labour credits

[crypto]

So I've been looking at the whole crypto currency craze and wondering how it could be used in a socialist society.
So I came up with one.I call it labour credits.
The way it would work would be as follow.
1. 5 or more people would clock in by spending one satoshi each
2. The computer would start the timer at 9 am and finish at 3 pm
3. By the time the timer is finished the 5 or more people would clock out by sending one satoshi again and 10 labor credits would be sent to each of their addresses.
4.there would be a demurrage fee of 100% on the labor credits by the end of the week.
So basically like labour vouchers but there would be no need for am authority figure to issue them.
What do you guys think?

[Q]

Why use Bitcoin for that? It makes much more sense to ditch Bitcoin altogether and use the blockchain infrastructure that lies underneath it to actually register labour time used. It was in this way, and only in this way, that Marx spoke of "labour vouchers". This is not money, an abstraction of labour time, but it is needed to deal with labour time on a macro scale somehow in order for communism to work and the blockchain can help with that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So I've been looking at the whole crypto currency craze and wondering how it could be used in a socialist society.

That's a fairly easy question to answer: none. The socialist society is a society that has abolished commodity production, consequently it has abolished the market and currency as well. In the transitional period, when the revolution has won in some regions but has still to win globally, there is still currency. But why would it be some weird cryptocurrency, instead of the bog-standard paper money backed by reserves of some commodity? In particular, what you propose is completely useless for foreign trade. And it's needlessly complicated, and would lead to pointless busywork.

[ckaihatsu]

Someone said the magic words 'labor credits', so that means I have an ethical obligation to post the following.... (It theoretically works, too -- !)


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/)

[Creative Destruction]

So I've been looking at the whole crypto currency craze and wondering how it could be used in a socialist society.
So I came up with one.I call it labour credits.
The way it would work would be as follow.
1. 5 or more people would clock in by spending one satoshi each
2. The computer would start the timer at 9 am and finish at 3 pm
3. By the time the timer is finished the 5 or more people would clock out by sending one satoshi again and 10 labor credits would be sent to each of their addresses.
4.there would be a demurrage fee of 100% on the labor credits by the end of the week.
So basically like labour vouchers but there would be no need for am authority figure to issue them.
What do you guys think?

There are programs out there that clock time already and do all the automated work of calculating hours worked and sending them to the payroll person for QA. Why not just use a version of that? It's a lot less complicated and largely automated already. BitCoin and all its derivatives are pretty much useless. It's funny money for libertarian capitalists.

[tuwix]

Nevertheless, labour credit is just another form of money and in the sort time there would appear one who theoretically work more than 24 hour per day because they earn more than labor time would indicate that...

[ckaihatsu]

Nevertheless, labour credit is just another form of money


Yes, you've made this spurious accusation before, but then you can't address the *content* of my response:





Other forms of labor credits than yours are usually just another form of money.





I'll note that my 'labor credits' is a *unique* formulation, only applying to liberated-labor *hours*, and nothing else, and so by that definition is *not* comparable to money -- there is no commodification possible with the labor credits.


---





and in the sort time there would appear one who theoretically work more than 24 hour per day because they earn more than labor time would indicate that...


And here you're making the unfounded assertion that there would be *corruption*, without bothering to give a reason as to how or why this could possibly happen.

You're a *contrarian*, tuwix.

(Keep in mind that those *handing over* any amount of labor credits for hours of work would have an interest in keeping that to a minimum, so anyone claiming a 25-hour day would probably *not* be favored.)

[Creative Destruction]

Nevertheless, labour credit is just another form of money and in the sort time there would appear one who theoretically work more than 24 hour per day because they earn more than labor time would indicate that...

Since credits would be given on a one-per-hour basis, it'd be quite a sight to see someone work 24 hours a day. I'd figure anyone who saw that would raise red flags.

And, no, labor vouchers wouldn't be a form of money.

[ckaihatsu]

Since credits would be given on a one-per-hour basis, it'd be quite a sight to see someone work 24 hours a day. I'd figure anyone who saw that would raise red flags.

And, no, labor vouchers wouldn't be a form of money.


Technical note, for clarification -- not all work roles would be one labor credit per hour.

These labor credits would have a *multiplier* attached to them, for varying kinds of work, by difficulty and/or hazard:





[T]he *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.

[Creative Destruction]

I'm not going to rehash that discussion, because there are fundamental points of disagreement over whether some labor should be privileged over the other. I don't think it should. Regardless, I don't care enough to have that discussion again. Also:


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.

This doesn't make any sense. The entire point of having labor credits is to deal with the issue of scarcity. Not everything will be readily available at first. The way you're framing labor credits, it's like people are just working for gold stars. No one is going to be working for gold stars.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not going to rehash that discussion, because there are fundamental points of disagreement over whether some labor should be privileged over the other. I don't think it should. Regardless, I don't care enough to have that discussion again.




Also:





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.





This doesn't make any sense.


---





The entire point of having labor credits is to deal with the issue of scarcity. Not everything will be readily available at first.


Okay, I agree with this premise / possibility.





The way you're framing labor credits, it's like people are just working for gold stars. No one is going to be working for gold stars.


If your concern is really over an initial scarcity of materials and production, then that's what the labor credits are able to address -- an increase in mass *demand* for the production of anything that's scarce would mean that those who provide their liberated labor for that production could probably call for, and receive, increasing *rates* of labor credits for those hours of work, to eliminate scarcity of that good:





[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.

[ckaihatsu]

The way you're framing labor credits, it's like people are just working for gold stars. No one is going to be working for gold stars.


Also, to address the political-economy *meaning* / substance of the labor credits:





[W]hy would *anyone* give a shit about labor credits and agree to do shitwork, even for an increased rate of labor credits, you ask -- ?

Because anyone who can command a *premium* of labor credits, as from higher multiplier rates, are effectively gaining and consolidating their control of society's *reproduction of labor*. Most likely there would be social ('political') factionalism involved, where those who are most 'socially concerned' or 'philosophically driven' would be coordinating to cover as much *unwanted* work territory as possible, all for the sake of political consolidation. Increased numbers of labor credits in-hand would allow a group to *direct* what social work roles are 'activated' (funded), going-forward.

Perhaps it's about colonizing another planet, or about carving high-speed rail networks that criss-cross and connect all seven continents underground. Maybe it's a certain academic approach to history and the sciences, with a cache of pooled labor credits going towards that school of educational instruction. Perhaps it's an *art* faction ascending, funding all kinds of large-scale projects that decorate major urban centers in never-before-seen kinds of ways.

Whatever the program and motivation, society as a whole would be collectively *ceding ground* if it didn't keep the 'revolution' and collectivism going, with a steady pace of automation that precluded whole areas of production from social politics altogether. Technology / automation empowers the *individual* and takes power out of the hands of groups that enjoy cohesiveness based on sheer *numbers* and a concomitant control of social reproduction in their ideological direction. The circulation and usage of labor credits would be a live formal tracking of how *negligent* the social revolution happened to be at any given moment, just as the consolidation of private property is today against the forces of revolutionary politics and international labor solidarity.

[Sea]

So I came up with one.I call it labour credits.1. No, you did not just come up with that.

2. If the labor theory of value is true, money is already labor credits.

[tuwix]

And here you're making the unfounded assertion that there would be *corruption*, without bothering to give a reason as to how or why this could possibly happen.


Where are money, there is corruption. And some credits regardless are they related to work or not are universal mean of payment that is money. They'll be forged as money are. The emitting body of that will have the power. It demands some authorities and those authorities will take multiple jobs and have more than 24 credits per day...




(Keep in mind that those *handing over* any amount of labor credits for hours of work would have an interest in keeping that to a minimum, so anyone claiming a 25-hour day would probably *not* be favored.)

And? In the Soviet Union the party oligarchs earned more than a worker. There is nothing new in that.

[ckaihatsu]

2. If the labor theory of value is true, money is already labor credits.


Labor credits aren't *money*, though, since they don't enable the expropriation of surplus labor value the way the money-commodity does under capitalism.





Where are money, there is corruption.


Okay.





And some credits regardless are they related to work or not are universal mean of payment that is money.


No, you're implying that labor credits would be used to purchase *goods*, the way we're used to doing with money -- that is *not* the case.

Again, from post #7, to clarify:





I'll note that my 'labor credits' is a *unique* formulation, only applying to liberated-labor *hours*, and nothing else, and so by that definition is *not* comparable to money -- there is no commodification possible with the labor credits.


---





They'll be forged as money are.


No, because every debt issuance of labor credits by any locality is a public event, with full disclosure of the creation of the labor credits -- they all have serial numbers stamped on them so they can be traced back to the locality they were issued from, and tracked indefinitely like license plates on cars.





The emitting body of that will have the power.


The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits -- but it's a *political* act since they're expecting their "local brand" (by serial numbers) to be honored at face value by everyone else in the world. The people of that issuing locality haven't done *any work* for their issuing of those labor credits, and everybody knows it because it's all part of the public record.

What that locality *could* do is send enough of its own people out to anywhere else, to do work and bring labor credits from outside back to their own locality, so as to show real backing for the batch of labor credits that they issued from debt. That, too, would be part of the public record.

Here's from a recent thread:





The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)


---





It demands some authorities and those authorities will take multiple jobs and have more than 24 credits per day...


No, sorry, tuwix, but you're imagining a nightmare monolithic authority -- the creation of any of these labor credits is the news-of-the-day and becomes part of the public record, known by reputation among those who are part of regular society, as from being involved in work.

If you're going to make accusations about potential corruption then the burden is on you to explain what the social basis is for that alleged corruption -- how would any 'authority' here receive the favor of someone else for a "25-hour" day of work -- ?

Remember that the labor credits *circulate*, so no one would be under any obligation to hand over more labor credits than they've agreed to for work performed.

There's more at that prior post on this topic:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2824597&postcount=18





And? In the Soviet Union the party oligarchs earned more than a worker. There is nothing new in that.


I appreciate the concern, but historical conditions can't just be copy-and-pasted into the present, or into a potential future.

If you're going to put forth your opinions about a 'labor credits' scenario then you have to show a *social basis* in that scenario for what you're asserting.

[rylasasin]

Hate to slightly derail this, but...

... speaking of Bitcoin is it even still really a thing? I know a year or two the Ancaps/Lolbertaridots on youtube wouldn't shut up about it, now I don't really hear a peep about it. Has that fad ended already or is it still going stronger or is it on life support or what's up with it?

[tuwix]

Labor credits aren't *money*, though, since they don't enable the expropriation of surplus labor value the way the money-commodity does under capitalism.


As universal mean of payment, they are. Commodity, surplus value, etc have nothing to do with that.




No, you're implying that labor credits would be used to purchase *goods*, the way we're used to doing with money -- that is *not* the case.


In my discussion here, I don't mean your version of labor credits, but those labor credits that are to be paid for hour and used to buy goods and services.


I appreciate the concern, but historical conditions can't just be copy-and-pasted into the present, or into a potential future.


It wasn't concern. When you noticed that it would be easily it would suspicious to earn more than 24 credits per day, then I asked and what? Besides I showed a country where in theory should be equality, but there where people who earned more and nothing happened there. So I suppose that nothing could happen, if someone earns more than 24 credits per day.

[ckaihatsu]

Labor credits aren't *money*, though, since they don't enable the expropriation of surplus labor value the way the money-commodity does under capitalism.





As universal mean of payment, they are. Commodity, surplus value, etc have nothing to do with that.


Again you're just being contrarian.

If you acknowledge that labor credits exclude commodification then they do not serve as a money-like 'payment' for anything, since they do not purchase goods, or commodities.

If you mean, though, that labor credits can be used to *select* specific liberated-labor, and 'pay' for hours of work effort, then you are correct.

For the sake of semantic clarity here's the beginning of the introduction to them and their function:





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits




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.) [...]




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


---





In my discussion here, I don't mean your version of labor credits, but those labor credits that are to be paid for hour and used to buy goods and services.


This is untrue since you were just addressing my framework of labor credits, above.





It wasn't concern. When you noticed that it would be easily it would suspicious to earn more than 24 credits per day,


I'm sorry, tuwix, but you're talking about *your own* observations, not mine.





then I asked and what? Besides I showed a country where in theory should be equality, but there where people who earned more and nothing happened there. So I suppose that nothing could happen, if someone earns more than 24 credits per day.


(I'll just note as a factual matter that the labor credits we've been discussing have a *multiplier* on them, per hour of labor. A person could certainly earn more than just 1 labor credit per hour, so there's no cap of '24 credits' per day.)





Determination of material values

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




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

[consuming negativity]

by giving people money for doing work, what we're saying is that work isn't valuable and that people have to be paid or else it won't get done

if people aren't willing to do it on their own accord, then it shouldn't be done

in a socialist society, productive activity will be seen as a good thing. hard workers will be prestigious, and people will want to work. in fact, everything we do is work, if you think about it. it's just some tasks we think are so terrible/degrading/boring/whatever that people need to be coerced into doing them. and money is money, even if you change the name from "dollar" to "labor credit". i don't care if it's the people's stick or the capitalist's stick, stop hitting me with a goddamn stick before i shove it up your ass. the entire fucking problem is that we think rewarding people with more shit is a good idea; because we don't realize that wealth inequality is exactly what fucking got us into this mess in the first place.

[ckaihatsu]

by giving people money for doing work, what we're saying is that work isn't valuable and that people have to be paid or else it won't get done

if people aren't willing to do it on their own accord, then it shouldn't be done

in a socialist society, productive activity will be seen as a good thing. hard workers will be prestigious, and people will want to work. in fact, everything we do is work, if you think about it. it's just some tasks we think are so terrible/degrading/boring/whatever that people need to be coerced into doing them. and money is money, even if you change the name from "dollar" to "labor credit". i don't care if it's the people's stick or the capitalist's stick, stop hitting me with a goddamn stick before i shove it up your ass. the entire fucking problem is that we think rewarding people with more shit is a good idea; because we don't realize that wealth inequality is exactly what fucking got us into this mess in the first place.


I think you and others here are missing the point of why something like circulating labor credits might be necessary -- it's not enough to say 'Everyone will smile at you if you do this for us', because that's just being patronizing to whoever gets stuck doing work that no one else really wants to do.

Of course *goods* / materials / resources will be free-access because that's what communism is, but if people aren't willing to do some things of their own accord -- and of course no one should be forced to do anything -- that doesn't mean those things shouldn't be done. To use a dramatic example it could be that no one wants to clean up after a hurricane hits, or whatever. It's possible that the area itself shouldn't just be abandoned, so eventually someone will have to do something onerous, but then who would be the ones, exactly, if anyone could just rightly opt-out of it like everyone else who *doesn't* do it, whatever that may be.

Since communism is free-access, labor credits don't buy *stuff*, and there's no wealth. Earning labor credits means that you get to pick what kind of labor is done going-forward, for what kinds of social production. (See post #12.)

[tuwix]

This is untrue since you were just addressing my framework of labor credits, above.



Are you trying to be telepathist? :) If so, you must exercise much more. :)

I thought then that you're defending general idea of labor credits that are to be paid per hour and as universal mean of payment are just another form of money.




(I'll just note as a factual matter that the labor credits we've been discussing have a *multiplier* on them, per hour of labor. A person could certainly earn more than just 1 labor credit per hour, so there's no cap of '24 credits' per day.)

I discuss other form and you discuss other one. And I showed how one can have multiple jobs and get more than 24 credits per day...

[ckaihatsu]

In my discussion here, I don't mean your version of labor credits, but those labor credits that are to be paid for hour and used to buy goods and services.





This is untrue since you were just addressing my framework of labor credits, above.





Are you trying to be telepathist? :) If so, you must exercise much more. :)


Your non-sequitur aside, you've been addressing my ideas on labor credits for several threads now, over a period of months.

You don't have to.





I thought then that you're defending general idea of labor credits that are to be paid per hour and as universal mean of payment are just another form of money.


No.

I've been very clear about showing that I'm describing my *own* model of labor credits.





I discuss other form and you discuss other one. And I showed how one can have multiple jobs and get more than 24 credits per day...


Tuwix, we're obviously talking past each other at this point.

[consuming negativity]

I think you and others here are missing the point of why something like circulating labor credits might be necessary -- it's not enough to say 'Everyone will smile at you if you do this for us', because that's just being patronizing to whoever gets stuck doing work that no one else really wants to do.

Of course *goods* / materials / resources will be free-access because that's what communism is, but if people aren't willing to do some things of their own accord -- and of course no one should be forced to do anything -- that doesn't mean those things shouldn't be done. To use a dramatic example it could be that no one wants to clean up after a hurricane hits, or whatever. It's possible that the area itself shouldn't just be abandoned, so eventually someone will have to do something onerous, but then who would be the ones, exactly, if anyone could just rightly opt-out of it like everyone else who *doesn't* do it, whatever that may be.

Since communism is free-access, labor credits don't buy *stuff*, and there's no wealth. Earning labor credits means that you get to pick what kind of labor is done going-forward, for what kinds of social production. (See post #12.)

step 1: figure out how much work has to be done
step 2: quantify the difference between tasks
step 3: let people sign up to do work

your ahp - average hours per year - would be public information, available by swiping a card. it isn't currency - but people could choose to ask for it and may or may not treat you differently based on it. rather than being a medium of exchange, the ahp would be a simple representation of labor value contributions with no legal, state, or other backing of any sort through coercive means.

[ckaihatsu]

step 1: figure out how much work has to be done
step 2: quantify the difference between tasks
step 3: let people sign up to do work

your ahp - average hours per year - would be public information, available by swiping a card. it isn't currency - but people could choose to ask for it and may or may not treat you differently based on it. rather than being a medium of exchange, the ahp would be a simple representation of labor value contributions with no legal, state, or other backing of any sort through coercive means.


Okay, this is more along the lines of a comprehensive look at the situation.

You may want to elaborate on how the 'difference between tasks' would be quantified -- it sounds like a 'multiplier', basically.

And if 'average hours per year' don't *also* show the respective 'quantifiers' / 'multipliers' for each hour then the plain number-value of average-hours is incomplete -- it doesn't reflect what *kinds* of tasks the person has been doing.

If you *do* show a 'quantifier' / 'multiplier' for 'average hours per year' -- really a person's *total* hours per year -- then that is the same as my 'labor credits' that a person has worked for and earned over the course of a year:





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




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

[consuming negativity]

Okay, this is more along the lines of a comprehensive look at the situation.

You may want to elaborate on how the 'difference between tasks' would be quantified -- it sounds like a 'multiplier', basically.

And if 'average hours per year' don't *also* show the respective 'quantifiers' / 'multipliers' for each hour then the plain number-value of average-hours is incomplete -- it doesn't reflect what *kinds* of tasks the person has been doing.

If you *do* show a 'quantifier' / 'multiplier' for 'average hours per year' -- really a person's *total* hours per year -- then that is the same as my 'labor credits' that a person has worked for and earned over the course of a year:

the kinds of tasks doesn't matter because it is the overall contribution that is being measured. the number would be an average of a normalized standard hour of labor, with additions and reductions to that given for each task based on a formula that would probably have to be very complex.

i guess you could just have it do total standardized hours in the past year, but i think a daily representation - and a much smaller number - would be a lot easier. and of course you could get black-out periods for pregnancy, illness, etc. that wouldn't affect your average. none of it would actually matter, but it would ideally be a perfect gauge of who has produced more or less. the thing is, domestic work becomes a lot harder to quantify. the whole thing is really pointless, though; it's just an example of how the functions served by labor credits could easily happen without resorting to using monetary exchange in a supposedly socialist economic situation. but it still has many of the limitations of money precisely because the entire point is still attempting to prevent abuse based on the assumption that people need incentives to work. i reject that assumption entirely.

[ckaihatsu]

the kinds of tasks doesn't matter because it is the overall contribution that is being measured. the number would be an average of a normalized standard hour of labor, with additions and reductions to that given for each task based on a formula that would probably have to be very complex.


Yeah, this is the part that's problematic since it's either a red herring or else is just too logistically / mathematically complex and unwieldy to be practical.

I've noted before that *any* calculation that purports to represent a portion of labor value (effort) going into something produced will have to have a 'historical cut-off point', which is intractable and therefore problematic. (Where would one 'draw the line' as to when to stop going back in time to include vectors of labor-effort input -- ?)





i guess you could just have it do total standardized hours in the past year,


A person's 'standardized hours in the past year' -- ?

What does this even mean -- ? It sounds like you're just putting in buzzwords.





but i think a daily representation - and a much smaller number - would be a lot easier. and of course you could get black-out periods for pregnancy, illness, etc. that wouldn't affect your average. none of it would actually matter, but it would ideally be a perfect gauge of who has produced more or less. the thing is, domestic work becomes a lot harder to quantify. the whole thing is really pointless, though; it's just an example of how




the functions served by labor credits could easily happen without resorting to using monetary exchange in a supposedly socialist economic situation.


You're implying that the functioning of (liberated-) labor-hour credits would be the same as using the capitalistic money-commodity -- labor credits aren't money and don't function the same way.





but it still has many of the limitations of money precisely because the entire point is still attempting to prevent abuse based on the assumption that people need incentives to work. i reject that assumption entirely.


I really don't see the point of the potential use of labor credits as being about 'preventing abuse' -- and abuse of what, anyway, exactly, in a post-capitalist context -- ?

The 'incentive' part would only apply on a *societal* (not personal-psychological) level with the labor credits approach, for tasks that are in danger of not getting done at all.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he labor credits approach [is] for tasks that are in danger of not getting done at all.


I'll elaborate on this and note that what would happen if a task was particularly avoided is that, with the labor credits method, its multiplier rate (per hour of work) would steadily *increase* since people would, by definition, be steadily or increasingly interested in seeing the task done, perhaps to eliminate the scarcity of something.

This would translate to an increase in (prerequisite) economic / labor activity, so as to generate more labor credits for possession, for being able to hand them over to whoever takes on the odious work, at premium rates of labor credits per hour of labor.

Effectively this is the *de-politicization* of the distasteful work since it can't be accomplished on a strictly social-collectivist basis, unfortunately, for whatever reason. In place of political effectiveness the social *economic* dynamic comes to the fore, with increased *economic* / liberated-labor activity that, by sheer *quantity* of effort, economically funneled and focused, better-values and underpins the willingness of whoever it is who *does* finally agree to do the onerous work that no one wants to do (for increased rates of labor credits per hour).

This de-politicization is seen in a second capacity as well, since whoever does the work and walks away with a bundle of labor credits *also* has the tacit economic and political approval of the world's population to *assign* that quantity of labor credits for whatever future labor efforts that person deems suitable in their own independent opinion. It could be for a frivolous, ephemeral service of some sort, for one's own sake only, or it could be for highly-leveraged work efforts that wind up eliminating scarcity of something across a great geographical region -- no one else would be able to call the decision into question as long as the work-effort and its terms, like any other, was first agreed-upon by available liberated labor and paid-for with the bounty of earned labor credits.

[ckaihatsu]

While I'm at it I may as well address another aspect of this approach -- one might retort 'What would stop Person A and Person B from reaching an arrangement where 'A' pays 'B' to pick their nose for a million labor credits per hour while 'B' pays 'A' a million labor credits an hour to scratch their butt -- ? (The 2 million labor credits would have to be a debt issuance of 1 million + 1 million, but after the transaction the debts would cancel each other out leaving neither person in debt, and each with a million labor credits.)

For this I'll just note that *individuals* wouldn't be able to issue debts -- it would always have to be on the basis of a local population, or locality, and it would be a public event, would invariably be socially newsworthy, and would exist in the public record for the world to see.

If a locality did a debt issuance of 2 million LCs for 'A' to scratch their butt and 'B' to pick their nose, that would be on the public record and it would be up to others from anywhere else in the world to decide whether those particular labor credits (by serial numbers) really should be valued as legitimate for subsequent economic activity.

[consuming negativity]

it's really not that complicated. a standardized labor hour is just an hour doing labor that is considered middle of the road in difficulty/usefulness/etc. doing an hour of brain surgery might be worth two standardized hours, whereas spending two hours jerking off into a cup might only net you one standardized hour of labor. then you divide so that you get the average amount of standardized labor hours performed in each 24 hour period over the past year. or two years, or five. or all three. it doesn't matter.

yeah, the formula would be complicated, but we have fucking computers that send people into outer space i'm pretty sure we can figure this out. in fact, i could probably make a crude version myself with a little bit of help from revleft, so i feel like it's completely realistic and feasible.

[ckaihatsu]

it's really not that complicated. a standardized labor hour is just an hour doing labor that is considered middle of the road in difficulty/usefulness/etc. doing an hour of brain surgery might be worth two standardized hours, whereas spending two hours jerking off into a cup might only net you one standardized hour of labor. then you divide so that you get the average amount of standardized labor hours performed in each 24 hour period over the past year. or two years, or five. or all three. it doesn't matter.

yeah, the formula would be complicated, but we have fucking computers that send people into outer space i'm pretty sure we can figure this out. in fact, i could probably make a crude version myself with a little bit of help from revleft, so i feel like it's completely realistic and feasible.


Well, that's great -- you're intrepid and ready to tackle it.

I'll welcome you to address this aspect of the situation, then, from post #26, since I have it down as a standing critique:





I've noted before that *any* calculation that purports to represent a portion of labor value (effort) going into something produced will have to have a 'historical cut-off point', which is intractable and therefore problematic. (Where would one 'draw the line' as to when to stop going back in time to include vectors of labor-effort input -- ?)


Here's it stated a different way, f.y.i.:





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 #4, here] is a unique and fairly recent development, and would not require this proposed exercise in labor-value geneaology.

[consuming negativity]

can you explain how you came to the conclusion that it's a problem, and then explain why it isn't a problem in your system?

or just point me to the post that i need to re-read

[ckaihatsu]

can you explain how you came to the conclusion that it's a problem, and then explain why it isn't a problem in your system?

or just point me to the post that i need to re-read


It happened some time ago at some past thread, and motivated me to develop this graphic:


Pies Must Line Up

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


The problem with the conventional 'labor vouchers' conception is that labor vouchers, despite not circulating, would still be issued in relation to work performed, and would be spent (exchanged) for a certain amount of goods. This means that they're being valuated in terms of labor, albeit liberated, and *also* in terms of consumer-type goods. So that means that the labor vouchers are essentially a medium of convertibility between labor and goods, which is too close to a *commodification* of goods, if it isn't commodification exactly (due to all 'production goods' / 'means of mass production' being collectivized and worker-controlled).

While I understand that decisions over production would be with the workers themselves, post-capitalism, I retain the concern that this labor-to-goods exchangeability would lead to a *market*-type dynamic over what gets produced and what doesn't, according to where people tend to spend their labor vouchers. In other words what's to prevent a good that's both 'wanted' and 'scarce' from *rising in price*, in terms of labor vouchers -- ? This would be an almost certain outcome if some kind of 'rationing' or 'prioritization' process was objectively required due to there not being enough of the stuff for everyone who demanded it, even if only temporarily -- and worse if the scarcity persisted ('semi-rare' items), or was the natural state of things ('better cuts of meat').

So essentially it's an issue of consumer-sided *prioritization* in the absence of market-type pricing (and its accompanying social ill of wealth). In a *post*-capitalist context 'demand' would have to be seen and handled equitably, over all persons, but if certain goods are 'scarce' this mass demand would have to be *qualified* somehow, for the sake of unavoidable 'rationing'.

My 'labor credits' framework *doesn't* use any kind of exchangeability of valuations, for goods or materials or resources. Instead any mass-prioritizations over mass demands would have to be handled in an *administrative* / political way, rather than economically -- this means pre-planning, which is what's supposed to be done, anyway, under communism.

There's a facet to the 'labor credits' framework that addresses this prioritization-of-demand, so that a brute top-down 'rationing' process can be avoided:




'additive prioritizations'

Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:


consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

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


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.

So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.




tinyurl.com/additive-prioritizations

[tuwix]

No.

I've been very clear about showing that I'm describing my *own* model of labor credits.


So it wasn't very clear to me... :)

[ckaihatsu]

So it wasn't very clear to me... :)


Obviously.

[BIXX]

(It theoretically works, too -- !)

Yeah, weren't you the guy who posted the thing about the magic pendant of healing?

Forgive me if you lack credibility.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, weren't you the guy who posted the thing about the magic pendant of healing?

Forgive me if you lack credibility.


You're a *bystander* to this thread, conflating some health technology you know nothing about with a multi-party discussion on post-capitalist political economy.

You're lacking presence and seriousness.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But why would it be some weird cryptocurrency, instead of the bog-standard paper money backed by reserves of some commodity? In particular, what you propose is completely useless for foreign trade. And it's needlessly complicated, and would lead to pointless busywork.

Computer scientist Paul Cockshott expressed the opposite viewpoint to your dismissive statement. One chapter of Towards a New Socialism specifically address labour credits in relation to foreign trade.

[ckaihatsu]

Computer scientist Paul Cockshott expressed the opposite viewpoint to your dismissive statement. One chapter of Towards a New Socialism specifically address labour credits in relation to foreign trade.


Just a comment -- I get uneasy hearing serious consideration of *foreign trade* between a revolutionary entity and the remainder of the capitalist world. While it's certainly a possibility and arguably requires consideration, I think more to the point would be to *expand* the revolution as much as possible so as to not get bogged-down in non-political / status-quo activities with the class enemy -- it just seems like a *double*-whammy.