Labor Time Vouchers

[Entrails Konfetti]

Though I'm bringing nothing new to the table; I feel I must ask some questions.

The lower phase of Communism entails "work-certificates" which is still a bourgoeis method of exchange of commodities though cloaked in a euphemism for the victors of the revolution.

If a Communist society wasn't abundant, it would possibly need to trade with bourgoeis countries, how would it do this without a monetary system?

Once a monetary system is re-introduced, so is Capitalism.

The reason why exchange ceases in a gift economy is because things are so abundant they don't need to have an exchange value. I can just take a chicken leg and eat when I'm hungry, but I'll help clean the sewers because I want to live in a clean evironment, and everyone else is doing their part too. People have been working to survive since they've existed.

Whats interesting is that one can shoplift something and not make a dent on a capitalists profit. The thing that was "stolen" might have beenn in the percentage of commodities that were going to be thrown-out anyways. It would very nieve of the capitalist to believe that they would be able to sell all of their products in the market. Based on this, would it be wrong to say that over-abundance is possible?

[NovelGentry]

The lower phase of Communism entails "work-certificates" which is still a bourgoeis method of exchange of commodities though cloaked in a euphemism for the victors of the revolution.

If you're talking about labor time vouchers I already clarified this.

Wage is a system whereby you receive the value of your labor power, i.e. the time and trouble which is required to produce your labor power, namely, what you require to live and actually do what you do. In some cases I would argue wage is actually much lower than this.

Labor time vouchers is a system whereby you receive the value of your labor, i.e. the time and trouble which is required to produce whatever it is you happen to produce, namely, the time it takes you to do what you do. This is significantly higher than any wage you currently see, guaranteed.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:20 PM
Labor time vouchers is a system whereby you receive the value of your labor, i.e. the time and trouble which is required to produce whatever it is you happen to produce, namely, the time it takes you to do what you do. This is significantly higher than any wage you currently see, guaranteed.
I knew someone was going to defend labour-time vouchers. With a labour voucher you purchase other goods: An exchange of commodities. Yet, the claim is each commoditie is judged by intensity of labour, and how much time it took to produce the commoditie. In reality its just gold once removed. The voucher itself is a representation of actual labour; much like the dollar, peso, or euro: Except without the judgement of circulation of monies, and gold in reserves.

The time it took me to produce 675 pencils is one tenth the time it took to produce a pair of shades. How so? Each commoditie has different use-values, and the labour embodied in each are entirely different from eachother. You can't compare labour, all is different to eachother. Even if it took Joe the same time as me to produce as many pencils, he might be in a poorer or better state of health than myself, and his labour is different there aswell.

Therefor labour-time vouchers are still nice Socialist euphemisms based entirely on labour power, and not on actual labour.

A socialist country that needs to exchange goods with a bourgoeis country would have to revert back to the system of gold and circulation, otherwize it would be damned near impossible to trade.

Labour-time vouchers serve better in a measuem with the phrases "Dictatorship of the Prolitariat" and "Socialism". Coincidentally they'll end up there.

[NovelGentry]

I knew someone was going to defend labour-time vouchers. With a labour voucher you purchase other goods: An exchange of commodities. Yet, the claim is each commoditie is judged by intensity of labour, and how much time it took to produce the commoditie. In reality its just gold once removed. The voucher itself is a representation of actual labour; much like the dollar, peso, or euro: Except without the judgement of circulation of monies, and gold in reserves.

I knew someone was going to ignore every political-economist for the past 200 years.

Yes, with a labor voucher you "purchase" other goods. However, labor time vouchers unlike gold, money, or to use Adam Smith's fallable medium, corn, are not commodities. For starters they do not circulate. Secondly, unlike gold, money, and corn they do not constitue a relative value of any sorts.

Say for example, one month a pair of shoes cost 10 dollars, the next it costs 20. Did money decrease in value or did shoes increase in value? Go ahead, try and answer it.

Now let's take a scenario using LTV. One month a pair of shoes costs 2.31 hours of labor, the next it costs 2.57. Did the value of one hour of labor go down, or did .... oh wait, we don't receive the value of an hour of labor. The change is clear.

That is the practical difference between wage an any system of money compared to the LTV. The labor market doesn't exist... the concept of being paid the value of an hour of labor doesn't exist.


The time it took me to produce 675 pencils is one tenth the time it took to produce a pair of shades. How so?

That's nice.


Each commoditie has different use-values

Yes, to be precise each commodity has a unique use-value.


and the labour embodied in each are entirely different from eachother.

False. The labor embodied in it is very much the same as the labor embodied in other things. Don't confuse the use value of labor with the use value of the product of that labor.



You can't compare labour, all is different to eachother.

Of course you can compare labor.


Even if it took Joe the same time as me to produce as many pencils, he might be in a poorer or better state of health than myself, and his labour is different there aswell.

And what does this have to do with anything? The real value of any good is the toil and trouble of acquiring that good. If Joe is in poorer health and he expends the same amount of labor time to produce the same amount of pencils, you can't very well differentiate between the labor.


A socialist country that needs to exchange goods with a bourgoeis country would have to revert back to the system of gold and circulation, otherwize it would be damned near impossible to trade.

I've often thought about ways to get around this. It's not exactly true to say it would be damn near impossible to trade. The economic conversions are actually quite easy -- the difficult part is whether or not you want to be acquiring goods at a price based on exploited labor.


Labour-time vouchers serve better in a measuem with the phrases "Dictatorship of the Prolitariat" and "Socialism". Coincidentally they'll end up there.

I would love to see such things in a museum. That would imply we've probably achieved communism.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:26 PM
However, labor time vouchers unlike gold, money, or to use Adam Smith's fallable medium, corn, are not commodities. For starters they do not circulate. Secondly, unlike gold, money, and corn they do not constitue a relative value of any sorts.

Labour is a commodity that produces other commodities. But in your case, labour is exchanged for LTVs.

LTVs circulate in sense that I am able to buy food, and rent necessary for my subsidence to produce more commodities tommorow. Also, if no one were to purchase anything, no one would be able to produce anything--existence would cease. Labour allows commodities to circulate. Commodites are an imbodiment of labour. Labour distributes commodities.


Say for example, one month a pair of shoes cost 10 dollars, the next it costs 20. Did money decrease in value or did shoes increase in value? Go ahead, try and answer it.

Thats a bullshit question, there isn't a particular answer to that. It depends on supply and demand.


Now let's take a scenario using LTV. One month a pair of shoes costs 2.31 hours of labor, the next it costs 2.57. Did the value of one hour of labor go down, or did .... oh wait, we don't receive the value of an hour of labor. The change is clear.

Would not the value of exchange under the Dollar system not increase if supplies were not limited than before? If supplies are limited, labour is intensitified.
You're still judging labour on supply and demand: Not the actual or particular labour expended on the commoditys production. The LTVs are gold once removed.


That is the practical difference between wage an any system of money compared to the LTV. The labor market doesn't exist... the concept of being paid the value of an hour of labor doesn't exist.

The time on the clock is another way of measuring the amount of commodities made. There are quotas of commodities made for every hour. On the first three hours I'm supposed to make 130 pencils, when production speeds up I'm supposed to make 270 in the next three--ect. Its all supposed to equal out to $40.00 at the end of the day for myself or 8 hours LTV. When production speeds up in the pencil factory; say for instance the beginning of the school year, I usually recieve a raise.

How does the labour market not exist or the concept of being paid hourly under the LTVs?


Yes, to be precise each commodity has a unique use-value.

And you can't put a price on use-values, a pencil is useless to kid who plays video games all day, and useful to one who writes in a journal constanly. Only the individual can determine the use-values of such things.


False. The labor embodied in it is very much the same as the labor embodied in other things. Don't confuse the use value of labor with the use value of the product of that labor.

But something that is obsolete, and has much labour expended on it is still useless! Its useless labour! Like a car that will never work.
Labour has to produce a use-value in your system otherwize commodities don't get consumed for the subsidence of tommorows labour.

If I was paid to sit on my ass, while you were paid to slaughter turkeys under socialism, there would be an unequal distribution of wealth.


Of course you can compare labor.
How? I really want to know!

Is not the labour of assembling mops the same as mopping up a sick childs vomit in a school cafeteria?

Is not the labour of assembling mops the same as assembling pencils?


And what does this have to do with anything? The real value of any good is the toil and trouble of acquiring that good. If Joe is in poorer health and he expends the same amount of labor time to produce the same amount of pencils, you can't very well differentiate between the labor.

My point is judging labour-time socially necessary doesn't take into account the energy expended of different people, only on what is percieved on what is needed to be produced. If its was really based on toil and trouble, people might possibly labour more intensly.


I've often thought about ways to get around this. It's not exactly true to say it would be damn near impossible to trade. The economic conversions are actually quite easy -- the difficult part is whether or not you want to be acquiring goods at a price based on exploited labor.

You'll be going back to their system of gold and circulation, how else are you going to explain exchange rates?

You'd better acquire goods, or else the people will threaten the sovereignty of bureaucracy.

[NovelGentry]

But in your case, labour is exchanged for LTVs.

False, LTVs are a representation of the labor you have contributed, they are not exchanged for your labor.

If they were exchanged, that would imply there is an inherent exchange value, which there is not, and more important of that fact, there is no relative value of labor time vs LTV.


LTVs circulate in sense that I am able to buy food, and rent necessary for my subsidence to produce more commodities tommorow.

Yes, you can acquire food with LTVs. Specifically you can acquire exactly the same value of food as the value you have contributed. After that, the LTV is no longer functional.


Labour allows commodities to circulate.

There is absolutely no point to the free circulation of commodities... not saying it can't happen, but why would circulation occur if the value is the same anywhere?


Thats a bullshit question, there isn't a particular answer to that.

No, there is a particular answer. You can't find it, but there is one. If the relative value changes one either had to increase in value, or the other had to decrease... as Ricardo points out, the only way to find out which one is to compare the relative value of a number of other products or a single product you know who's value has not changed.


You're still judging labour on supply and demand

You're the one bringing up supply and demand here. I don't even think supply and demand is adequately applicable to modern day capitalism anymore.


The time on the clock is another way of measuring the amount of commodities made. There are quotas of commodities made for every hour. On the first three hours I'm supposed to make 130 pencils, when production speeds up I'm supposed to make 270 in the next three--ect. Its all supposed to equal out to $40.00 at the end of the day for myself or 8 hours LTV. When production speeds up in the pencil factory; say for instance the beginning of the school year, I usually recieve a raise.

No no, quotas are not functional here. LTV in order to establish itself as actual value requires average social labor hours and the such. What you are talking about is destroying the market through static values. Static pay rate, static quotas, static value of pencils... no such system is feasible without an insanely intense bureaucratic system, more to the point, static wages are not in any way indicative that the labor market is abolished.


How does the labour market not exist or the concept of being paid hourly under the LTVs?

You're not paid hourly under the LTV system.


And you can't put a price on use-values, a pencil is useless to kid who plays video games all day, and useful to one who writes in a journal constanly. Only the individual can determine the use-values of such things.

I'm not talking about putting a price on use values. It is true use values are only actualized in use. It is also true that the use value of a #2 pencil for someone who uses it is equivalent to the use value of any other #2 pencil of equivalent durability.

But the use value of a #2 pencil can never be compared to the use value of any quantity of sugar.

And quite the contrary the individual is not the sole determinant of use value. The individual only actualizes use value, use value othewise is inherent within the object.


But something that is obsolete, and has much labour expended on it is still useless!

Right, and I would suspect no one would use it under such circmstances.


Labour has to produce a use-value in your system otherwize commodities don't get consumed for the subsidence of tommorows labour.

I'm not very much concerned with something's use value... at all, I wouldn't be very much concerned with it unless I had a use for it, and even then, it's not any conscious determination.


If I was paid to sit on my ass, while you were paid to slaughter turkeys under socialism, there would be an unequal distribution of wealth.

Well obviously no one would be "paid" to sit on their ass. But what you're talking about here isn't really use value, it's more appropriate to examine it as exchange value. The exchange value of the product of your labor is absolutely nill, while the exchange value of my labor necessarily reflects actual value of my labor.


Is not the labour of assembling mops the same as mopping up a sick childs vomit in a school cafeteria?

Is not the labour of assembling mops the same as assembling pencils?

Indeed, all of those are the same, and that is a comparison of labor. But let's take an even more complex comparison. The labor of programming *nix systems for an hour is not the same as the labor of mopping up vomit for an hour. One is a compounded labor.


If its was really based on toil and trouble, people might possibly labour more intensly.

And in doing so would take less time to complete the same task. If you labor more intensely at picking apples, at the end of an hour you're going to have picked more apples than I have, or if you prefer the time it takes you to pick 200 apples is going to be less than the time it takes me to do so.


You'll be going back to their system of gold and circulation, how else are you going to explain exchange rates?

One can easily examine the value of goods in a market exchange and exchange equivalently. Of course, the value of money to anyone in the socialist society would be quite little, thus one must compare exchange equivalently back in order to convert the two. The additional proposal which I see most fitting would be to take existing capital and convert it directly to foreign exchanges and "bank" it so to speak.


I'm not very well aware of your history with economic works. Judging by your posts I'd say you've heard the terms use-value and exchange-value lightly thrown around and probably have some rudementary grasp of what the Labor Theory of Value is... you've expressed sincere ignorance (as have most people thus far in this thread) on the difference between the value of labor and the value of labor power and, thus, wage. If you have any serious critique of any serious LTV system, I suggest you wage it cause I'm getting sick of meaningless points such as, "But something that is obsolete, and has much labour expended on it is still useless!"

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:28 AM
I'm not very well aware of your history with economic works. Judging by your posts I'd say you've heard the terms use-value and exchange-value lightly thrown around and probably have some rudementary grasp of what the Labor Theory of Value is... you've expressed sincere ignorance (as have most people thus far in this thread) on the difference between the value of labor and the value of labor power and, thus, wage. If you have any serious critique of any serious LTV system, I suggest you wage it cause I'm getting sick of meaningless points such as, "But something that is obsolete, and has much labour expended on it is still useless!"
I read Capital vol.1. I understand the difference between labour and labour-power.
Wages are based on your labour power, and not your actual labour--or the ability that you can labour: Not your actual labour.

What I don't understand about LTVs is that they still seem to pigeonhole labour. If you were to reward(?) someone for their labour you'd have to study biology for the wear, and tear for the human organism when toiling. Even then, there may still be an equal distribution of wealth, that is unless its figured out how to combine labur evenly. And that my friend is my problem with LTVs

Under LTVs it seems you are still paid hourly with hours of labour based on congealed labour.

How would trade work with bourgoeis countries, could they still use anything based off LTVs. Their economies depend on circulation.

Would there be an economy under LTVs or is that not needed?

I want to split this thread, how about you?

[NovelGentry]

What I don't understand about LTVs is that they still seem to pigeonhole labour. If you were to reward(?) someone for their labour you'd have to study biology for the wear, and tear for the human organism when toiling. Even then, there may still be an equal distribution of wealth, that is unless its figured out how to combine labur evenly. And that my friend is my problem with LTVs

Combine this short paragraph from wiki's article on the Labor Theory or Value:

However, a lazy or inept worker (who spends more time producing an item) does not produce more value than an industrious one. Rather, the first worker's time produces less because the value depends on what is socially necessary. That is, the value of a product is determined more by societal standards than by individual conditions.

With this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially-necessary_labour_time

And my previous statement of this:

No no, quotas are not functional here. LTV in order to establish itself as actual value requires average social labor hours and the such.

For an explanation of a working groundwork for an LTV system which takes all this into account, see here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/


Under LTVs it seems you are still paid hourly with hours of labour based on congealed labour.

It is completely dependent on how you implement the ideas found in the article above. What it really seems like you're not OK with (given your biology point and what not) is accepting equality. This is why it's important to view value in the social concept, specifically exchange value. Exchange value == nill if there's no one to exchange it with.

Under what I propose a very early socialist country may include all of the recommendations which Hempel declares useful (and then some). For example, it may be the case that they would like to decide to credit firemen .10 labor hours more per actual hour of labor, they can do so, but in order to ensure that is accounted for, .10 multiplied by however many hours the firemen work in a month (assuming hours added for every firemen) must be removed socially.

You can calculate average social hours every hour, or every 24 hours, or however much you like. If you calculate them every hour, it may be the case that one time you acquire 1.12 hours of LTV for one hour, and another you acquire .72 - is that what you're looking for?


How would trade work with bourgoeis countries, could they still use anything based off LTVs. Their economies depend on circulation.

Every product produced is represented by value in one way or another in nearly every place I know of. Aside from completely gift economies, value is always determined somewhere at some point. While I have not worked out any formula for determining the value of a good under a capitalist system from LTV, it is wholely possible if one is to examine the various things that constitute it's value in the capitalist system and account for those things given what we know under LTV. An extreme oversimplification would be averaging comparible commodity prices from their system, or another, and setting that as prices for export.

That money can then be essentially be held onto as state capital for further trade necessary trade, such as importing. My recommendation would of course be to tax capitalist countries who need to import goods from you, thereby allowing you to set the equivalent money for LTV aside and give the proper value for their labor back to the workers who make the product -- keeping the tax as necessary trade capital.


Would there be an economy under LTVs or is that not needed?

Define what you mean by economy here. Market? No, no market would exist. Economy would exist as a unavoidable consequence of economics... which is an unavoidable consequence of life.


I want to split this thread, how about you?

I'm down.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Thankyou for the link on Fundemental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution.

Says it's easy to read for the Average-Joe, nice!

I'll be sure to discuss it with you.

[Social Greenman]

Thank you EL KAMBLAMO and NovelGentry for this thread. I am still learning about TLVs myself and that it is completely different from wages. Wages are what people get when they sell their labor power to the capitalist. LTVs are 100 percent of the labor we keep being not a portion that the capitalist give. The vouchers are exchanged at the social store for items of desire or need. The voucher is eliminated at the end of the transaction. I don't believe the concept of "supply and demand" would fit into this. Yes, the store has to restock shelves with all different types of different things that may be viewed as what workers want. Workers in different shops would have to fill orders for the different stores everywhere. Then there is those jobs that are service jobs like replacing furnaces or building houses. Medical care and those gadgets and medicines that make it possible to stay healthy.

http://www.deleonism.org/v.htm

Of course TLVs would be temporary because social behaviors that exist now would change over the years to come. During that time of change free access or what is known as the "gift economy" can start being implemented. New technologies would be invented. Gadgets that would clean sewers, repair machinery, machines that replaces humans in dangerous types of work, perhaps even the replicator as seen on Star Trek. I do support the efforts of those who would educate everyone on what the gift economy is.

As Vince De Benedeto stated:


And people will work. They will work because they'll like their jobs more, as they are better paired with what they enjoy, and as they can finally take lasting and meaningful pride in their work, and as many jobs lose their social stigma, and the financial penalty of low or otherwise inadequate pay, and as many jobs become safer and cleaner, and hence more appealing. And they'll work, too, because their feeling of connectedness with their fellow human beings will be far greater--if the new society formally cultivates such feelings. Hence the necessity of the love ethic component of the socialist program.

http://www.cooperative-society.org/