based society effectively.

But there is no payment involved, and with that, everything else falls. It would be a payment if the labour credits were transferred to the production unit that distributed the good in question. Since labour credits disappear, there is no payment. Since the labour credits disappear, there is no exchange (of items) either.


That is absolutely not non-sequitur. If you are working in exchange for a certificate in which you need to purchase goods with, a certificate worth an arbitrary amount which is most likely not worth your labor due to the absurdity of trying to quantify labor value, there is not much of a difference there from capitalism. Selling your labor power to one group with a monopoly on capital is no better than selling it to a private individual/

First, there is no purchase since there is no payment.

Second, where does this "monopoly on capital" come from? Does 'humanity' have a monopoly? But humanity is everyone so everyone having a monopoly doesn't make sense. You still haven't proven how this constitutes 'wage-labour'. Wage-labour is the act of selling labour-power to an owner of means of production; in communism there is no selling involved. A person joins an association of producers. You merely repeat yourself in different words without additional explanation: "Selling your labor power to one group with a monopoly on capital is no better than selling it to a private individual". And incidentally, a monopoly on capital is what defines private property.

Third, the notion that "there is not much of a difference there from capitalism" is absurd! A society based on common ownership and freely associated labour, and therefore a society without state, unemployment, poverty, imperialism, and war, is 'not much different from capitalism' because there is still an equal exchange of labour? Come on now.

"In the world of commodities, abstract human labor is the substance of value, the measure of its intrinsic value. The magnitude of value is gauged by the quantity of this labor, and the quantity of the labor itself is measured by the continuous period of time during which it is carried out. As long as commodity exchange is the exchange of equal values, included within this exchange are equal quantities of social labor. In the case of the distribution relations within socialism (i.e. relations where the producer "receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor...and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost" so that the "same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another") the "same principle" as the case of the exchange of commodities of equal values applies. In other words, equal quantities of labor are exchanged. (The labor exchanged in this case is abstract human labor, and could not be the measure of exchange otherwise. Here "abstraction" is carried out as a social action, which is why Marx speaks of the "same principle" prevailing.)

But the fundamental difference pointed out by Marx is that the "content and form are changed." In other words, labor does not appear as the value of a product in terms of being objectified or as a material trait of the product. In a word, labor is not manifested as value or in the value-form. Why is this?

He says there are "altered circumstances"; i.e. society has already become a society of communal labor where the means of production are commonly owned. This is because "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." The law of value can only arise in a society where the linkage of social labor is carried out through the private exchange of the products of private labor." In the case of socialism, however, there is no such exchange of products. No individual has things of equivalent value. This is because already "no one can give anything except his labor" For example, no individual possesses anything akin to a product of individual labor. The products are directly social products, and no individual has a product for exchange. What can be given is only their own labor, and what they can possess is merely the given individual means of consumption distributed by society."

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

I advice reading the entire text Understanding “Labor Certificates” on the Basis of the Theory of Value ―The Law of Value and Socialism.


I'm sure there are shortages of some things as there always has and always will be, but there is no evidence to suggest that we must ration out goods based on some sort of labor currency lest mass shortages occur

There is no evidence to suggest that we don't have to ration out goods based on some sort of labour point system (not currency), lest widespread automation is implemented.

[Illegalitarian]

It is Marx's concept of first and higher phase. Yes, a revolutionary dictatorship and communism/socialism are mutually exclusive. This will undoubtedly take years since the spread and victory of the revolution will take years. It's unrealistic to suggest otherwise; if we simply look at the Spanish revolution of 1936. After three years, there was still no communism (and of course there was defeat). How likely do you think it is that revolution will spread around the world in less than a matter of years?

Well I can't very well argue with that. I was more speaking about post-revolutionary society, that is, after the proletariat has carried out a successful world wide. Fair enough then!




It simply is. Arbitrary and objective are not mutually exclusive. If people labour an hour, and receive the same number of labour credits, it is objectively for the same number of hours. But since the intensity of labour has not been equal, it is still arbitrary.



Fair enough again!




But there is no payment involved, and with that, everything else falls. It would be a payment if the labour credits were transferred to the production unit that distributed the good in question. Since labour credits disappear, there is no payment. Since the labour credits disappear, there is no exchange (of items) either.



First, there is no purchase since there is no payment.

Second, where does this "monopoly on capital" come from? Does 'humanity' have a monopoly? But humanity is everyone so everyone having a monopoly doesn't make sense. You still haven't proven how this constitutes 'wage-labour'. Wage-labour is the act of selling labour-power to an owner of means of production; in communism there is no selling involved. A person joins an association of producers. You merely repeat yourself in different words without additional explanation: "Selling your labor power to one group with a monopoly on capital is no better than selling it to a private individual". And incidentally, a monopoly on capital is what defines private property.

Third, the notion that "there is not much of a difference there from capitalism" is absurd! A society based on common ownership and freely associated labour, and therefore a society without state, unemployment, poverty, imperialism, and war, is 'not much different from capitalism' because there is still an equal exchange of labour? Come on now.

"In the world of commodities, abstract human labor is the substance of value, the measure of its intrinsic value. The magnitude of value is gauged by the quantity of this labor, and the quantity of the labor itself is measured by the continuous period of time during which it is carried out. As long as commodity exchange is the exchange of equal values, included within this exchange are equal quantities of social labor. In the case of the distribution relations within socialism (i.e. relations where the producer "receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor...and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost" so that the "same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another") the "same principle" as the case of the exchange of commodities of equal values applies. In other words, equal quantities of labor are exchanged. (The labor exchanged in this case is abstract human labor, and could not be the measure of exchange otherwise. Here "abstraction" is carried out as a social action, which is why Marx speaks of the "same principle" prevailing.)

But the fundamental difference pointed out by Marx is that the "content and form are changed." In other words, labor does not appear as the value of a product in terms of being objectified or as a material trait of the product. In a word, labor is not manifested as value or in the value-form. Why is this?

He says there are "altered circumstances"; i.e. society has already become a society of communal labor where the means of production are commonly owned. This is because "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." The law of value can only arise in a society where the linkage of social labor is carried out through the private exchange of the products of private labor." In the case of socialism, however, there is no such exchange of products. No individual has things of equivalent value. This is because already "no one can give anything except his labor" For example, no individual possesses anything akin to a product of individual labor. The products are directly social products, and no individual has a product for exchange. What can be given is only their own labor, and what they can possess is merely the given individual means of consumption distributed by society."

https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/tsushima/labor-certificates.htm

I advice reading the entire text Understanding “Labor Certificates” on the Basis of the Theory of Value ―The Law of Value and Socialism.



I was arguing with the OP's points, not any points you may have.

Explain to me your conception of these certificates and what purpose you believe they should serve and then we'll go from there, I think that's best, as it seems we're speaking past each other right now.


There is no evidence to suggest that we don't have to ration out goods based on some sort of labour point system (not currency), lest widespread automation is implemented.

That's a negative assertion, and as we no, negatives cannot be proven.

There simply isn't such an issue, or there wouldn't be in a communist society where mass abundance of goods aren't shelved or destroyed to keep out of the market, nor has there ever been a good case made to the contrary.