Would central planning be opposite of socialism?

[Jacob Cliff]

If a central planning agency in stateless communism is to as stated plan the economy centrally then how to workers have control over the economy? Wouldn't it just be a dictatorship of the economy by planners? Wouldn't it make bureaucracy run rampant? Or is this untrue?

[ckaihatsu]

'Central planning' could be as simple and basic as just considering 'liberated labor' as a material input, like any 'resource' or 'good'. Liberated labor as an input would vary according to its availability, by locality, due to people's willingness (or not) to participate as liberated laborers in certain pre-specified labor roles.





Material balances are a method of economic planning where material supplies are accounted for in natural units (as opposed to using monetary accounting) and used to balance the supply of available inputs with targeted outputs. Material balancing involves taking a survey of the available inputs and raw materials in an economy and then using a balance sheet to balance the inputs with output targets specified by industry to achieve a balance between supply and demand. This balance is used to formulate a plan for resource allocation and investment in a national economy.[1]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_balance_planning


---


Also:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)

[tuwix]

If a central planning agency in stateless communism is to as stated plan the economy centrally then how to workers have control over the economy? Wouldn't it just be a dictatorship of the economy by planners? Wouldn't it make bureaucracy run rampant? Or is this untrue?

It's very interesting issue. It shows how central planning is very problematic in socialism. Real socialism - these are directed to Stalinists/Leninists who believe that Cuba is socialist country in nay way for example, but really is not. Workers as all don't have any knowledge to decide what to produce and how much in global scale. So they aren't able to democratically decide it correctly. Then in transition period to moneyless society a market must still decide it. Of course, it will be market of workers' owned workplaces, but market nonetheless.

And indeed central planing is opposite to socialism. Either workers decide what to with their workplace or will do it a state. In the second case there is a state capitalism again...

[#FF0000]

The problem re: "self-management" is that not all decisions about production can be made at the point of production. People who run the factory shouldn't be the only people to decide how the goods they produce are distributed. People who live around or work on natural resources aren't the gate-keepers to that resource. I don't think "central planning" as it existed in the past is the answer, but there has to be some sort of coordination beyond the local factory.

[ckaihatsu]

It's very interesting issue. It shows how central planning is very problematic in socialism. Real socialism - these are directed to Stalinists/Leninists who believe that Cuba is socialist country in nay way for example, but really is not.




Workers as all don't have any knowledge to decide what to produce and how much in global scale. So they aren't able to democratically decide it correctly.


I'm finding your estimations here to be nothing but contrarian, tuwix, since your reasoning is rather lightweight.

Sure, the workers of any given locality wouldn't be doing *global* planning themselves, but, with the Internet, there is a global communications medium with which workers all *over* the world can interact and coordinate using data in a collective way.





Then in transition period to moneyless society a market must still decide it. Of course, it will be market of workers' owned workplaces, but market nonetheless.


This is the dictatorship of the proletariat conception, which would be 'market socialism' in implementation.

But this isn't an *inevitable* step, as you're presenting it, as it's often presented. The 'transition' should be to fully cooperative liberated labor for free-access and direct-distribution of collectivist production, as quickly as possible. If a 'market'-type system (with currency-type exchangeability for materials) can be *skipped* altogether, then all-the-better.

The model I included at post #2 uses a framework of 'labor credits' which are *not* exchangeable for materials of any sort, at any time.





And indeed central planing is opposite to socialism. Either workers decide what to with their workplace or will do it a state. In the second case there is a state capitalism again...


I've gone over this issue in depth here at RevLeft and I've arrived at the conclusion that anarchist- / syndicalist-type local control is *not* incompatible with a global-scale centralized planning, as I've described here at post #2. So 'central planning' is *not* opposite to socialism.

There would have to be very good information flows, both upwards and downwards in scale, which -- again -- is certainly doable these days using the Internet and a discussion-board format like RevLeft.

The scale and extents of global-level central planning would be *limited* by the actual availability of on-the-ground willing participation, and most likely not *all* projects everywhere would have to be part of a global-scale planning initiative, or plan.

But for whatever *did* become both planned and participated-in *could* be centrally planned, and *would* be socialism.





The problem re: "self-management" is that not all decisions about production can be made at the point of production. People who run the factory shouldn't be the only people to decide how the goods they produce are distributed. People who live around or work on natural resources aren't the gate-keepers to that resource. I don't think "central planning" as it existed in the past is the answer, but there has to be some sort of coordination beyond the local factory.


I think those who are closest to any given natural resources *should* be the 'go-to' people for those resources, by default -- but not in a reigning-ownership kind of way, as we're used to seeing due to the institution of private property under capitalism.

What would be more to the point would be *how* those natural resources are being actively *used*, or, secondarily, *called-for*, for usage. Someone could be living right on top of an oil deposit, for example, but they would undoubtedly be asked to move if that oil was required by a nearby locality of several tens of thousands of people.

Any friction between local projects and broader, *larger* projects, for the same resources, would just have to be ironed-out on a case-by-case basis.

[#FF0000]

I think those who are closest to any given natural resources *should* be the 'go-to' people for those resources, by default -- but not in a reigning-ownership kind of way, as we're used to seeing due to the institution of private property under capitalism.

What would be more to the point would be *how* those natural resources are being actively *used*, or, secondarily, *called-for*, for usage. Someone could be living right on top of an oil deposit, for example, but they would undoubtedly be asked to move if that oil was required by a nearby locality of several tens of thousands of people.

Any friction between local projects and broader, *larger* projects, for the same resources, would just have to be ironed-out on a case-by-case basis.

Oh of course I think these people should be consulted if accessing the natural resources would disrupt their lives (being in Pennsylvania, I see a lot of what happens when people aren't able to give informed consent on this kind of thing). But when people talk about self-management like this, it makes me think of Anarchist Spain, where some areas were far more wealthy than others because those areas had the mines. Their brand of "self-management" actually reinforced uneven distribution.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh of course I think these people should be consulted if accessing the natural resources would disrupt their lives


Yes.





(being in Pennsylvania, I see a lot of what happens when people aren't able to give informed consent on this kind of thing). But when people talk about self-management like this, it makes me think of Anarchist Spain, where some areas were far more wealthy than others because those areas had the mines. Their brand of "self-management" actually reinforced uneven distribution.


Yes, and you're correctly pointing out the problem with a strict, syndicalist-type localism. Socialism should strive for *generalizing* collectivist production as much as possible, all the way up to global-scale, centrally-planned projects involving *billions* of people.

[tuwix]

But this isn't an *inevitable* step, as you're presenting it, as it's often presented.

Yes, it is. We discussed it yet. As highlighted, your anarcho-communist idea to get rid of money immediately will cause a lack of any incentive to perform any unpleasant (usually physically unpleasant) work for example an agriculture. Then it will cause a massive scarcity of commodities and famine and it will cause counter-revolution.
Karl Marx knew it and this is why he was writing about the first stage of socialism with money...

[ckaihatsu]

This is the dictatorship of the proletariat conception, which would be 'market socialism' in implementation.

But this isn't an *inevitable* step, as you're presenting it, as it's often presented. The 'transition' should be to fully cooperative liberated labor for free-access and direct-distribution of collectivist production, as quickly as possible. If a 'market'-type system (with currency-type exchangeability for materials) can be *skipped* altogether, then all-the-better.





Yes, it is. We discussed it yet. As highlighted, your anarcho-communist idea to get rid of money immediately


You're misrepresenting my position -- as you can see above, I'm saying that we should get to free-access and direct-distribution *as quickly as possible*.

I have no way of knowing how future conditions will play out in actuality, so I am *not* making any cut-and-dried prescriptions for the tempo of world revolution.





will cause a lack of any incentive to perform any unpleasant (usually physically unpleasant) work for example an agriculture.


I actually *appreciate* this argument / point, and I've addressed it specifically with my standing position, with the 'labor credits' framework.





Then it will cause a massive scarcity of commodities and famine and it will cause counter-revolution.
Karl Marx knew it and this is why he was writing about the first stage of socialism with money...

[tuwix]

I actually *appreciate* this argument / point, and I've addressed it specifically with my standing position, with the 'labor credits' framework.

And those labor credits aren't interchangeable in your design. So it makes them something like a certificate of being good student. IMHO it won't be a convincing incentive to work in very unpleasant conditions when everything is for free...

[RedMaterialist]

If a central planning agency in stateless communism is to as stated plan the economy centrally then how to workers have control over the economy? Wouldn't it just be a dictatorship of the economy by planners? Wouldn't it make bureaucracy run rampant? Or is this untrue?

I think it is a question of who chooses the people who run the economy. In a gigantic corporation central planning is mandatory, and the workers don't choose who the CEO is. But if they did choose the CEO, it not necessary that workers be involved in the day to day general operation of the corporation.

In Germany there is a form of this corporate socialism: in all big and medium size industries the workers make up one-half the boards of directors. The workers don't involve themselves in questions like the daily expenditure of screws in a BMW. But they also do not allow CEOs to pay themselves millions in salary and bonuses. This corporate socialism can obviously turn into national fascism. The next step is to put workers into complete control of the corporations, the banks, etc.

In the US there is an odd form of social control of the means of production, in the National Football League: the Green Bay Packers. Because of a quirk in the original rules of the NFL the Packers are the only team owned by the fans, with a very important proviso-no one person can own more than about 10%. Anyone who buys a season ticket is an owner. That is why the team is still in Green Bay and the reason the games are played in the open air sometimes in -20 f weather: that's the way the fans want it. Also a few years ago the fans decided to rebuild the old stadium and not borrow money from Green Bay for a new stadium. The stadium still has the old name, Lambeau Field, rather than something like Burger King Field.

The fans hire management which does things like buy football helmets and negotiate player contracts. Unfortunately, the fans also elect people like Scott Walker.

Centralized social and bureaucratic planning is possible and can work, the problem is not to let it become a Nazi nightmare or a Soviet style bureaucracy (assuming you don't like the Soviet experiment.)

[ckaihatsu]

And those labor credits aren't interchangeable in your design.


Hmmmmm, I don't see how they're *not*.

Actually the whole *point* of using them is because they *are* interchangeable, regardless of the variety of types of (liberated) labor represented in labor-credit form.

Here are relevant portions from the model:





labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits




labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





So it makes them something like a certificate of being good student.


No, there are no value judgments involved aside from the economic one of seeing whether the work performed is satisfactory and worthy of the agreed-upon labor credits, or if it's not.





IMHO it won't be a convincing incentive to work in very unpleasant conditions when everything is for free...


If everything that everyone needs and desires *could* be provided for, for free, then the societal problem is completely solved and the labor credits framework would *not* be needed whatsoever.

But if there *are* any unpleasant conditions involved in the providing of goods and services that people need and want, then the liberated labor required would necessarily *not* be easy and so-freely-given. With effort comes the reasonable expectation of recognition and reward, and understandably so -- at that point society should have a framework in place that meets those expectations in a standard, consistent way, for everyone, so that people know what to expect if they put in some kind of work effort that they wouldn't readily do for free, as a gift.

The labor credits provide a formal 'interchange' for all liberated-labor-hours, for freely accessible (non-commodity, pre-planned, pre-allocated) resources, materials, and goods for the public good.





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.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[RedMaterialist]

Hmmmmm, I don't see how they're *not*.

Actually the whole *point* of using them is because they *are* interchangeable, regardless of the variety of types of (liberated) labor represented in labor-credit form.



Why not just use money until communism is fully established?

[ckaihatsu]

Why not just use money until communism is fully established?


It's too unwieldy.

Money is expected to represent both [1] the social value of the liberated labor performed for it, *and* [2] the exchange value of the grouping of consumer goods received for it. No matter how you slice it, this is the unavoidable manifestation of 'exchange value' since goods are being exchanged for labor -- that's the very definition of commodification.

Here's an illustrated critique of 'labor vouchers' since it would function the same way, with exchangeability for both labor and goods:


Pies Must Line Up



http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)

[ckaihatsu]

I'll add that a good tangible example here could be about *bikes*.

Perhaps, starting out from where capitalism left off, people were able to put a hearty supply of communal bikes into both urban and rural circulation -- besides those that people consistently kept and used as their own possessions -- so that anyone who happened to need impromptu, unplanned transportation could easily find a working bike nearby, and could ride it to their destination, and just leave it there for the next person.

So say that this whole communal thing started out just fine, and that people were even able to keep it going rather well, with significant random donations of time and effort -- maybe redistributing a few bikes to where they're more needed in a few spare moments, or inflating some tires here and there, or fixing a few of them over a weekend, etc.

But all it would take is a general *faltering* at some point -- maybe a major event happened and drew people's attention and time away from their regular bike-maintenance donations -- and the 'critical mass' would slip, possibly to where the whole operation of it just wasn't sufficient anymore for its purpose.

It would be at a point like this where some kind of *economic interchange* would be most useful -- if someone's bike-fixing skills could be formally socially recognized and 'compensated' with someone *else's* efforts, in some other area (building-refurbishing, say), and also in roughly equivalent outputs.

In practice, in the real world, this would *not* be easily done in such a mutually satisfying one-to-one ratio of work-quantities.

Of course we presently use *money* as the interchange here, but we also know the hidden *social cost* of relying on this mechanism: private ownership, state hegemony, exploitation, and oppression.

(Hence my 'labor credits' model at post #2.)

[tuwix]

Hmmmmm, I don't see how they're *not*.



But they are not interchangeable for commodities. So it makes them as useful for an average man as a certificate of being a good student. Such points are good for intellectuals and has no value for simple people. So just inefficient incentive...

[ckaihatsu]

But they are not interchangeable for commodities.


Correct.

There should *not be* any commodities in a post-capitalist political economy. All resources, materials, and goods should be free-access and direct-distribution, and not attached to any abstract valuations since that would be equivalent to commodification / exchange values.





So it makes them as useful for an average man as a certificate of being a good student. Such points are good for intellectuals and has no value for simple people. So just inefficient incentive...


The *purpose* for the labor credits is as a *guarantee* that a certain amount of labor effort has already been put forth (or else it was issued as debt, on the reputation of an entire locality's population).

So, for example, perhaps the *easiest* kind of labor is as a work-from-home mattress tester. The multiplier on this kind of work would be a '1', meaning that one hour yields one labor credit.

If a person put in a full year of this kind of work, at 40 hours per week, for 50 weeks, that would yield them 2000 labor credits for the year. The point wouldn't be to *buy* stuff with them, because that would be unnecessary. With no more commodity production everything would be pre-planned and readily available, subject to the actualities of the political economy. This mattress-tester would have done the work basically for *political* involvement, since those 2000 labor credits can then be used to specify and precipitate that same amount of overall labor effort going forward.

Maybe they see that there's not enough communal bike repair going on, so, since the multiplier for bike repair happens to be a '4', those 2000 labor credits would be enough to empower 500 hours of bike-repair.





[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.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to clarify a point of position, regarding liberated-labor versus collectivist automated production....





[B]ut all it would take is a general *faltering* at some point -- maybe a major event happened and drew people's attention and time away from their regular bike-maintenance donations -- and the 'critical mass' would slip, possibly to where the whole operation of [communal bikes] just wasn't sufficient anymore for its purpose.


With this I don't meant to imply or suggest that a post-capitalist social order would busy itself with such low-level tasks as fixing bikes -- it was only a convenient example for the purposes of illustration.

Here's from another thread, which can be directly applied to the production of new bicycles, or any other equipment:





[C]onsider what any typical person would do these days if they happened to damage some common everyday household goods -- the roof leaked and a bunch of toilet paper and paper towels got soaked and are now basically unusable: Those items would be thrown away without the slightest thought about it, and a little extra money would be spent to get new items to restock the supply on hand.

Why should *any other* material be different from this, if the costs and efforts were similarly negligible -- ?




[O]nce workers control the world [automatic mechanistic resupply] would be less of an imposition on *people* than having work roles to 'fix' and cater to every little thing at the cost of people's dignity and life-time.

With full automation we'd have *machines* to make machines, instead of the wage-slavery regime that chains *human beings* to do mind-dulling repetitive tasks, for one's basics of life and living.

[Creative Destruction]

Yes, it is. We discussed it yet. As highlighted, your anarcho-communist idea to get rid of money immediately will cause a lack of any incentive to perform any unpleasant (usually physically unpleasant) work for example an agriculture. Then it will cause a massive scarcity of commodities and famine and it will cause counter-revolution.
Karl Marx knew it and this is why he was writing about the first stage of socialism with money...

Marx didn't advocate using money in the lower phase of communism. In fact, communism, being the moneyless society it is, this would be an impossibility. He advocated using a type of labor chit system where one hour of labor would give the privilege to draw one labor hour's worth from the general social product. It's sort of a given that these would be non-transferable, since it is tied to the individual's labor only, rather than it being a mediator for a consumable's worth, as money is.

[ckaihatsu]

Marx didn't advocate using money in the lower phase of communism. In fact, communism, being the moneyless society it is, this would be an impossibility. He advocated using a type of labor chit system where one hour of labor would give the privilege to draw one labor hour's worth from the general social product. It's sort of a given that these would be non-transferable, since it is tied to the individual's labor only, rather than it being a mediator for a consumable's worth, as money is.


Unfortunately this formulation is either poorly conceived, at best, or disingenuous, at worst -- *of course* a 'labor chit' would be a mediator for a consumable's worth, like money, because it's being *exchanged* for that consumable. That makes it the same in function as money and the whole system of commodified 'exchange values'.

This was addressed in post #14 -- just replace 'labor chits' for 'money' there:





Why not just use money until communism is fully established?





It's too unwieldy.

Money is expected to represent both [1] the social value of the liberated labor performed for it, *and* [2] the exchange value of the grouping of consumer goods received for it. No matter how you slice it, this is the unavoidable manifestation of 'exchange value' since goods are being exchanged for labor -- that's the very definition of commodification.


---





[Labor chits] [are] tied to the individual's labor only, rather than it being a mediator for a consumable's worth, as money is.


I'll add that if workers control their own production and 'labor chits' are in use, the result could be a base kind of syndicalism, where workers would have an incentive to *make exchanges* of their own produced products, with others, in order to *increase exchange values*, as is done through arbitrage today.

And, since 'labor chits' would operate on a market-type landscape, producers would have incentive to exchange *lesser-exchange-value* (cheaply produced) valued products for any given labor chit, instead of having to spend *more* time, effort, and resources to produce that product, for labor-chit compensation.

[Tim Cornelis]

There's no exchange (except maybe of labour hours). Labour credits disappear, they are not transferred to a seller, and therefore there's no exchange.

[Creative Destruction]

Unfortunately this formulation is either poorly conceived, at best, or disingenuous, at worst -- *of course* a 'labor chit' would be a mediator for a consumable's worth, like money, because it's being *exchanged* for that consumable. That makes it the same in function as money and the whole system of commodified 'exchange values'.

As Tim just pointed out, there's no exchange happening. The "store," nor the production facilities, keep the labor chits. That's the entire implication of them being non-transferable. Goods are "priced" at how much labor hours it took to create them. In this, the labor chits are a matter of accounting for scarce resources, rather than as a mediator for the value of a commodity. One hour is equal to another; Marx says nearly exactly this in the CGP. The labor chits do not become, and are not, a certificate that relates one set of commodities to another, as it is now. It can't, since commodification wouldn't exist. It's all tied to labor hours, rather than, right now, it's subject to supply and demand, pricing regimes and the up-and-down worth of a commodity on the marketplace, and how one set of commodities relates to another.


I'll add that if workers control their own production and 'labor chits' are in use, the result could be a base kind of syndicalism, where workers would have an incentive to *make exchanges* of their own produced products, with others, in order to *increase exchange values*, as is done through arbitrage today.

No. The production facilities do not keep and accrue labor chits, which would then be transferred to workers in for wages or to reinvest in the facility. They are specifically non-transferable. They just disappear off the books once used, as it were.


And, since 'labor chits' would operate on a market-type landscape,

They wouldn't operate in a market-type landscape. They would be apart of the planning scheme, as a way to account for scarce goods.


producers would have incentive to exchange *lesser-exchange-value* (cheaply produced) valued products for any given labor chit, instead of having to spend *more* time, effort, and resources to produce that product, for labor-chit compensation.

No, because it wouldn't make any matter of difference for the producers to do this. Again, they don't keep the chits. They're not taken in by the producers and, in turn, returned back to them for wages. The entire reason for this system is to deal with the issue of scarcity, and it is the only reason it exists or is proposed. Once we get to the point where a consumable is abundant, it becomes irrelevant. Workers are given the labor certificates based on how many hours they spent producing. Not based on how much or little they can "sell."

[ckaihatsu]

There's no exchange (except maybe of labour hours). Labour credits disappear, they are not transferred to a seller, and therefore there's no exchange.


To clarify, I think you actually mean 'labor chits', per Marx. (I have a model of 'labor credits' that operate distinctly differently.)





As Tim just pointed out, there's no exchange happening. The "store," nor the production facilities, keep the labor chits. That's the entire implication of them being non-transferable. Goods are "priced" at how much labor hours it took to create them.




In this, the labor chits are a matter of accounting for scarce resources, rather than as a mediator for the value of a commodity. One hour is equal to another; Marx says nearly exactly this in the CGP. The labor chits do not become, and are not, a certificate that relates one set of commodities to another, as it is now. It can't, since commodification wouldn't exist. It's all tied to labor hours, rather than, right now, it's subject to supply and demand, pricing regimes and the up-and-down worth of a commodity on the marketplace, and how one set of commodities relates to another.



No. The production facilities do not keep and accrue labor chits, which would then be transferred to workers in for wages or to reinvest in the facility. They are specifically non-transferable. They just disappear off the books once used, as it were.



They wouldn't operate in a market-type landscape. They would be apart of the planning scheme, as a way to account for scarce goods.



No, because it wouldn't make any matter of difference for the producers to do this. Again, they don't keep the chits. They're not taken in by the producers and, in turn, returned back to them for wages.


Okay, acknowledged, and thanks for the clarification -- you're correct, of course, on these particulars.





The entire reason for this system is to deal with the issue of scarcity, and it is the only reason it exists or is proposed.


Okay. Certainly.





Once we get to the point where a consumable is abundant, it becomes irrelevant.


I think this would tend to be the case in practice, but I also think it's not necessarily a *given*.

If something can be produced in abundance, that's good for those who are consuming it, but the availability and consumption of the consumable is different and distinct from the *production-side* of the equation -- we have to ask 'What labor is required to make the stuff available in sufficient quantities'.

For the sake of illustration / argument, let's say that the world only runs on burning wood for fuel, and that society has now overthrown capitalism and socialized production to where everyone knows the amount of effort, both collectively and individually, that it takes to make sufficient wood fuel available as a resource, per week.

We would say that energy is now 'in abundance', but we couldn't ignore that most everyone in the world is in some way attached to the labor process of securing sufficient supplies of wood -- the labor effort involved is *not* irrelevant, it's very much relevant.

While the actual world is certainly more efficient than this in terms of labor effort for energy, and would be *even more* efficient with commodity-production pushed aside, the matter of (liberated-) labor would still be *significant*, even if it became more-or-less as easy as a few thousand people pushing buttons to make it happen (through automated mechanistics), worldwide.





Workers are given the labor certificates based on how many hours they spent producing. Not based on how much or little they can "sell."


Correct.


---





As Tim just pointed out, there's no exchange happening. The "store," nor the production facilities, keep the labor chits. That's the entire implication of them being non-transferable. Goods are "priced" at how much labor hours it took to create them.


As was covered at a past thread of discussion there is a *logistic* problematic with 'how many labor hours it takes to create them':


Socialism doesn't mean equal pay, right?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2815514&postcount=99

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2815728&postcount=138


It's one of those things where it's easy to *say* 'everything will even out with labor hours, and everything will be fine', but in practice it's *not* so easy to determine all of the fractions of different types of labor inputs, going back to the beginning of time, that led up to the present item that I'm holding in my hand.

This could be called the 'labor geneaology' problem, as I noted before:





Gotta love that can-do spirit, but what about the supplier's supplier's *supplier's* books -- ? And what about the supplier's supplier's supplier's supplier's books, not to mention all of the accompanying labor value that went into all of the aforementioned -- ?

This attempt to trace back all antecedent labor efforts and materials (which are all ultimately derived from labor themselves), is akin to an exercise in finding the origins of all geneaology, except that here you want to do it for each and every part that rolls off the assembly line.

I'll note, for the sake of clarification, that the 'labor credits' approach outlined towards the end of [post #2, here] is a unique and fairly recent development, and would not require this proposed exercise in labor-value geneaology.