LTV [Archive] - RevLeft

Social Greenman

28th January 2006, 16:51

Here is an example of how french bread pizza is made from first hand account. The multigrain and soy protien is shiped via trucks from some location to the huge bakery. The multigrain and soy protien is put into a gigantic Hercules Mixer where the dough is made. The dough is tramsfered to another machine which rolls it out into sheets and cut into 12 inch lengths which are rolled to fit into a french bread pan (the pan holds five). When in the pan they are streeched by human hands to fit better and bake at the right length. The people who streech the dough only have a few seconds to do so and center them. A lot of dough is thrown away during theis process because the machine will miss the pan and get dirty.

As the french bread dough goes down the line a lid is put on them. They are baked in the oven and a machine separate the pan from the bread. The pans are 200+F. The bottoms are separated from the tops and the process starts again. The bread goes up a conveyer and cooled to 30 F. Machines pack the cooled bread into boxes which are loaded onto trucks. The trucks transport the bread to plant#2.

At plant# 2 the bread is cut into four equal parts. From there the bread gets different toppings for orders they are working on. More waste happens as cheese, peppers onions, and meat ends up on the floor. The french bread is again baked and then flash frozen. The product is then wraped and placed into boxes. Sometimes the machine goes down and a lot of people are needed to pack the pizzas into boxes. Most of these people are temps. Though all of the french bread pizza is the same thing. However, they end up with different packages and boxes to be shiped to different companies who, according to the print on the boxes, claim they made the product. Next time you buy a french bread pizza just buy the store brand because it is the same damn thing as the name brand.

I wrote the above to demonstrate the complexities of production. Even though automation makes it possible to put out commodities at a very fast rate but the fast rate makes people work at a high rate of speed as well. It is my opinion that the use of TLVs would keep these factories going at the set pace (to meet human needs) since people will still want their pizzas. In other words TLVs it will make it worth the while to produce these item. There are many places of production that are not automated. There is some automation but mostly it is manual labor that puts products in the stores. Jumping right to a gift economy may prove a disaster since it is most likely consumption would out pace production. However, implementation of TLVs can keep things going socially until the new society can fully automate the means of production.

voice of the voiceless

28th January 2006, 17:14

How do LTV's solve the fundamental contradictions of capital and capitalist economy? are they aligned to gold reserves?

loveme4whoiam

28th January 2006, 17:19

These sound very much like money to me, which is (according to Dictionary.com because I lack the economic understanding to make my own up) -

1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

I'm not complaining - the moneyless system is the one hurdle which I'm still trying to wrap my head around; these would do nicely, in my own ineducated opinion. But I just thought I'd raise the question, don't these go against the typical Communist/Anarchist ideology?

voice of the voiceless

28th January 2006, 17:28

I dont think its like money because it doesnt circulate. And money isnt based on labour time but on supply demand and how much the company wants to charge!

JazzRemington

28th January 2006, 17:54

voice of the voiceless

28th January 2006, 17:58

When people are payed about 3pence an hour because thats all they need - products become as free as streetlighting!

Social Greenman

29th January 2006, 00:24

Voice of the Voiceless wrote:

How do LTV's solve the fundamental contradictions of capital and capitalist economy? are they aligned to gold reserves?

No. It is based on labor time done by the workers not on gold reserves. I believe money was taken off the gold standard some time ago. Anyways, it is basically a medium of exchange but it ends right at the exchange. No profits are made so it is not money or turds to be thrown about.

loveme4whoiam wrote:

But I just thought I'd raise the question, don't these go against the typical Communist/Anarchist ideology?

No! Marx gave reference to it in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. He got the idea from a man called Owen who first experimented with a socialist collective. Daniel De Leon wrote of it (sorry, I can't find the link) and Mike Lepore came up with the alogrythms of how it can work.

Upteenth Time Link:

http://www.deleonism.org/v1.htm

Jazz Remington wrote:

But this of course begs the question as to when will we know we've reached the level necessary to jump to a gift economy.

When the means of production is automated to the point that there would be but a few people to watch over the machines. Robotics and nano technology would take care of everything.

By the way, I wanted to add that 600,000 loafs of bread are produced each day. It was estimated that what is produced amounts to $300.00 a minute.

enigma2517

29th January 2006, 00:44

Technically, it IS money, but the general definition of money. Hell, if we used turds for exchange, turds would be money!

But I don't think that any system based on LTVs (Collectivism, Parecon, etc.) would be a desireable end, but a good means. But this of course begs the question as to when will we know we've reached the level necessary to jump to a gift economy.

Is it possible to completely socialize the distribution of certain products while maintaining labor credits in another? For instance...schools and food for everybody but cars and ipods only in exchange for labor?

If, and I do mean if workers organize and throw off the capitalist system, you mean to tell me that the enlightened worker who are sick of exploitation are going to rig the system to continue to exploit their fellow worker and get rich?

What if you have a personal grudge against somebody? Or your son reallllly wants that new Play Station 12 for Christmas? Would it hurt just to give yourself just a tinnnny bit extra?

I don't think this will be a huge problem though. The machine that keeps track of labor will be easy to automate. The labor itself will be harder to automate than the system. Or, you could have a rotating position thats monitored by a third party. In addition to that, you can have a paper trail to help discourage theft.

The problem is, anytime you have a system where you can accumulate more and more, thats what people will want to do. Completely communist and socialized production would be preferable but I guess we'll just have to run on "revolutionary fervor" until then?

This is something I can't quite get over. On one hand, TLV's sound really nice and are much better than currency or all out gift economies, which like you said, would not keep up with consumption. On the other hand, isn't this a system that can be exploited just like anything else?

I'm going to go read more about communist economics right now. I found a critique of both Paecon and TLV and it suggests something new called labor money? I don't know...we shall see.

JazzRemington

29th January 2006, 06:31

Is it possible to completely socialize the distribution of certain products while maintaining labor credits in another? For instance...schools and food for everybody but cars and ipods only in exchange for labor?

Well, in the SPanish Revolution, essencial goods were given away based on a gift economy, whereas luxuries were distributed based on vouchers. So I think it would be possible, to some extent. In "Ideas on Social Organization," written by James Guillaume, we are told that housing, medical, and education would be freely provided, paid for by the exchange agency setup in the local community.

Social Greenman

30th January 2006, 12:35

enigma2517 wrote:

Is it possible to completely socialize the distribution of certain products while maintaining labor credits in another? For instance...schools and food for everybody but cars and ipods only in exchange for labor?

Hypthetically speaking, the idea is that during the production process 20 minutes or more of LTV labor units are created and set aside into a social assurance fund of some kind. These units are then used to pay doctors, hospital workers, educators, social service people, garbage men, et al. People who need medical care, need psychological care, to get an education, or to have their garbage picked up. No person will have to open their wallet ever again to pay for services because it is already paid for.

What if you have a personal grudge against somebody? Or your son reallllly wants that new Play Station 12 for Christmas? Would it hurt just to give yourself just a tinnnny bit extra?

I don't think this will be a huge problem though. The machine that keeps track of labor will be easy to automate. The labor itself will be harder to automate than the system. Or, you could have a rotating position thats monitored by a third party. In addition to that, you can have a paper trail to help discourage theft.

Yes there will be a paper trail since there will always be people, due to capitalism, who want to reach inside the cookie jar. Since products of labor will cost of fraction as they once did (no profits) people who labor will not have to work long hours. More people can come to work which will reduce the hours. This will give people more time to be creative--arts and such--and spend time with their families. On the other hand, I am puzzled by what you wrote about labor being automated.

Labor money:

http://www.ithacahours.com/

Jazz Remington wrote:

Well, in the SPanish Revolution, essencial goods were given away based on a gift economy, whereas luxuries were distributed based on vouchers. So I think it would be possible, to some extent. In "Ideas on Social Organization," written by James Guillaume, we are told that housing, medical, and education would be freely provided, paid for by the exchange agency setup in the local community.

The idea of LTVs is to make medical and education free. When people are in a copllective frame of mind a lot of good comes from it from what you wrote. I need to start a thread on housing and land because those alone are a complex problem. Anyways, I have to go now and will return at a later date. Work you know.

loveme4whoiam

30th January 2006, 12:44

Hypthetically speaking, the idea is that during the production process 20 minutes or more of LTV labor units are created and set aside into a social assurance fund of some kind. These units are then used to pay doctors, hospital workers, educators, social service people, garbage men, et al. People who need medical care, need psychological care, to get an education, or to have their garbage picked up. No person will have to open their wallet ever again to pay for services because it is already paid for.

Oo, I like this a lot, and it answers my question about the "is it currency" thing :) - since the LTV's are never exchanged between people they can never gain any value other than in the form of services, which Social Greenman outlined.

This kind of answers a question that has been on my mind of some time - how do you classify labour and non-labour? For instance, I want to be an historian, but I wouldn't call that labour. In that case, I would have to perform some kind of labour function first, in order to fulfil my obligations to society and earn LTVs, and then use my free time to pursue my scholary activities. However, a doctor is performing a more immediate function, so that would count as his labour time. Is this a correct interpretation?

Not that I have a problem with this - as SG pointed out with everyone doing some kind of labour, working hours would be reduced dramatically, which would probably give me MORE time to be a historian, while still having the satisfaction having done my bit of society.

Nice explanation Social Greenman :D

CCCPneubauten

3rd February 2006, 02:28

What prevents one from keeping or saving his LTVs so he becomes in a way his own class due to the fact he has much more than everyone else?

NovelGentry

3rd February 2006, 03:30

http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm -- READ READ READ!

Social Greenman

6th February 2006, 01:38

CCCPneubauten wrote:

What prevents one from keeping or saving his LTVs so he becomes in a way his own class due to the fact he has much more than everyone else?

There is nothing wrong with a person saving his TLVs. Working people try to save money but never get rich in the process. So no, I don't believe a person could become his own class or have more than another because everyone else would saving TLVs.

loveme4whoiam wrote:

This kind of answers a question that has been on my mind of some time - how do you classify labour and non-labour? For instance, I want to be an historian, but I wouldn't call that labour. In that case, I would have to perform some kind of labour function first, in order to fulfil my obligations to society and earn LTVs, and then use my free time to pursue my scholary activities. However, a doctor is performing a more immediate function, so that would count as his labour time. Is this a correct interpretation?

The doctor gets paid from the social asurance fund which I tried to explain earlier. Those payments are LTVs. Same with the educator and trash person. Health care, education or any type of social service would be free for people to use but those who labor in those fields gets their TLVs.

Thanks for the link NovelGentry. I just got around to reading it. Been busy with work and a health issue that won't go away.

loveme4whoiam

6th February 2006, 10:53

Ahhh. Cheers (again) for the explaation SG :) I used the LTVs/TLV (whichever) theory in an argument with a guy in college the other day who said that a moneyless society was impossible; that shut him up good. Damn right-wing fascist.

Social Greenman

6th February 2006, 23:40

loveme4whoiam wrote:

Ahhh. Cheers (again) for the explaation SG smile.gif I used the LTVs/TLV (whichever) theory in an argument with a guy in college the other day who said that a moneyless society was impossible; that shut him up good. Damn right-wing fascist.

Under the present economic circumstances the guy was correct that a moneyless society is currently impossible. LTV is an entirely different economic system which he most likely never heard of. Well, I got to go to work. I've been saving money but there is always something that happens which makes me have to depart from what I saved into someone elses greedy hands :angry: .

CCCPneubauten

7th February 2006, 02:02

I am still confused how this isn't just "Commie Money"

Sorry...I tend to be slow, regarding new economic systems. Forgive me.

Social Greenman

9th February 2006, 00:11

"Commie Money" is not the best description because there is no circulation of TLVs. Labor creates the voucher and then it is terminated when products are exchanged for them. Capitalist will lose their ability to exploit and to make profit. Since their wealth will be gone they would have to work like everyone else. This new economic system would serve as a foundation to a new society.

loveme4whoiam

9th February 2006, 18:15

Who first came up with the idea of TLVs? Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of lefty books (currently slipping a chapter of the Manifesto among my other assignments) so it might be obvious :unsure:

Social Greenman

9th February 2006, 23:56

loveme4whoiam wrote:

Who first came up with the idea of TLVs? Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of lefty books (currently slipping a chapter of the Manifesto among my other assignments) so it might be obvious

Robert Owen came up with the concept in 1820. The first one issued was in 1833.

http://www.iisg.nl/today/en/22-07.php

Karl Marx made mention of them in The Critique of the Gotha Programme

Daniel De Leon also talked of them in this pamplet:

http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf

Social Greenman

10th February 2006, 19:37

I have noticed that very few people have taken interest in this discussion which makes me wonder why? Why talk of revolution when there exist no discussion of new economics which has the potential of wiping out capitalist economics of markets and money?

JKP

11th February 2006, 03:54

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 10 2006, 12:02 PM
I have noticed that very few people have taken interest in this discussion which makes me wonder why? Why talk of revolution when there exist no discussion of new economics which has the potential of wiping out capitalist economics of markets and money?
Because it's decades away, and new and more modern ideas will created for it. But you never can know of course.

Social Greenman

11th February 2006, 16:43

JKP wrote:

Because it's decades away, and new and more modern ideas will [be] created for it. But you never can know of course.

My opinion is that most here are good critics of capitalism and the economics involved with it and being rather stuck on it. They also paint a gloomy picture of rationing with a dictatorship preciding over the population. We really don't want our grandchildren or great grandchildren living under those misrable conditions where the only solance is drugs and they better not be spiritual least they be punished. :angry:

Moreover, each industry will be managed and administered by it's "factory organisation" being an independent units which currently exist under capitalism. A bottom up administration of elected managers, by the workers, will oversee production. It is very simple since production relies on "what is on order" to produce, placed in the warehouse to await distribution to the social stores here and abroad for consumption. The social stores will place the orders for products of exchange.

Social Greenman

12th February 2006, 19:42

A quote from the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNIST PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The fundamental point to which we would draw attention here is that, in the case of this form of communism, the proletariat has no control over the productive apparatus. In the mere formal sense, it is the owner of the means of production, but it nevertheless has no right of disposal over them. Precisely what proportion of the total social stock of products the producer may receive in return for the work performed is determined by a central administration which, if everything proceeds according to plan, determines this on the basis of statistics. In reality, the decision as to whether or not exploitation should take place is vested in a central authority. Even in the case in which a benevolent administration is in command, which then distributes the products in an equitable way, it remains nevertheless an apparatus which has elevated itself over the producers. The question then becomes one as to whether this state of affairs has come to pass in Russia on account of the special conditions prevailing there, or whether in this case we have a characteristic feature typical of each and every central administration concerned with production and distribution. Should the latter be the case, the possibility of establishing communism would become very problematical indeed.

The belevolent dictatorship failed.

Mike Lepore wrote:

In my opinion, the Soviet Union wasn't ended because of the miserable economy, I meant to refer to the economic symptoms or indicators as reported in the popular U.S. media. The stereotype explanation that was presented by the U.S. press, such as Newsweek magazine, goes something like this -- A typical day in the life of a citizen of the Soviet Union, circa 1980: wait in line for hours to buy a block of cheese ... just as you get to the head of the line you are informed that the store has no more cheese ... so now you wait in line for hours to buy a loaf of bread ... just as you get to the head of the line you are informed that the store has no more bread ... as of a result of people living this way, the economy was inherently unstable and therefore it "collapsed." This is the lazy and stupid way in which the U.S. media presented the story. The falsity of that story needs to be disclosed. The fact is: the people of the Soviet Union were oppressed because the system was undemocratic, and the system was inefficient because it was undemocratic. The system most certainly did not crumble to provide as a living example of the capitalist university principle that any system which doesn't make use of entrepeneurial profit must eventually crumble. The reality is: the people of the Soviet Union were so miserable that even the leaders of the system were miserable, and that's taking misery rather far. They had the political power to abolish their system, and so they did. Many people, of both classes, made the error of assuming that individual freedom and prosperity are correlated with capitalism, and therefore, unfortunately, they put their faith in capitalism. The Communist Party upper layer of bosses were now reclassified as wealthy corporate stockholders who personally owned the industries that they used to rule as political appointees. The working class underwent no class change. Now the system was converted into capitalism. That's what happened -- obviously not as Newsweek described it.

If the Soviets can abolish the state so can we.
Also:

You are an owner of a business. You live by profits. You hire a group of workers to produce something of value. How much are the workers going to get paid? Are you simply going to pay the workers one labor voucher for every hour worked? How long could you stay in business doing that? Under the wages system, it's a market for labor power. Just like the commodity that your workers put value into and you sell for more or less an equal value to the value that your workers put into it - you will buy labor power more or less at the value that it takes to have that worker keep body and soul together, live somewhere, and get to work. That's the wages system

On this currency thing that we were writing about above - I wrote this:
That's why the secret service frowns on printing fake money - not that they give a flying leap that the convenience store got ripped off $20 by taking in a fake - but that it makes the government's job all the more harder to keep the currency from becoming too worthless. Long term creditors especially get nervous when they have lent out money of a certain value per dollar and then 10 or 15 years later they get money back on the loan at a lower value per dollar.

I wanted to write more but the thoughts wouldn't come out in a way that would go into sentences - this is what I would add now to the above:

Besides, if anyone is going to devalue the currency its going to be the goverment. The goverment doesn't want you on its turf. If anyone's going to profiit in the devaluation process its going to be the governement, or more accuately the friends of the government. Something like a big organized crime scam - they don't want outsiders scimming off the profits.

but again this is just me blowing smoke amidst the fog

I don't think the current government would allow a large system of labor exchange. They would want a dollar equivalent of each labor to be reported so they could tax it.

Consider this absurdity about the income tax. Suppose I say, "I'll mow your grass if you'll paint my porch." No money exchanged. End of transaction. However, if I say, "If you pay me $30 to mow your grass, I'll pay you $30 to paint my porch," the law is involved. No money exchanges hands between you and me, but now each of us is required by law to pay the tax on $30 of income. The tax we're reuired to pay would be about twice as much if I had said, "If you pay me $60 to mow your grass, I'll pay you $60 to paint my porch," even though neither of us physically pays the other. The tax we're required to pay is based on the number that we spoke during our conversation. This is an absurdity, that the tax due depends on how the deal is phrased rather than how much money, if any, changes hands.

I wonder what would happen if a workers' organization tried to avoid getting taxes extracted from their transacitons by saying that no money changes hands in their labor voucher system. I believe that the feds would rule that a dollar equivalent has to be reported to them.

You need a government to have currency but TLVs would be administered locally without government through an association of producers or an industrial union like the IWW.

www.deleonist.org

nickdlc

12th February 2006, 22:27

The fundamental point to which we would draw attention here is that, in the case of this form of communism, the proletariat has no control over the productive apparatus. In the mere formal sense, it is the owner of the means of production, but it nevertheless has no right of disposal over them. Precisely what proportion of the total social stock of products the producer may receive in return for the work performed is determined by a central administration which, if everything proceeds according to plan, determines this on the basis of statistics. In reality, the decision as to whether or not exploitation should take place is vested in a central authority. Even in the case in which a benevolent administration is in command, which then distributes the products in an equitable way, it remains nevertheless an apparatus which has elevated itself over the producers. The question then becomes one as to whether this state of affairs has come to pass in Russia on account of the special conditions prevailing there, or whether in this case we have a characteristic feature typical of each and every central administration concerned with production and distribution. Should the latter be the case, the possibility of establishing communism would become very problematical indeed.

The belevolent dictatorship failed

Social Greenman you have misrepresented the views of the council communists who wrote the fundamental principles of communist production (who were supporters of labour vouchers btw). They were critiquing the soviet union and how it distributed the "social product" not advocating central planning by a benevolent dictatorship.

Anyone who is interested in reading "The fundamental principles of communism" there is an online version.

Fundamentals Of Communist Production: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/

My problem with labour voucherists is that they still carry the capitalist mindset in that they think people are somehow inherently greedy and will hoard and steal goods if given the chance. Social Greenman do you have an image in your heead that people will be lining up for hours to get thier rations unless we have labour money?

Also rember in socialism the "point" isn't to accumulate as much as you possibly can but to develop yourself as a person in the best possible way with the technology provided by society. With labour vouchers what you might get is people working soley so that they can aquire that new tv set or car. Instead of people saying "this bike will costs me $250.00" they will say "this bike will cost me 24 labour hour vouchers."
I'm not saying that we shouldn't account for things but i'm sayin social greenman and his fellow voucherists still hold that unless forced to work ("if you dont work you dont eat") people will lie in bed all day.

This discussion will soon end up as a human nature argument.

Social Greenman

12th February 2006, 23:53

Misrepresentation? No, you are mistaken. I was rather intriqued that they supported LTVs. It was good to read of their critique of central planning of the now defunct Soviet Union. I never wrote that council communist were advocating centeral planning. The link was already posted btw. But getting to point A to C you have to go though B. Labor Voucher give people a reference of relationship between production and exchange. Besides Marx did write that the new society will have some characteristics of capitalism did he not?

It's not a question of who is "lazy" or "human nature" or being "forced" to work or to accumulate "toys." The idea is to keep society in balance when the new society emerges. Who knows...it may be an industrial government of producers run by workers. It will take generations to unlearn the norms of capitalist society. But I am not so sure if a true communist society will emerge entirely. It may take on characteristics none of us here could imagine.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't account for things but i'm sayin social greenman and his fellow voucherists still hold that unless forced to work ("if you dont work you dont eat") people will lie in bed all day.

What kind of dumbass remark was that? In no post written was there a reference to forced labor, people lying in bed all day long or getting laid in the process. Rather, the hours would be reduced and people would find the type of work that they would like to do. However, the more stressful and physical labor would be the more they would receive in Labor Time Vouchers. That is how things will keep moving and how the means of production can keep up with consumption of the populance. If you think society can jump right to a free gift society then I would like to see the wand you are going to use in your attempt to do magick. Moreover, to jump to a gift society you will have shortages that would require "forced" rationing of everything. You might end up with a ruling elite to make sure there are rations. Everyone becomes miserable and the yearning for capitalism sets in. :redstar2000:
"cough" "cough" I don't smoke.

loveme4whoiam

13th February 2006, 00:57

Indeed. I've been completely won over by the LTV argument, and the idea of them is, in my eyes, the best way for a socialist to make the transition from capitalism into communism. You are right that they bear the hallmarks of money, but then they differ enough so that people can, in a sense, be weaned off money and into a non-monetary system of Communism.

Then again, SG might be right, after the revolution the world might turn out veyr different to what we expect it to be. Still, better to have some kind of economic system thought out rather than none at all.

nickdlc

13th February 2006, 01:36

Misrepresentation? No, you are mistaken.
Sorry about that I just didn't know what you meant by "The belevolent dictatorship failed" at the time i wrote my post but reading that passage now, what you said makes sense. Also I'm not sure about anyone else but the link you provided to everyone doesn't work (the words are just underlined there's no link to the book).

Besides Marx did write that the new society will have some characteristics of capitalism did he not?
I believe Marx advocated labour vouchers in the lower phase of communism because when he was alive the productive capablities to allow for the higher stage was impossible. That was over 100 years ago and advanced capitalist societies today can provide a large abundance if we use resources intelligently.

The idea is to keep society in balance when the new society emerges.
The new society is more likely to be "socialistic" (for lack of a better word) than "individualistic" meaning that everyone will be much more involved/in contact with each other and so distributing and balancing production indiviualisticly wouldn't really work. These are logical implications for what we advocate!

It will take generations to unlearn the norms of capitalist society.
It seems like many people here have already done alot of the unlearning of capitalist norms and it didn't take them generations or me for that matter (6 months i would guess). The internet is good for "unlearning" in a very short period of time.

If you think society can jump right to a free gift society then I would like to see the wand you are going to use in your attempt to do magick.
No magic needed. In Homage to Catalonia,Orwell describes how he and other people voluntarily decided to co-operate in dangerous missions which could possibly lead to their deaths! Now you think people who have fought for a "socialist commonwealth" will all of a sudden be lazy? It seems likely that if people will volunteer to do missions in which they might die that people will volunteer to do a couple of hours of "hard labour." You could call this magic Human Nature :P

Social Greenman

13th February 2006, 02:24

nickdlc wrote:

Sorry about that I just didn't know what you meant by "The belevolent dictatorship failed" at the time i wrote my post but reading that passage now, what you said makes sense. Also I'm not sure about anyone else but the link you provided to everyone doesn't work (the words are just underlined there's no link to the book).

Odd, because it did work and I have booked marked it and that still works. Thanks for the new link.

I believe Marx advocated labour vouchers in the lower phase of communism because when he was alive the productive capablities to allow for the higher stage was impossible. That was over 100 years ago and advanced capitalist societies today can provide a large abundance if we use resources intelligently.

No doub't that capitalist societies can provide in abundance. Vouchers can keep pace with consumption until the means of production are ultra productive which would require few humans to maintain and run being highly automated. When that is achieved on a planetary scale then the gift society becomes a reality.

The new society is more likely to be "socialistic" (for lack of a better word) than "individualistic" meaning that everyone will be much more involved/in contact with each other and so distributing and balancing production indiviualisticly wouldn't really work. These are logical implications for what we advocate!

Presently, we are no where near having a socialistic society when workers think in terms of the "rugged individual" and "making it" on their own. I know a few people who stated to me that if the economy went belly up, they would "rough it" and live off the land. There was no concept of "we" as a community taking care of each other. This just does not occur among Americans except for the handful of Communist, Socialist, Anarchist and some other groups.

I have to point out that production has a social aspect because what is produced is distributed to many different locations. Even under capitalism workers work as a team in each department to make a product to be sold so that they can get their wages and the owners their profits. TLVs are not wages nor can they be used for exploitation for profit.

It seems like many people here have already done alot of the unlearning of capitalist norms and it didn't take them generations or me for that matter (6 months i would guess). The internet is good for "unlearning" in a very short period of time.

Not really. People here are a minority among the population. We all have to work for a wage and buy food, clothing, a place to stay, transportation, and even to buy toys like ipod, playstation, porn, drugs, or other things of recreation. In other words, you are very much within the norms of capitalism. Just because you been enlightened to Marxist constructs does not change the fact that you are living in a capitalist society. Then you have those around you who are very much pro-capitalist and have no idea that they are exploited. They pretty much think you would be an enemy rather than a friend when you speak of communism. They would laugh their ass off over the idea of a gift society and think you were a bit of a lunatic. However, those workers and neighbors would understand TLVs since it resembles monetary use. A favorable economic system that would appeal to workers.

I want to also point out that even after 70 years the USSR abolished their Leninist government. They were educated in Marx's writings in school right into college and yet they made the choice of embracing capitalism. You would think that "capitalist norms" would not have existed there but they did.

nickdlc

13th February 2006, 04:45

No doub't that capitalist societies can provide in abundance. Vouchers can keep pace with consumption until the means of production are ultra productive which would require few humans to maintain and run being highly automated. When that is achieved on a planetary scale then the gift society becomes a reality.
it's not enough that their is an abundance that we could feed everyone on earth (possible right now) but we have to have a super abundance? Correct me if im wrong but i believe people have said in this topic that spain had a labour voucher and free acess mix i.e. free access for nessesities, labour voucher for "goodies"? And this was in 1936-39! Certainly productive capabilites have increased since then!

If people have more links or good books to recommend on distribution during the spanish civil war it would be very helpful.

I have to point out that production has a social aspect because what is produced is distributed to many different locations. Even under capitalism workers work as a team in each department to make a product to be sold so that they can get their wages and the owners their profits. TLVs are not wages nor can they be used for exploitation for profit. Thats what i was trying to tell you last post and i said that there would be even more of a social aspect becuase labour is not alientated because workers directly control distribution. I think in the system you advocate labour power would still be alienated because as marx said "...Thus, his life activity is for him only a means to enable him to exist.He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labour as a part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life."

i think i just don't know your stance, is every good labour voucherized? only scare products? if there is clearly an abundance of something why put a price, whoops i mean labour voucher on it? :lol: Maybe just to inform the person how much labour went into creating something?

Not really. People here are a minority among the population. We all have to work for a wage and buy food, clothing, a place to stay, transportation, and even to buy toys like ipod, playstation, porn, drugs, or other things of recreation. In other words, you are very much within the norms of capitalism.

Good point. But then you go on to say...

I want to also point out that even after 70 years the USSR abolished their Leninist government. They were educated in Marx's writings in school right into college and yet they made the choice of embracing capitalism. You would think that "capitalist norms" would not have existed there but they did.

Kind of contradictory to what i last quoted you saying don't you think? Russians still had to work for a wage,buy clothing, buy "toys" etc... Although they learned about marxism it didn't have any real meaning in everyday life (living under state capitalist dictatorship) so it was ignored. In canada we are taught that we are greedy and that capitalism is natural and the only way society can operate is if we have capitalism and all that other shit but increasingly i see and hear people my age are starting to question these "truths" even though they still might have problems with socialism because of what it means in popular culture today.

Social Greenman

13th February 2006, 23:34

nickdlc wrote:

it's not enough that their is an abundance that we could feed everyone on earth (possible right now) but we have to have a super abundance? Correct me if im wrong but i believe people have said in this topic that spain had a labour voucher and free acess mix i.e. free access for nessesities, labour voucher for "goodies"? And this was in 1936-39! Certainly productive capabilites have increased since then!

If people have more links or good books to recommend on distribution during the spanish civil war it would be very helpful.

Aye, production has increased over the years and there is, most likely, enough food to feed everyone. However, we are not under such a system to do so unless people give to charity. Funny thing about capitalism, it is more economical to send money than trying to ship food, blankets, refrigerators, or any other products. I have written that health care and education are free because of the assurance fund--read previous posts--and that "goodies" are obtained with the exchange of vouchers. On the other hand, you have the belief that the existing prodution facilities is enough for a "free access" economy. I don't agree. The question is: will enough people volunteer to work to keep production levels in balance with consumption on a planetary scale?

Thats what i was trying to tell you last post and i said that there would be even more of a social aspect becuase labour is not alientated because workers directly control distribution. I think in the system you advocate labour power would still be alienated because as marx said "...Thus, his life activity is for him only a means to enable him to exist.He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labour as a part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life."

But we live under capitalism and workers do directly control distribution. The capitalist class is absent from every process from the means of production. Why is it that the working class has not come to the conclusion that their labor makes the handful of capitalist rich while they live from paycheck to paycheck?

i think i just don't know your stance, is every good labour voucherized? only scare products? if there is clearly an abundance of something why put a price, whoops i mean labour voucher on it? laugh.gif Maybe just to inform the person how much labour went into creating something?

What abundace is there in Third World Countries? Besides, workers have been informed over and over how much of their labor went into creating a product, the exploitation, how their labor makes the capitalist rich through profit and yet, they only worry about their wage and benefits and not so much worry about their neighbor or what happens on the other side of the planet unless we are at war. Instead of jumping from one extreme to another (capitalism to communism) the TLV program, which is temporary, will ease that transition into the new society.

Kind of contradictory to what i last quoted you saying don't you think? Russians still had to work for a wage,buy clothing, buy "toys" etc... Although they learned about marxism it didn't have any real meaning in everyday life (living under state capitalist dictatorship) so it was ignored. In canada we are taught that we are greedy and that capitalism is natural and the only way society can operate is if we have capitalism and all that other shit but increasingly i see and hear people my age are starting to question these "truths" even though they still might have problems with socialism because of what it means in popular culture today.

Not a contradiction. The Russian people who were taught Marxism and Leninism could have taken their country from the Leninist and moved forward by taking the means of production from the CPSU. The Communist believed that money had to be used to compensate workers for their labor. You have to ask a communist why they used money. However, the Russian people gave themselves over to the capitalist instead rather than forming an association of producers. Why was that?

By the way..how old are you?

nickdlc

17th February 2006, 20:55

On the other hand, you have the belief that the existing prodution facilities is enough for a "free access" economy. I don't agree. The question is: will enough people volunteer to work to keep production levels in balance with consumption on a planetary scale? For advanced capitalist nations i think the production possibilities are enough but its a different story for third world countries. Also i thought this wasn't a human argument question (it obviously is).

But we live under capitalism and workers do directly control distribution. The capitalist class is absent from every process from the means of production. Why is it that the working class has not come to the conclusion that their labor makes the handful of capitalist rich while they live from paycheck to paycheck? We don't control distribution the market does. People don't revolt because they think the system can be reformed to "make it work" or they already think we are "half socialist" because they live in a welfare state. And all the propoganda that socialism = lenninist despotism doesn't help either. I don't think i should have to tell you this though.

Not a contradiction. The Russian people who were taught Marxism and Leninism could have taken their country from the Leninist and moved forward by taking the means of production from the CPSU. The Communist believed that money had to be used to compensate workers for their labor. You have to ask a communist why they used money. However, the Russian people gave themselves over to the capitalist instead rather than forming an association of producers. Why was that? And you think they taught kids real marxism? You think they interpreted marx's writing according to libertarian socialist lines of thought? The russian communists thought money was necessary so the state could extract surplus value from russian workers and build russian state capitalism.

By the way..how old are you?19

NovelGentry

18th February 2006, 04:08

In response to nickdlc

Also rember in socialism the "point" isn't to accumulate as much as you possibly can but to develop yourself as a person in the best possible way with the technology provided by society. With labour vouchers what you might get is people working soley so that they can aquire that new tv set or car. Instead of people saying "this bike will costs me $250.00" they will say "this bike will cost me 24 labour hour vouchers."
I'm not saying that we shouldn't account for things but i'm sayin social greenman and his fellow voucherists still hold that unless forced to work ("if you dont work you dont eat") people will lie in bed all day.

This discussion will soon end up as a human nature argument.

That's outrageous. The point of vouchers is never to establish such a thing, but to ensure the necessary accounting of production/consumption until we no longer have to worry about such things. You cannot merely socially distribute all goods immediately -- not because people will be greedy and hoard, but simply because as advanced as productive forces are, they are not that advanced. Nor do we have any insurance in terms of what natural resources can be afforded, what we have, what we don't have, what will have to be imported.

In response to loveme4whoiam

I've been completely won over by the LTV argument, and the idea of them is, in my eyes, the best way for a socialist to make the transition from capitalism into communism.

I am convinced it is the only way to make such a transition. As far as the idea that they have some hallmarks of money, what such hallmarks do they have?

In response to nickdlc

It seems like many people here have already done alot of the unlearning of capitalist norms and it didn't take them generations or me for that matter (6 months i would guess). The internet is good for "unlearning" in a very short period of time.

It would be nice to pretend such was the case. But as much as some claim to have unlearned capitalist norms, we still have people on here raving about utopian socialism founded on little other than mere principle. Labor vouchers are a practical, scientific, and economically sound means by which we exemplify what socialist production is. They are not opposed to "social productive relations" -- quite the contrary they reak of them.

In response to SG:

No doub't that capitalist societies can provide in abundance. Vouchers can keep pace with consumption until the means of production are ultra productive which would require few humans to maintain and run being highly automated. When that is achieved on a planetary scale then the gift society becomes a reality.

One fundamental issue which seems to be ignored by all those who claim productive forces are at the necessary levels to maintain socialist society is that if they were at such, we'd see socialism. The development of capitalism from feudalism was not an ideological push independent of economic relations. It was the inevitable ideological manifestation of those who have very specific relations to the means of production and the product of advancement of such means.

Why should one thing socialism is going to be any different. The proletariat has, too, a very specific relationship to the productive forces... whence those productive forces have advanced to the point where capitalist relationships to those forces no longer make sense, we will see revolution. The fact that we have not seen any great shift in proletarian relationship to the productive forces is not on the grounds that we have not brought it upon society, but is merely indicative that such productive forces have not yet fully occured.

In response to nickdlc

it's not enough that their is an abundance that we could feed everyone on earth (possible right now) but we have to have a super abundance? Correct me if im wrong but i believe people have said in this topic that spain had a labour voucher and free acess mix i.e. free access for nessesities, labour voucher for "goodies"? And this was in 1936-39! Certainly productive capabilites have increased since then!

And no doubt in reading Orwell you will remember much of the issues which were founded, including the shoddy weaponry which didn't help them much in defending their gains.

Utilizing Spain, or any other past revolution for that matter, as some definitive model can only ensure you will be certain of one aspect of its outcome -- eventual failure.

Furthermore, had you read the whole of the work, you would realize the voucher system is not some static system but incorporates a means for socially distributed goods. It goes so far as to point out, what is socially distributable will depend greatly on the development of each economic region. Some places may find it 100% possible to socially distribute housing, others may find it 100% possible to socially distribute food -- regardless, it will always be a decision that workers must make, and one they should make with regard to the current productive forces they maintain.

anomaly

18th February 2006, 07:58

NovelGentry

18th February 2006, 16:58

"Who gets more or less is determined by stress and physical involvement of the job"--This is rough ground. Once we get into talking of people 'getting more or less', we start talking elitism. And those who do get more TLVs, are they to simply give up this privilege when the time comes to move on to communism? Do you think they will do this peacefully? And how much 'more or less' will be awarded? How unequal will this society be economically?

I don't agree with the more or less thing based on physical involvement, so I'll leave SG to field that one. I think such a thing is actually quite opposite to what vouchers try and do. Vouchers attempt to be an objective means of determining value and distributing things in accordance, determining whether someone works "harder" is completely subjective. Everyone thinks they work harder than the next guy.

I do not have a problem, however, with compounded labor.

With the introduction of TLVs, you introduce class and inequality.

False. Everyone would have precisely the same relationship to the means of production. Using vouchers everyone acquires the value of their labor. If someone decides to work more than another and receive greater number of vouchers, that is not inequality. Classes do not exist under such circumstances.

To manage the distribution of the TLVs, you introduce the state. ...The very two things the revolution sought to destroy!

Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus.

I expect the construction of communes to advance very quickly after the revolution, and a system of trade to be established between various regions.

I've never quite grasped where those who talk about communes trading with one another got their ideas... sounds to me like the relationship between the various towns in early United States history. Trade is a thing of the past.

However, in all of this, I see no need for TLVs. The only need that you adherents could be advancing is to get people to do those jobs which are seen as 'unwanted' immediately after the revolution...is this correct?

No, the need we are fulfilling is that of proper economic determination. A growing socialist society cannot just lean into the wind and hope it stays standing. Another need we are fulfilling is destroying the grounds on which man can exploit man. In your trade concept, for example, one region with highly developed capital could easily exploit (in trade) a region with lower development.

Lower developed regions could easily go "bankrupt" even if such exploitation never occurs, simply by inability to compete with regions of higher capital. More than that, you'll begin dividing people by task again. Some regions will inevitably develop simply agriculture, because that is what they can do and what they have the capital to do. Others will be highly industrial, trading with agricultural regions for food and so on.

What you are talking about completely destroys the economic goals of revolution.

will production be such that it cannot satisfy all needs?

Yes. Maybe not in some areas, but in many... yes.

It is true we have a lot of artificial supply limits under current day capitalism. It is also true that we trade away a vast amount of goods which could be kept local to help socially distribute here, but it is also true we rely on other goods which come back to us.

Say we look at oil, just as an example. Well no doubt the fairy tale crowd here will tell you after the revolution we will abolish our dependence on oil and thus not have to rely on capitalist or state capitalist nations which have heavy production of it.

Well that's well and dandy... get rid of cars... then you have to build new ones! Ooops... factories are designed to build cars that run on OIL... now we need new factories or at least new machines in some of the factories... and EVERYONE needs a car or at least some means of transportation because oil is now no longer an option.

Sure there are saner people who say we would phase such things out... and we should... but while we are doing so we still need to import oil, and we need a very strong balance for those already existing oil consuming cars to ensure we import enough oil... and not too much because we don't care to waste resources either.

Dream systems of communes trading and "everyone will be nice to one another so the economy will take care of itself" do not work. Vouchers are a real solution to the necessary calculations in any economy. Yes, there will come a time when these calculations don't need to exist, when all products are socially distributed, and cars running on oil are gone... socialism is not that time, and we don't have the means to make it that time without serious decades of work. Might I add, serious decades of work where we own the means of production -- lord knows the capitalists will never lead us there willingly.

TLVs which distribute wealth relatively unequally.

Vouchers distribute wealth based on the value of your labor. We base such ideas on the labor theory of value, and the underlying idea that the real value of anything can be expressed through time of production. All complex labor is just compounded simple labor, all simple labor is equal.

Social Greenman

18th February 2006, 20:00

Thank you Novel Gentry!!

Anomoly wrote:

"Who gets more or less is determined by stress and physical involvement of the job"--This is rough ground. Once we get into talking of people 'getting more or less', we start talking elitism. And those who do get more TLVs, are they to simply give up this privilege when the time comes to move on to communism? Do you think they will do this peacefully? And how much 'more or less' will be awarded? How unequal will this society be economically?

Did you not read Daniel De Leons pamplet: Fifteen Question About Socialism? Starting on page 14 of the pamlet, De Leon was asked if workers with "superior ability" would recieve the same rate of compensation as workers with "inferior ability." He goes right into what is direct and indirect labor. One being the actual production by workers. And two, the clerical work that keeps track of the production in relation to material involved, processes involved, inventory, what orders are to be filled, etc. One is manual labor, the other is the paper work involved. One is physically involved and the other mental.Both are important in production are they not? PLease read on till you get to the motormen and conductors. This is where De Leon gets into Labotr Time Vouchers. 200 motormen and 200 conductors are needed. What happens is that there are way too many people wanting to fill the positions of conductors. There is not enough motormen for the trains to run. People natually gravitate to work that is the least strenuous and stressful. What to do? De Leon pointed out that in one hour the motormen consumed as much calories as the conductors who worked eight hours. He goes on to say: should the motormen be paid in one hour as much as the conductors eight hours? No, because then everyone would want to be a motorman. The answer would be to try and draw a compensation balance between the two jobs. Two hours of the motorman's function are equal to four of the conductor's to be drawn from the social store.

The idea is that people recieve vouchers based on the labor involved and there has to be a balance of conpensation between direct and indirect labor. Everyone, as Novel Gentry wrote, would aquire the value of their labor that would be exchanged at the social store. If a person wants to work to have more vouchers that is their choice. It has nothing to do with class or inequality.

Anomoly also wrote:

To make it so that all people can have 'some' luxury, we can simply introduce a system of rationing after the revolution. What to ration and how much could be decided by each commune as it starts up, and so such questions need not be answered here. But to ration seems quite favorable when compared to TLVs which distribute wealth relatively unequally.

I don't know what "luxuries" you speak of but to introduce rationing will invite a underground market everywhere where currency will be used. No doubt the very capitalist and their allies will run the black market. It is possible that these people could convice people in certain industries to make profits by offering quality products which are not produced by the volunteer work force. In the long run capitalism would re-insert itself. Also, TLVs would not distribute wealth. Workers receive compensation for their labor which is exchanged at the social store. Those TLVs cease to exist when the transaction is complete. They don't circulate because they are not currency period.

nickdlc wrote:

We don't control distribution the market does. People don't revolt because they think the system can be reformed to "make it work" or they already think we are "half socialist" because they live in a welfare state. And all the propoganda that socialism = lenninist despotism doesn't help either. I don't think i should have to tell you this though.

A lot of workers are involved in the distribution process in many various ways. The capitalist sits back, watches and collects profits from what is sold on the market. The only involement is his/her investment in industries and corporations and have high paid CEOs to dictate to the managers who then dictate to foremen who then dictate to the production forces. What is produced is warehoused where they sit for months until the capitalist decides to put them in the stores when they think they can maximum their profit margin. By the way, Liberals believe, along with some socialist, that capitalism can be "reformed" into a compasionate system. TLVs is not a reform measure whatsoever. It's a common sense approach to the day after the revolution.

Also:

And you think they taught kids real marxism? You think they interpreted marx's writing according to libertarian socialist lines of thought? The russian communists thought money was necessary so the state could extract surplus value from russian workers and build russian state capitalism.

Ironically Lenin did write along the lines of Libertarian Socialist thought. So yes, the Russian people were taught a lot more about Socialism than their U.S. counterparts. But they believed that capitalism would make their lives better and they politically made that choice instead of becoming an actual socialist state. They were miserable under the Leninist and no doubt tired of rationing.

I have a old childrens book that was translated from the Russian which clearly shows how socialism functions. The level of reading was higher than what is found in American textbooks from today's standard I believe. I could be wrong though since I don't read childrens books. At the time when the book was published, the Russians believed they were building Socialism and made sacrifices to make it come true.

19

I am 48. When you get older your view will change since ther will be life changing circumstances that will come your way. I am not the same person I was when I was 19.

enigma2517

18th February 2006, 21:34

Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus.

I was really interested in giving LTVs a shot until I read that.

LTV can be useful, but only if its possible to implement it in a certain way. Actually, the whole LTV thing got me thinking a lot more about communist economics a whole lot more and I began learning more about economics in general.

That being said I think we should take the best of these ideas and use them but at the same time I do not share Novel Gentry's paradigm for transition.

Social Greenman

18th February 2006, 22:27

QUOTE: Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus. UNQUOTE

I was really interested in giving LTVs a shot until I read that.

LTV can be useful, but only if its possible to implement it in a certain way. Actually, the whole LTV thing got me thinking a lot more about communist economics a whole lot more and I began learning more about economics in general.

That being said I think we should take the best of these ideas and use them but at the same time I do not share Novel Gentry's paradigm for transition.

This is where I don't agree with Novel Gentry about. LTVs would function, by universal consent, under each industry rather than being a administrative department under state control like what they did in Russia. I would love to see the IWW adopt the concept of the LTV as a part of the democratic process of production along with every other industry under worker control. I say this because I do see some problems with a De Leonist Socialist Industrial Union (SIU) because it is, in a sense, a political state. In principle, De Leonist believe that they can take the state through the ballot box, set up the SIU and then, when the union is running smoothly, they dismiss the state altogether. But who is to say that they will?

anomaly

19th February 2006, 00:23

First, to NovelGentry:

"If someone decides to work more than another and receive greater number of vouchers, that is not inequality"--How do you figure? The amount of these so-called vouchers one has determines the extent of their material intake. This is the very definition of inequality, economically speaking. So, perhaps to can go a bit more in depth on your idea that there is really no inequality.

"Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus"--I am a communist, and I think we should work toward destroying the state as soon as possible after the revolution, if not immediately afterward (which is what I would support). As I said, communes should start 'popping up' during the revolution, and after it more rapidly. We should never look toward a centralized state structure. That is fundamentally hierarchical. The revolution is against hierarchy. Therefore, the existence of vouchers is first not wanted, and second, extremely unlikely. NG, are you saying you support a 'centralized state administrative aparatus'?

"I've never quite grasped where those who talk about communes trading with one another got their ideas... sounds to me like the relationship between the various towns in early United States history. Trade is a thing of the past."--Really? And where was I when it became a thing of the past? Do you not understand that trade will always be absolutely neccesary? The question is not whether or not to trade, but rather how to trade. It is simply impossible to have self-sufficiency in a small region comfortably. I live in Indiana. what if I want to eat some bananas? In your world of vouchers, is this small want of mine to go unresolved? Do you actually expect every single commune to be self-sufficient? I question these economics.

"In your trade concept, for example, one region with highly developed capital could easily exploit (in trade) a region with lower development"--So after the revolution, you still expect to see '1st world' and '3rd world' areas, each with different levels of economic advancement? I doubt this. Even if this is true immediately after the revolution, once the barriers of capitalism disappear technology can be spread much more quickly. What is holding this back is unqeual wealth. Those areas currently with less wealth cannot possibly invest in more highly advanced capital. But, after the profit motive is abolished, what stops the spread of technology? Nothing. You act as if competition will still exist after the revolution. With the profit motive gone, what motive is there to compete? Rather, the sharing of technology will begin, and it will spread like wildfire. There may be communes with higher degrees of agricultural development, simply for geographic reasons. Some areas have more fertile soil than others. But does this mean these areas will become hopelessly exploited? No. In fact, why would these areas have less highly developed capital? With the profit motive, there is something holding these areas back, but once it disappears, they can, as I stated, invest in 'higher capital' and we will see a large spreading of technology.

"you'll begin dividing people by task again"--If you have read some of my other posts, you'd see that I attack Smith's ideas of specialization quite regularly. Just because one area can have more agricultural production than another does not mean everyone in that area will farm. Perhaps more people will farm, but other people will be involved in other industries. We have to remember that by the time communism comes about, technology will have advanced so far that these early-21st century speculations you are making will hold no truth.

"Yes, there will come a time when these calculations don't need to exist, when all products are socially distributed, and cars running on oil are gone... socialism is not that time, and we don't have the means to make it that time without serious decades of work"--Why do you assume early-21st century technology here? And why do assume that with the profit motive taken away, the economy will not take care of itself? You assume, apparently, that even after the bourgeoisie have been overthrown, we will still have heavy levels of competition reminiscent of capitalism!! You also put in socialism here: what is your definition of socialism?

"not have to rely on capitalist or state capitalist nations which have heavy production of it."--This precedes the latter quote in your response, but I just noticed it. You think that state-capitalist regimes will still exist after the revolution? Or are you speaking of during the revolution? Even during the revolution, a system of rationing can be put in place. This rationing could be decided by a government like that of the Paris commune, or democratically by the proletariat itself. Perhaps this simply goes back to 'what is your definition of socialism'.

"real value of anything can be expressed through time of production"--This is too simple an interpretation of the labor theory of value. You only interpret it quantitatively, not qualitatively. I can take 6 hours digging a hole, but that hole has no value unless society determines it to have value. Thus, we determine value both quatitatively and qualitatively.

To SG:

First, I see that you are probably not a communist. This is very useful, as it helps me your position better. I do not like to make assumptions, so I will ask: are you a communist?

Secondly, you advance the idea that people would just not want to do the dirty work without some form of payment. In response to this, I rather like Redstar's ideas. First, he points out that people would work, simply out of boredom. But, as you suggest, people will naturally go away from the more strenuous and physically difficult labor. (As far as more mentally strenuous labor, I think natural human curiosity will solve this problem. Some people are interested in medicine, so they will want to become doctors. Some people want to design things, so they will become engineers, and so on. Many people DO want to do mentally strenuous labor, not for the money involved but out of curiosity and their interests). Technology should be able to take care of most things which are very physically difficult. In this is not possible immediately after the revolution, Redstar suggests we put people who do this unpopulr labor at the 'top of the list' for getting things in higher demand and lower supply (assuming supply and demand are not yet superfluous). Another idea of my own is that such labor will be done strictly to survive. Some difficult things may need to be done simply for society to survive, and since humans want to survive, these things will be done. In all three cases, vouchers are unneccesary.

I understand that TLVs are not exchanged, but a person with more TLVs still 'gets more' than a person with less. So, inequality must be assumed with vouchers. Rationing would not automatically invite a black market, firstly because those goods that are rationed would be rationed by democratic consent. Those who began a black market would likely be hunted down by the majority! Production for profit would become something one just 'doesn't do', sort of like slavery is today. This fear is most unwarranted. And, if all productive resources available go towards producing those goods which are rationed, there just won't be room for any black market. Capitalism reinserting itself does not make logical sense. the proletariat revolted against capitalism. It was against their class interests. Why would they allow the rebuilding of something against their class interests??

Also SG, what is you definition of socialism?

nickdlc

19th February 2006, 01:47

And no doubt in reading Orwell you will remember much of the issues which were founded, including the shoddy weaponry which didn't help them much in defending their gains.

Utilizing Spain, or any other past revolution for that matter, as some definitive model can only ensure you will be certain of one aspect of its outcome -- eventual failure. They didn't make these guns from what I can remember. The guns were crappy because they were old. I was asking other people if they had more information on the usage of labour voucher not saying we should copy them.

It would be nice to pretend such was the case. But as much as some claim to have unlearned capitalist norms, we still have people on here raving about utopian socialism founded on little other than mere principle. Trying to go straight to communism is not utopianistic and we should all be cynical towards people who advocate lengthy transition periods because they usually never want to go past them. Also in the 1970's i think it was the world health organization who said that it was possible to feed of population of earth twelve times it's size! Think what technology could do today.

Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus.
Behind all their rhetoric LTV advocates usually accept that some form of state will exist. What NovelGentry proposes though is not much different than what bolsheviks want.

Do you not understand that trade will always be absolutely neccesary? Most likely things would be distributed not traded. It's easier to think of it on a city to city basis. The means of production are in common ownership, natural wealth isn't yours just because you happen to live closer to these resources. So if one city has a resource that another city needs they won't have to pay them for these resources but just order them.

In your trade concept, for example, one region with highly developed capital could easily exploit (in trade) a region with lower developmentIf were assuming the means of production worldwide are common then this is impossible. Again it's better to think in terms of distribution.

But they believed that capitalism would make their lives better and they politically made that choice instead of becoming an actual socialist state.
Your talking like russians actually had a choice in the matter. As for lenin's writing being libertarian someone brought up that lenin did this in some of his writings so that he could cater to anarchists and make them think he wasn't so bad.

First, he points out that people would work, simply out of boredom. I'm pretty sure redstar didn't say this but if he did he probably means that it is natural for humans to be productive. We work to avoid boredom!

In the end labour voucher cause more problems then they actually try to fix. Also these problems really just come down to the human nature argument.

NovelGentry

19th February 2006, 05:04

This is where I don't agree with Novel Gentry about. LTVs would function, by universal consent, under each industry rather than being a administrative department under state control like what they did in Russia.

LTVs cannot function under "universal consent" alone. They are a definitive measure for determining production and consumption, whether they exist on paper or not, they exist. This is a point that is made in the Fundamenta Principles of Communist Production and Distribution. Even once you have completely socially distributed goods, LTVs do not disappear -- they merely stop being recognized. The economy still funcitons on the basis of LTVs -- it is just completely informal.

Mind you, if it is only under each industry, any industry that opped out of LTVs now means there is an incompatibility when determining production/consumption across those industries. They could use some other means, but then some other calculation would have to be done, and nothing ensures their means is as equitable a form as LTVs.

It has nothing to do with state control, it has everything to do with ensuring LTVs function as they are supposed to. You can't have half the people using LTVs and the other half using another system. LTVs stop making sense at that point.

"If someone decides to work more than another and receive greater number of vouchers, that is not inequality"--How do you figure? The amount of these so-called vouchers one has determines the extent of their material intake. This is the very definition of inequality, economically speaking. So, perhaps to can go a bit more in depth on your idea that there is really no inequality.

No. Someone working more and thus receiving more is not a sign of inequality. Someone doing the same or less work and receiving more is indeed a sign of inequality. If you contribute 8 hours to a productive force you have created that value and thus in order not to be exploited you must maintain full control over that value. If another individual works 4 and by doing so you only give a value of 4 hours to the individual who has worked 8, 4 hours of value "disappear" -- who's hands are they going into? That is exploitation. Under LTVs all workers maintain control over the value of their labor -- if one person works more hours than another they produce more value, as simple as that.

Being equal does not mean being the same.

"Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus"--I am a communist, and I think we should work toward destroying the state as soon as possible after the revolution, if not immediately afterward (which is what I would support). As I said, communes should start 'popping up' during the revolution, and after it more rapidly. We should never look toward a centralized state structure. That is fundamentally hierarchical. The revolution is against hierarchy. Therefore, the existence of vouchers is first not wanted, and second, extremely unlikely. NG, are you saying you support a 'centralized state administrative aparatus'?

We are in complete agreement on what we should work toward as soon as possible AFTER the revolution. My statement was that we do not seek to destroy the state with revolution.

Do you not understand that trade will always be absolutely neccesary?

Apparently not. Somehow I believe there'll be a time when trade is far beyond unnecessary, when the world in full will have free/unalienated production and when goods will be distributed freely and openly without any concept of trade.

It is simply impossible to have self-sufficiency in a small region comfortably.

Agreed, and it is doubly impossible for such a small region to find equitable trade. Trade implies something is given and something is taken in return. Many libertarian capitalists speak of mutually beneficial trade... well mutually beneficial trade is a fallacy, it only works insofar as there is a disparity of capital between the two trading regions -- a disparity of capital means inequality.

I live in Indiana. what if I want to eat some bananas? In your world of vouchers, is this small want of mine to go unresolved? Do you actually expect every single commune to be self-sufficient? I question these economics.

I said nothing about being incapable of acquiring goods/resources you are actually incapable of producing. Which is what you're talking about. Indiana does not have the climate to grow bananas... so you are completely incapable of such production. Indeed you will acquire bananas from a region that can do such a thing, however, to have to trade for them is unacceptable.

Now there are other areas in which things get a bit scarier. For example, if you had not used bananas but said cars, or computers, or electricity.

So after the revolution, you still expect to see '1st world' and '3rd world' areas, each with different levels of economic advancement?

Yes. Revolution is not some magical key that automatically shifts capital to completely equal levels in every part of a country, or even a province/state, or even a region of one. Advancing capital in regions that already lack a great deal of it in comparison to others will take time.

Even if this is true immediately after the revolution, once the barriers of capitalism disappear technology can be spread much more quickly.

Even if this is true? It is and will be true. See above. You are, however, completely right in saying once the barriers of capitalism disappear technology can be spread much more quickly. And certainly after revolution, a primary goal will be to achieve equitable capital in all free territory.

You act as if competition will still exist after the revolution.

I sure as hell hope it will.

With the profit motive gone, what motive is there to compete?

Productive efficiency, quality of product, vanilla and chocolate ice cream, cause not everyone likes both or any single one necessarily. Choice, freedom, interest, curiosity... all those wonderful things.

Some areas have more fertile soil than others. But does this mean these areas will become hopelessly exploited? No.

They will if any concept of trade still exists.

Just because one area can have more agricultural production than another does not mean everyone in that area will farm.

No, of course it doesn't. But it does mean that more people will have to farm there than say an area without such fertile ground. Why? Because the area without such will require food too and they might not have the means to produce it.

Can this be abolished with time? I sure hope so. But I think we're a good ways off from molecularly generating foodstuffs.

Why do you assume early-21st century technology here?

Because I presume early-21st century will see socialist revolution. In short, I presume early-21st century productive forces will demand socialist relations to productive forces.

Late 20th century technology has already done so in some areas of production.

You also put in socialism here: what is your definition of socialism?

The end of exploitation of man by man.

This precedes the latter quote in your response, but I just noticed it. You think that state-capitalist regimes will still exist after the revolution?

Yes, I believe capitalist nations will still exist after the revolution. I also think some societies with feudal governments will exist.

Even during the revolution, a system of rationing can be put in place. This rationing could be decided by a government like that of the Paris commune, or democratically by the proletariat itself. Perhaps this simply goes back to 'what is your definition of socialism'.

If you have to ration then you've "jumped the gun."

"real value of anything can be expressed through time of production"--This is too simple an interpretation of the labor theory of value. You only interpret it quantitatively, not qualitatively. I can take 6 hours digging a hole, but that hole has no value unless society determines it to have value. Thus, we determine value both quatitatively and qualitatively.

As no doubt you know, there are two types of value. Use value, and exchange value. Nothing has exchange value unless it has use value, without a use value, no one will accept the exchange of it for anything else with particular use value. That is not to say everything with use value has exchange value, there are many examples of things with very high use value that have absolutely not exchange value, for example, air.

Use value, or what you call the qualitative value can only be measured by use. That is, the use value of 1 cup of sugar is 1 cup of sugar... 1 cup of sugar is equivalent qualitatively to nothing other than 1 cup of sugar. 70,000 tons of iron ore may indeed be very useful, but not if you're baking a cake. Much like 1 cup of sugar is quite useless for mass producing steel.

Oddly enough, use value is quite useless to contemplate outside of recognizing it as a prerequisite of exchange value. Thus, when we speak of LTVs, or any other representation of exchange values, we only speak of such production which has a use value.

I thought that would have been safely assumed by anyone reading these works. Obviously I was wrong.

Thus, we do not determine value based on quantitative and qualitative measure. If such is true, how does one determine the value of air? By it's qualitative measure alone?

They didn't make these guns from what I can remember. The guns were crappy because they were old.

Precisely my point.

and we should all be cynical towards people who advocate lengthy transition periods

I agree.

because they usually never want to go past them.

I very much doubt that. Maybe I'm too optimistic when it comes to people. But I highly doubt it's because they never want to go past them... it seems far more likely to me that they are far too incapable of determining a means to quickly transcend them. Either way, we must be extremely cynical.

If you are right, then we must be cynical because no matter what they say, we are certain they are just trying to gain the upper hand in a society that cannot yet advance towards complete socio-economic emancipation. If I am right, then we must be cynical because there are probably far better methods to do so.

Behind all their rhetoric LTV advocates usually accept that some form of state will exist.

My decision to accept a state during a transitonal phase to communism has nothing to do with LTV.

What NovelGentry proposes though is not much different than what bolsheviks want.

:lol:

Most likely things would be distributed not traded. It's easier to think of it on a city to city basis. The means of production are in common ownership, natural wealth isn't yours just because you happen to live closer to these resources. So if one city has a resource that another city needs they won't have to pay them for these resources but just order them.

Indeed. One thing that will have to be "paid" for, although not in terms of trade or exchange, is the labor required to acquire and distribute these resources.

If 1 ton of iron is requested, you are certainly right that they do not have to pay for the iron... no one has to pay for the iron, it has always existed, it's existence was not the product of anyone's labor and thus it's consumption is free of any restriction. However, the labor required to mine that iron or refine it did not always exist, and as such that labor does need to be accounted for. This is what LTVs do.

In the end labour voucher cause more problems then they actually try to fix.

Name such a problem.

Social Greenman

19th February 2006, 15:00

Novel Gentry Wrote:

LTVs cannot function under "universal consent" alone. They are a definitive measure for determining production and consumption, whether they exist on paper or not, they exist. This is a point that is made in the Fundamenta Principles of Communist Production and Distribution. Even once you have completely socially distributed goods, LTVs do not disappear -- they merely stop being recognized. The economy still funcitons on the basis of LTVs -- it is just completely informal.

Mind you, if it is only under each industry, any industry that opped out of LTVs now means there is an incompatibility when determining production/consumption across those industries. They could use some other means, but then some other calculation would have to be done, and nothing ensures their means is as equitable a form as LTVs.

It has nothing to do with state control, it has everything to do with ensuring LTVs function as they are supposed to. You can't have half the people using LTVs and the other half using another system. LTVs stop making sense at that point.

Basically, many here are not very supportive of a state existing. I even find myself wary but I do understand the point you made here. De Leon had envisioned a "state" as a socialist industrial government also known as the cooperative commonwealth. Many people left the Socialist Labor Party, over some disagreement, to promote the concept of the Socialist Industrial Union and the TLV. I need more education on the subject of the state.

I gotta go because I have lots to do today.

NovelGentry

19th February 2006, 22:08

De Leon had envisioned a "state" as a socialist industrial government also known as the cooperative commonwealth.

Call it the happy rainbow people's union for all I care... it's still a state.

Social Greenman

20th February 2006, 02:29

NovelGentry wrote:

Call it the happy rainbow people's union for all I care... it's still a state.

Point taken. A state administered by the workers "only" is what I hope you are refering to. You know, a free association of producers. The IWW on a planetary scale. On the other hand, while I was away, I thought about your response to universal consent and I agree but before the revolution there has to be universal consent on what is to be done on the day after the revolution otherwise known as solidarity. Hence the advocating of LTVs and the forms of administration which is only possible under a united Left. Thank you for those excellent responses.

Anomoly wrote:

First, I see that you are probably not a communist. This is very useful, as it helps me your position better. I do not like to make assumptions, so I will ask: are you a communist?

No, I like to think of myself as a libertarian socialist.

Secondly, you advance the idea that people would just not want to do the dirty work without some form of payment. In response to this, I rather like Redstar's ideas. First, he points out that people would work, simply out of boredom. But, as you suggest, people will naturally go away from the more strenuous and physically difficult labor. (As far as more mentally strenuous labor, I think natural human curiosity will solve this problem. Some people are interested in medicine, so they will want to become doctors. Some people want to design things, so they will become engineers, and so on. Many people DO want to do mentally strenuous labor, not for the money involved but out of curiosity and their interests). Technology should be able to take care of most things which are very physically difficult. In this is not possible immediately after the revolution, Redstar suggests we put people who do this unpopulr labor at the 'top of the list' for getting things in higher demand and lower supply (assuming supply and demand are not yet superfluous). Another idea of my own is that such labor will be done strictly to survive. Some difficult things may need to be done simply for society to survive, and since humans want to survive, these things will be done. In all three cases, vouchers are unneccesary.

Payment? No, compensation for their labor time. I read Redstars idea but remember it is only his view point. You ever heard of Murphy's Law? Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. The day after the revolution could prove a disaster unless a lot of concrete plannning and universal consensus is done. A united Left is sorely needed.

I understand that TLVs are not exchanged, but a person with more TLVs still 'gets more' than a person with less. So, inequality must be assumed with vouchers. Rationing would not automatically invite a black market, firstly because those goods that are rationed would be rationed by democratic consent. Those who began a black market would likely be hunted down by the majority! Production for profit would become something one just 'doesn't do', sort of like slavery is today. This fear is most unwarranted. And, if all productive resources available go towards producing those goods which are rationed, there just won't be room for any black market. Capitalism reinserting itself does not make logical sense. the proletariat revolted against capitalism. It was against their class interests. Why would they allow the rebuilding of something against their class interests??

NovelGentry gave an excellent response that vouchers would give workers their full compensation for their labor time. No one gets screwed. I have to disagree with the concept of rationing. You could get consent about them but you will have those who will take advantage of the situation and create a black market. While your day after the revolution volunteer work force makes shoddy goods, everyone else is bickering over what work they may or may not do. Others will wait until they are bored and go back to work. In the meantime, the black market people can (and will) set up shop and make a more superior product for "a price." Capitalism would again reinsert itself because they will offer more desirable products. It won't be done in the open but in secret. Much in the same way when cars are stolen for parts.

Say some of your volunteers are allies to the capitalist. They make their superior products on their shifts. When the goods they made are transported they just high jack the shipment and then sell their product on the black market. They are indeed interested in the class interest of the capitalist class so that they will be rewarded in many different ways. Another scenerio is that they could, under pretense, use some of the means of production as their base. People who work for them would not have to worry about rations. They would be compensated for their hard work in whatever form the black market people can use for their advantage.

Also SG, what is you definition of socialism?

Workers owning the means of prodution and the elimination of expoitation.

anomaly

20th February 2006, 03:50

Ah, Novel Gentry, I see I've poorly explained what I mean by trade. I simply mean that some regions will have to loan other areas goods, and some areas will have to receive goods. I do not speak of exchange. You put what I am talking of well when you said that "goods will be distributed freely and openly."

Other than that, I must persist in my dislike for vouchers, for my previously stated reasons. Essentially, I prefer a solution that is a bit more egalitarian. I do not think that rations will work quite so poorly as you suggest. I may be wrong, of course. Foresight is not a skill I have so much of. But, if these vouchers prove absolutely neccesary, we'll use them. I may dislike them, but practicality will prove far more important than opinion. In the end, we should use whatever works best.

NG, I also think that by the time the revolution comes, the entire world may be operating under 'first world' conditions, as far as technology goes. I think feudalism will be a thing of the past by this point, and capitalism will have reached its pinnacle, with a society of two distinct classes.

Obviously, you see a socialist revolution coming about far sooner than I do. While I think this prediction of yours may be a bit optimistic, it is hopeful optimism. I will say I share your hope...that is, let us hope you are right, and it comes sooner rather than later!

On an entirely different issue, I am far less supportive of any kind of state than are you. But, I suppose that is a discussion for another time, eh?

Social Greenman

20th February 2006, 04:06

Anomoly wrote:

Foresight is not a skill I have so much of. But, if these vouchers prove absolutely neccesary, we'll use them. I may dislike them, but practicality will prove far more important than opinion. In the end, we should use whatever works best.

That is a very good answer. If things don't work out then use them. My idea is to use them so that in the furture free access can be administered without any type of rationing.

NovelGentry

20th February 2006, 14:08

Point taken. A state administered by the workers "only" is what I hope you are refering to. You know, a free association of producers. The IWW on a planetary scale. On the other hand, while I was away, I thought about your response to universal consent and I agree but before the revolution there has to be universal consent on what is to be done on the day after the revolution otherwise known as solidarity. Hence the advocating of LTVs and the forms of administration which is only possible under a united Left. Thank you for those excellent responses.

Yes, a state administered by workers, more, a state strictly composed of workers. On the issue of universal consent prior to revolution, I don't particularly agree there either. One of the strangest aspects of what one can imagine a massive proletarian revolution to look like, might be the great amount of spontaneousness it holds. What to do the day after should probably be determined the day after, afterll who knows what may happen or how long the standoff between classes will be.

To anomoly

Ah, Novel Gentry, I see I've poorly explained what I mean by trade. I simply mean that some regions will have to loan other areas goods, and some areas will have to receive goods. I do not speak of exchange. You put what I am talking of well when you said that "goods will be distributed freely and openly."

Might I suggest trying to find a different word then for future arguments. Trade implies exchange.

Other than that, I must persist in my dislike for vouchers, for my previously stated reasons.

I don't see any other previously stated reasons that have not been addressed. I even said "name such a problem" when nickdlc said vouchers cause more problems than they fix, and no one has directly done that. You talked about inequality but haven't really seemed to address that vouchers mean you're getting the full value of your labor -- no matter what you do or how long you work.

I do not think that rations will work quite so poorly as you suggest.

It's not that rations will necessarily work poorly, but that they are indicative of a society severely lacking in capital. Rations are not as simple as limiting amount. If one person contributes 10X (using X as an unknown measurement of value) to society, it may be true you don't want them getting 12X out for the sake of others and the whole economic underpinnings. And rationing may solve this, it may even undercut their value (where does the rest of their value go?).

Where rationing becomes indicative of a society lacking in capital is when you start looking at what amounts really mean. It is not merely that someone contributes 10X and shouldn't necessarily get 12X, or that the guy contributing 6X should get as much as the guy contributing 10X... rationing says of the consumerable goods, not only are you ensured returned consumerable value... you are returned it in a specific form. That is, you do not get the value of your labor to do as you please... quite the contrary, you get the value of your labor given back in strict amounts of the various things you may need, want, not need, or not want.

This implies if people were free to choose where to put the value of their labor that we'd see a run on orange juice for example. And then no one else would have any more orange juice :(

Rationing is actually about the furthest thing from socially distributed goods, not only can one guarantee the value out will be highly accounted for, or else you will have people starving in the streets, but one can also note that there is absolutely no freedom to the distribution at all.

NG, I also think that by the time the revolution comes, the entire world may be operating under 'first world' conditions, as far as technology goes. I think feudalism will be a thing of the past by this point, and capitalism will have reached its pinnacle, with a society of two distinct classes.

Obviously, you see a socialist revolution coming about far sooner than I do. While I think this prediction of yours may be a bit optimistic, it is hopeful optimism. I will say I share your hope...that is, let us hope you are right, and it comes sooner rather than later!

I don't know if you're trying to say you think we will see a world wide revolution at once... if such is the case, I wonder on what grounds you say such a thing. Historically, no such world wide revolution existed during class struggles of the past. Granted, many things have changed. We now have quick and easy world wide communication mediums, capital is spreading more rapidly, and markets develop all over the world and are saturated all over the world too.

Despite all of this, however, there are still huge consumer markets which will be fed by rising capitalist nations that are very likely to bump other ones off the map. That being said -- stop thinking about it in terms of nations. The capitalist class of the US is the capitalist class of China too. That is to say, we have done such a good job of spreading capital and developing these mediums that we've given free world reign to the highest hands of concentrated capital. The result is not that US businessmen will suffer (well some might), but the top ones will diversify and invest in all other different markets. Maybe pushing lower end US businessmen even further down and concentrating capital even more. But the US, as an already saturated production/consumption market will become unprofitable to maintain on nearly any level. China as a growing consumer market will have to increase wages to build up as a producer/consumer market, not merely as a labor market.... US cheap goods goes bye-bye. China's cheap goods are now made by some other country no one's ever heard of and the US is some sort of isolated crashed out wasteland the market has left behind.

Will this happen on a world-wide scale? Yes, eventually -- but the most advanced nations will feel the hurt first. First to the party, assuming you're competative, is always the first to pass out.

Economically speaking, the US does not even appear to have another 30-40 years holding its ground. Most high end real-estate investment has already moved out of the country. When Trump doesn't want to build trump tower in "The greatest country in the world" anymore... then you've got some things to be thinking about.

Historically, we know some countries advance through various stages of class struggle more rapidly than others.

On an entirely different issue, I am far less supportive of any kind of state than are you. But, I suppose that is a discussion for another time, eh?

No need for a dicussion. I have no doubt I've heard it all before.

anomaly

21st February 2006, 03:53

NG:

Let me again explain why I dislike vouchers. they are simply not the most egalitarian way of doing things, and I'm a very 'egalitarian kind of guy'. Vouchers imply that if Bob does 8 hours of labor, and Bill does 6, that Bob will receive more 'vouchers' than Bill, correct? I may be wrong there; if I am you can correct me.

You critique the idea of rationing as if everything will be rationed. This is not likely to be the case. Depending upon how long and strenuous the revolution is, most neccesary goods will probably not need to be rationed. The other stuff, that is, luxury goods, some of them will need to be rationed. The ration amount can be decided by those people who need to do the rationing, which will probably be a commune. Is it really such an awful thing if only that little bit needs to be rationed?

As far as revolution goes, I expect to see a 'rolling revolution'. That is, a spark will happen somewhere in the world, and over the course of some period of time, whether it be a few years or a few months, this will spread to every area on the planet. Let us take your prediction that revolution will occur in the US in, say, 25 years. The US is such a player in the world economy (the world's leading importer and exporter) that if it falls, so will the world economy. Essentially, if revolution occurs in the US, it will inevitably and neccesarily spread to other places, namely Mexico, Canada, China, and the EU. These are the US's largest trade partners. with the US gone, the new power, China, needs a new trade partner, as does the other current 'big one', the EU. I simply do not see how it is possible for revolution to occur in the US without drastic revolutionary consequences for the rest of the world.

ice-picked

21st February 2006, 04:53

ok took a long time to read all of that but any way...
couldnt ltv's be like a punchcard type item where its turned in weekly for rations
im not saying that this would be permanent but just used to ween capitalist society from actual monetary wages

NovelGentry

24th February 2006, 16:31

Well. I've noted here that my previous posts have been lost in the latest database crash. That's fine, there was a mistake in unequitable social averages in the second more complex example. I will be reposting it using the right equations later tonight along with a bit more explaination involved in the calculations. I'm currently working on the post offline.

anomaly

24th February 2006, 20:41

I've had a few days to think about this. I must say, it now dawns on me that revolution will probably not work as I have suggested. Japan and China, by way of their material conditions, will not have communism for quite a long time after the US and Europe have communism.

That, however, is rather irrelevant to my point.

Novel Gentry, your TLV proposal relies on the existence of a state to oversee it, correct? Therefore, if there is no state, TLVs are a moot point, are they not? So I do think this discussion should shift to your ideas on the state. You claim it is neccesary, and I am most curious as to why this is.

NovelGentry

25th February 2006, 00:06

Novel Gentry, your TLV proposal relies on the existence of a state to oversee it, correct?

People would have to organize in order to create the administrative necessities for it to come into existence and develop as it should. I have little doubt that the best mechanism to do that will be the state, which I believe will already exist for other reasons.

Therefore, if there is no state, TLVs are a moot point, are they not?

Unless they were used in an isolated local/regional area.

So I do think this discussion should shift to your ideas on the state.

Well as soon as I get back home tonight I will have a chance to post my examples of TLV calculations as well as other explanations. I think you will find that most interesting, as there was a response to your original point about someone working 8 hours getting more than someone working 6 which I refuted.

To give you a simplified example, say you had two people, Bill and Bob as you put them. And Bill works 8, Bob works 6. Bill produces 75 units of whatever. Bob produces 82. The distribution of TLVs is then in this fashion:

75 + 82 = 157. 8 + 6 = 14. 14 / 157 = 0.089172. That means, a single unit of whatever has a value of 0.089172, to which Bill has created 75.

Bill has thus only created: 6.6879 in terms of value.
Bob has, however, created: 7.312104.

As far as whether or not this conversation should shift, not without creating a new thread.

You claim it is neccesary, and I am most curious as to why this is.

Engels gives an initial summary on the issue:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Bold where emphasis should be added. Not only do I think it is, thus, necessary... I think it is something which will arise regardless of our will.

See, you fun loving anarchists like to believe, somehow, that the people's will is enough to do anything. Us communists have issues believing in things like people's will, especially when it comes to saying it's going to overcome what we see as material reality!

If indeed Engels is right, that the anti-authoritarians plan to do away with the state even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed, then it is my opinion if any attempt at such massive display of will-power does develop, it will instantly see the state form yet again. And if they abolish it, yet again, it will still arise until the conditions which demand its existence are done away with, namely, until all the class antagonisms of human history, born of the division of labor, etc, have been abolished. Revolution as an action where one mass group of people takes control over another (in our case workers taking control over the means of production, taking control of resources and productive forces out of the hands of the capitalists), is not alone enough to abolish such things. It is only enough to make it possible for us to abolish such things.

ice-picked

25th February 2006, 01:45

so yeah im complety lost can we put this in laymans terms?

anomaly

25th February 2006, 02:35

Oh, NovelGentry please. You act as if I ignore historical materialism in its entirety.

By the time revolution comes about, material conditions will be such that the state can be abolished. Unless, after the revolution, you seek to impose a rigid class system (and with whom? the bourgeoisie will be overthrown!), there is no reason why we need to hold onto the state. And, rather than build the state, I say we should push toward communism from day one.

As I stated earlier, if the people so choose to use these TLVs, then I am fine with this, though I still cannot believe you see TLVs as the most egalitarian approach possible. Your example, may I say, is most over-simplified. You assume identical ease of labor, identical worker conditions...identical everything! It is as if we will just have an army of clones producing!

There are very abstract variables that cannot be accounted for in any equation. The physical limitations of workers controls how much they can possibly work, and how much they can possibly produce. Depending upon how advanced technology is at the given time, physical limitations may not be so much of an issue. But then we have mental limitations, and the like. Simply, you ignore these difficult-to-account-for variables amongst workers.

NovelGentry

25th February 2006, 03:04

Oh, NovelGentry please. You act as if I ignore historical materialism in its entirety.

Well you did. You ignored it the minute you had to ask why I thought the state was necessary.

By the time revolution comes about, material conditions will be such that the state can be abolished.

Every revolution we've seen in this world is followed by a transitionary phase. No one can call the American revolution (no matter how bourgeois it actually was in nature), the end of feudalism here and the founding of capitalism. We maintained a great amount of feudal relations, so much so that we managed to still have slaves! Even slavery's abolishion wasn't the end of it. If you've ever taken the time to read early worker's propaganda, you may note they frequently argued what was occuring was not why the revolution was fought for. Men like Jefferson actually argued for the ideal of an agriculturally based trade type society.

Now what you're proposing to me, seems to be that our revolution is going to come after the material conditions for communism (a stateless society) are in place. Well that doesn't make sense. Because we know such material conditions demand differing property relations and yet we can also conceive of differing property relations that are not really communist, but obviously superior to capitalism.

Essentially, what you propose is that capitalism can and will destroy the division of labor and the revolution will only occur after (whether immediately or not) that happens. If you can explain how it is possible for capitalism to do so, please do. The way I see it, in order for the division of labor to be destroyed, production is going to have to have very different property relations to begin with.

there is no reason why we need to hold onto the state.

When class antagonisms exist, so does the state. When the division of labor exists, so do class antagonisms. I'm not looking for a reason to "hold onto" it... nor am I trying to convince you of one. I'm telling you why I believe it will exist, whether we want it to or not.

And, rather than build the state, I say we should push toward communism from day one.

We push towards communism always, even now. I don't picture that changing.

As I stated earlier, if the people so choose to use these TLVs, then I am fine with this, though I still cannot believe you see TLVs as the most egalitarian approach possible.

I never used that term. In fact, I think it's a highly loaded term and a utopian one at that. I believe TLVs combined with the obvious revolutionary goals of seizing existing property for the working class will be the only way to achieve objective economic equality... I wouldn't call mere economic equality an "egalitarian" approach -- even if in the end it creates an egalitarian society (I doubt it).

Your example, may I say, is most over-simplified.

As I've said multiple time. I had a more complex example posted, which was lost when the server database underwent recall from backups. If you want more complex equations and ideas on how to factor in the things you mention in the following quote, I suggest you actually read the links that me and Social Greenman have presented... but you won't.

You assume identical ease of labor, identical worker conditions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This coming from someone who just a second ago told me they do not ignore material conditions, and yet believed the division of labor would be overcome by the time of revolution. The only person I've seen assume such things like identical ease of labor, identical productive forces, identical worker conditions, etc, is you in your theory that the division of labor and class antagonisms will disappear simply with magical revolution.

I mentioned also previously that my more complex examples showed how to account for such things as inequitable means of production..etc. The same concepts applied to that can be applied to say, handicapped people doing the same work. They can also be applied to compound labor, or what you may consider "harder labor."

The physical limitations of workers controls how much they can possibly work, and how much they can possibly produce.

Which is precisely why the cost of the good is set at a social average. Although you ignored that factor it seems. If I produce 17 and someone else produces 32 in the same amount of time, it is not the rate of 32 per time which is used, it is the rate of the average. If you add 500 more workers, it is their averages. If you add 7,000 more, it is their averages.

By using an average, no individual becomes the determinent of that productive force, but you assume you have socially produced that value.

Please, READ THE LINK WE PROVIDED EARLIER.

Depending upon how advanced technology is at the given time, physical limitations may not be so much of an issue. But then we have mental limitations, and the like. Simply, you ignore these difficult-to-account-for variables amongst workers.

I'm not going to sit here and battle someone on an issue they are completely ignorant about. You've stated you don't like TLVs and have shown an obvious ignorance to the primary economic theory and development which backs them. The Average Social Hour of Labor wipes away all the mediocre concerns you have expressed here, and where it doesn't, calculating other deviations from those social averages and adding/subtracting them where it make sense (i.e. what you may do for a handicapped worker, mentally or physically handicapped) does.

You've not taken the time to read any literature on the subject, I am certain of that. You have looked at TLVs and assumed quite simply they are no different than say, paying everyone the same wage.

The only profound revelation you have made with any relevance to the issue is that you are completely ignorant of how they work.

anomaly

25th February 2006, 03:43

Let me first clarify that it is my opinion that technology will be at a sufficient level before the revolution for a 'free access' society, and that this will leave only class antagonisms to be eliminated. Once this is done through revolution, free access can be used. Technology, once held in common, will be sufficient to provide for needs and some wants, and will grow at unprecedented levels without the barriers of capitalism, so that no vouchers will be needed...the clarify my opinions on things.

If I have proven ignorant, I do apologize, but I must say, I think I basically 'get it', though of course I am no good at math so these equations will do no good :lol: .

I also apologize that I did not read some of these sites. I am reading one right as I'm typing this, and I must inquire: are you a 'de Leonist'? (sp)

If you are, I found a rather interesting summary of the 'labor time voucher' argument versus the 'free access' argument here: http://www.deleonism.org/v2.htm

I am most confident you do not approve of either party listed...you'll have to let me know whether the LTV argument summarized on the table is the one you propose.

This is also from the site, which I find rather alarming: "The algorithm provides for the option that work categories that are more strenuous (stressful, exhaustive, unpleasant, boring, dangerous, etc.), according to any democratically ratified criterion, are compensated with higher rates of incomes"
Link: http://www.deleonism.org/v1.htm

Now, NG, I have suggestions for you. Get rid of this arrogance you have, so that we may have a decent discussion. I apologize for my apparent ignorance, but this is no reason for you thinking of your opinion as 'the only one'. In fact, it seems, the 'free access' argument has some backing out there.

However, I find it impossible to go on until I find out whether or not you are a 'de Leonist'.

NovelGentry

25th February 2006, 05:53

I also apologize that I did not read some of these sites. I am reading one right as I'm typing this, and I must inquire: are you a 'de Leonist'? (sp)

No, I've never read the man.

The link that I provided stems from a man named Max Hempel. The economic theory and understanding was the work of a group of communists in holland who saw socialism as requiring an objective determination of value and a system which accounted for reproduction in its equations. If you read it, you will note it is in direct response to the idea of "state socialism" as practiced by the USSR. They make the point that any subjective determination of value would appear to indicate exploitation.

Now, NG, I have suggestions for you. Get rid of this arrogance you have, so that we may have a decent discussion.

I have no such arrogance. You are waging a debate about a topic you have shown very little knowledge about. The math skills are basic addition, division, and multiplication. One of the points in the GIK paper is that the equations are so easy to figure out, that economic administration could be handled and examined by any laborer... thus making the entire system completely transparent and in line with the type of social organizations we imagine.

I apologize for my apparent ignorance, but this is no reason for you thinking of your opinion as 'the only one'.

Of course there is a reason. If I didn't have a reason, I wouldn't say it was so. I wasn't tempted by "DeLeonists" and in fact, I've never seen anyone else reference the GIK, Max Hempel, or the paper I've linked to. I came across this information about a year ago. I've been examining it's pros and cons for the past year in very great depth and detail -- the conclusion that I have reached is not based on "I think this is the best theory," but on a very laborous examination of existing productive forces, the newer productive forces emerging, and what will become obvious and palpable productive forces over the next two decades.

It is inherently a product of my knowledge of technology.

The problem I have with you, is that you have presented an argument which calls out so-called flaws, and every single one of them is addressed in even the elementary paper by the GIK. What flaws and necessary refinement they have not addressed, concluded, or completed there, I have already examined and addressed in my own study and theory of it.

Instead of saying "TLVs don't account for this or that," you could have read the paper and understood that they DO, and have already done so for about 75 years. If you had bothered to understand what you were attempting to critique, you could have brought up far more interesting points which are not necessarily resolved in the GIK's /Max Hempels paper, and then I could have shown you what I have figured out in my own studies on the issue. But you didn't do that... you didn't bother to say "TLVs don't account for this, here's why... look at this equation and then look at this additional economic theory, it doesn't fit." You merely attacked TLVs as being not egalitarian enough on your own assumptions that the equations utilized are somehow unaccountable to existing economic inequality and thus, incapable of resolving it.

I don't have time for moral socialism and the absurd belief that economic theory plays so little in achieving economic equality. If you want to throw economic theory out the window for the idea that "people can and will produce and distribute on voluntary equitable grounds" without ever having known such a practical method of such, go ahead, but I'm not doing it with you.

In fact, it seems, the 'free access' argument has some backing out there.

Such as? Yes, I've read both the links you provided. The first is merely a summary of the two theories pinned against one another. The second is actually algorithmic work for a simplistic TLV proof-of-concept computer code.

I don't see any arguments for its backing in either. Mind you, TLVs are not independent of free access as these sources consider it As I have pointed out earlier, and as the GIK/Hempel paper points out, TLVs are actually never done away with. TLVs represent actual labor relations in any economy, whether or not they are expressed as the actual working of that economy are false.

You could examine capitalism by using TLVs, with the exception that you would have to extract surplus value at some point. The relations of value remain the same, as do the concepts of productions/consumption, supply/demand.

The GIK/Hempel paper embraces and aspect of TLVs which allows free access. But not access is free in the utopian way one thinks of it. There is a value of everything. For example, say you have free access to healthcare... well that means anyone can use healthcare services.... but there is a real value/cost to those services. For example, the labor to build a hospital. The labor to create the necessary medicines and medical equipment, etc. Now you may say, well all those are "free too" -- and yes, in any concept of "cost" they are... but they too have a real value, the value of the tools those workers used to make them, the value of the food they ate to stay alive. And yes, you may even say those are "free too" -- so in the end, you envision a society where no one "pays" for anything... well very good, and so do I, but just because one does not pay for a good does not mean there is no value, it does not mean that value is not created and consumed.

The GIK/Hempel paper points this out, and it's equations make it 100% possible to add in socialized distribution of things which productive forces allow socialized distribution to exist for.

TLVs are not opposed to "free access" they are the means to determine what we are capable of having free access for -- and furthermore, a means to ensure that overtime, everything falls under that category.

I've used the term socialized distribution before, if you go back through this thread, you may notice it. Socialized distribution is nothing more than what you call "free access."

NovelGentry

25th February 2006, 05:59

As an additional response, if the deleonism.org website had kept the database for it's discussion boards for longer periods of time, I could have linked you to a discussion/debate I had with one of the primary people there. This came about when Social Greenman originally began discussing it here.

You can see some of our discussion on this thread: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...649&hl=vouchers (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34649&hl=vouchers)

anomaly

25th February 2006, 07:06

Actually, the links I posted simply show that other ideas are out there...that this TLV idea does not have quite the monopoly on truth you think it has!

I really don't have the time to read that book you posted, but I did read a bit of de Leon. Based on that reading, I stand by what I said earlier. These theories you post may well be a bit different, but I don't think to such a degree that they are entirely different. Also, I don't think these TLV ideas take into account the degree to which technology is growing. They assume quite different material conditions and technological levels than I expect, levels such that after the revolution we'll have to use this TLV system. But, if you are right, I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

In addition, your idea of the state, which must manage things, is one I find rather authoritarian. Do you not understand that the nature of the state is not to disappear but to remain? That is why we must overthrow it.

But, this discussion has done nothing for me. And, from the manner in which you 'discuss' ("I'm right, just admit it"), I see it will do nothing for me. Therefore, I'm done here. Consider this a victory for yourself, NG, if it does your ego well! :lol:

NovelGentry

25th February 2006, 08:14

Actually, the links I posted simply show that other ideas are out there

I'm well aware other ideas are out there.

that this TLV idea does not have quite the monopoly on truth you think it has!

I don't think I ever considered it to have a monopoly on truth. If your tire goes flat, you can patch it, use a spare, or replace it outright.... one way is better than the rest... all are true ways to solve the issue, some are temporary and will require new measures later, others are designed to be a final solution to that particular issue.

Do you not understand that the nature of the state is not to disappear but to remain?

The nature of the state is to resolve class antagonisms in a society that continues to have them. States did not arise until the division of labor arose, and even the division of labor arose before what one would consider a state. The reverse process will be precisely the same. The state will disappear with the dissolution of classes and the division of labor. I don't know how you plan to destroy classes or the division of labor during revolution -- you may destroy a significant amount of a certain class. Say you destroy 50% of the bourgeoisie... that doesn't resolve class antagonisms, only economic changes over time can do that. We are, however, not in a position to make economic changes until after the revolution.

The idea that a state has a mind of it's own is outright absurd and what I consider to be the ultimate of anarchist superstitions. The state has no intention outside of what the people who compose the state give it -- if you can't agree with that, you are saying the state has it's own being and consciousness separate of those who compose it. I propose a post-revolutionary state the be composed by the proletariat -- the intention of the proletariat will be the state's intention. If their intention is to destroy the state, it will be destroyed. If they attempt to destroy the state prior to the point at which it is capable of being destroyed i.e. before class antagonisms are done away with, they will find they need to reconstruct it in order to settle that dispute.

But, this discussion has done nothing for me. And, from the manner in which you 'discuss' ("I'm right, just admit it"), I see it will do nothing for me. Therefore, I'm done here. Consider this a victory for yourself, NG, if it does your ego well!

My posts are far too long to be merely, "I'm right, just admit it."

Your arguments, in contrast, can be summarized in the following ways:

- I don't think TLVs will work
- I think technology will allow free access
- I think the state will no longer need to exist
- You don't give sufficient argument

I have explained to you why TLVs work, and you have yet to explain to me why they don't other than saying, "they're not egalitarian"

I have explained at least that I have examined technology and technological progression in depth, although, yes, in all fairness, I have not given any of my findings up during this discussion.

I have explained to you why I think the state will need to exist... you have responded by saying you don't ignore historical materialism, nor do you want to admit to any superstition (most likely), such as the state having a mind of its own... but then you cannot explain why the state will have to be destroyed.

Please, feel free to point out any actual debate you have forwarded here other than what boils down to mere assertion.

TLVs work. For you they are not egalitarian enough -- that doesn't mean they don't work, and that doesn't mean they're not necessary... you have provided no real points as to why they are not necessary other than saying you think technology will be advanced enough to maintain free access, which is indeed better. I don't think technology will be advanced enough, and even if it is, I have pointed out that TLVs offer a means to incorporate socialized distribution.

The state is a body politik. A organizational formation with a political character. The term state demands nothing other than that. There are feudal states, capitalist states, worker's states, etc.... all are very different forms. The only thing they share in common is that they a political organizations that attempt to appease class antagonisms. The feudal state is not permanent and it's characteristics are far different from the capitalist state which it gives way to... the capitalist state is not permanent either and will be far different from the socialist state which it gives way to... and even still, the socialist state is not permanent, and when all class antagonisms are resolved and the state has no more political character, then it ceases to be a state.

So it would appear you have actually confused the nature of the state. The nature of every state thus far has actually been to disappear; to become incompatible with the other social and economic advancements of society and shrink into the fog of time.

To speak of the nature of a state as if each different type of state has the same overall nature is a bit out there. The only nature that a state can have is the nature which makes it a state. They certainly do, however, share that single fundamental nature.

Social Greenman

25th February 2006, 19:22

Is this site up and running? Gad I hate it when a discussion board has a crash. I seem to lost my place. I do know I wrote this before: The existing state is for the interest of the capitalist class and our interest, as workers, is secondary. The state also exist to protect capitalist from each other. Yet workers, poor people and everyone else in between believe the U.S. system is the best on the planet.

Now I believe I read here that workers do not do thing against their own interest? Well, they do. I read something that made me recall the 1980's. Workers who could not afford the cost of heating oil cheered Reagan on for deregulating the oil industries who in turn raised prices further. Now we see plants moving out of the country while workers stand and stare. Social program being under funded or cut out of existence. Furthermore, wages are cut and prices increase and the workers daydream that one day they will be a rich like the capitalist. Ever notice when people stand at the store check out and count pennies out they grab magazines about Hollywood stars and bourgeousie life styles. They also listen to AM radio talk show hosts and agree with everything they say. They believe that they will climb the ladder of success at the shop and they will be the first to step over you and get you fired. They believe they will win the lottery. Revolution is a long ways off which is why I believe we will end up with Barbarism.

Anyways, on the deleonist board we are having a discussion on the form of administration in the new society. We tend to call it the industrial form of government since the workers are in control through a body similar to the IWW being a Socialist Industrial Union. The workers over see the administration of industries through the SIU, establish the use of LTVs and what rules society will have. I am at a loss when the term "what rules of society will have." Rules not laws. In other words, from the understanding I have, the SIU is not a political body. I don't know if it would be considered a state in our present understanding of one.

ice-picked

25th February 2006, 21:48

ok yeah im still completly lost pealse can we put this in understandable english....

Social Greenman

26th February 2006, 16:26

NG: I believe it would be good to separate the concept of political state from the LTV thread.

red team

2nd March 2006, 03:33

This is an interim solution at best as there are serious flaws as well as loopholes that could be exploited for gaining control of distribution channels:

1. Can be negotiated:

I'm not sure if this is true for TLVs, but if it is ture then it presents a problem. If it could be negotiated the value of goods could fluctuate according to its demand or scarcity which will undermine your measurement of labour going into a product. This also bring up another problem with labour that I will go into.

2. Can be hoarded:

Hoarding is possible if TLVs can be saved and takes place through various activities such as: price negotiation, saving and gambling. This presents two serious problems in blocking the distribution channel of goods and services. The first is the consumer side problem which will take place if you "forecast" ahead of time the amount of goods to produce. If consumers can save their TLVs, it can be virtually guaranteed that your forecasted amount of goods to produce will overshoot the actual consumer demand. Second is the supply problem if saved TLVs could allow a section of the population to obtain a controlling share of a critical part of the distribution channel be it logistics, production or distribution part of the channel. Once a controlling share of the distribution channel is obtained, obstruction of consumer demand can take place by introduction of artificial scarcity or through the overcharging of consumer items. And this could happen quickly through bribery if it's possible to save (hoard) TLVs either on the part of those doing the hoarding or those being bribed into going along with it.

3. Difference in physical power output among workers:

Valuating the TLVs of workers would be a very subjective and imprecise activity given that work in the industrialized countries are rarely done on an entirely manual basis. Machine and technology assisted labour would inevitably skew your TLVs to value less materially productive manual labour more, since they are more physically demanding. This would drain resources away from the technology sector since wealth will be concentrated in workers performing physically demanding jobs. Progress in increasing productive forces that are dependent on technology will stall. Furthermore, even though manual workers are paid more, because there's only so much a population can consume, the increased pay in manual work (which comprises a smaller sector of the working population in industrialized countries) will not be able to consume the goods from workers enaged in machine assisted production. Overproduction of goods in which there will not be enough purchasing power to consume will take place.

Furthermore, there's the motivational aspect of a rationed labour system which has not been discussed. Many workers engaged in uninspiring manual toil will desire to escape their situation through either working toward being able to engage is more privileged, inspiring work or through hoarding of resources (point #2) so as to enable them to control a part of the distribution channel so that they can be in a position to gain excess wealth from either of the two tactics discussed: overcharging for consumer goods or introduction of artificial scarcity. No matter how you look at it TLVs is not a permanent solution and will eventually degenerate back towards a value based commodity system.

In spite of its flaws TLVs are a step in the right direction, but I doubt such a system will be stable enough to not degenerate at some point. Technology innovation to eliminate the need for certain jobs is the only long term solution that is viable. Once that is achieved an energy accounting based system as proposed by Technocracy could be implemented. After all, by then I would expect most menial jobs to be done by energy-fed machines which would make energy accounting necessary.

anomaly

2nd March 2006, 04:11

Actually, I have looked at some other things, and I have 'come around' to LTVs as a possible interim measure, a measure we will be forced to use if material conditions are not developed enough for 'free access' communism.

"Valuating the TLVs of workers would be a very subjective"
Actually, no. It seems like it on the surface, but, a proper understanding of Marx's Labor Theory of Value tells one otherwise. You see, to determine the value of any quantity of labor, all we need is the ratio of the time of labor to the output of it. It should be rather easy to reduce any output to specific 'units' of output, so this ratio can be easily determined. We can then refer to exchange values of commodities which have a labor to output ratio equal to the particular worker's. Then we can look at how much such commodities 'cost' in terms of vouchers. The labor then gets a proportional amount of vouchers. the TLV system is thus completely objective, and I must say, I was impressed when I discovered this. Essentially, its function is to eliminate the existence of surplus value, and it accomplishes this. While TLVs are in now way 'perfect', they may simply be the 'best we can do' when emerging from capitalist society. Once communism 'gets going', certainly the TLV system can be ditched as technology, such as that you mentioned, becomes more and more readily available.

NovelGentry

2nd March 2006, 05:05

1. Can be negotiated:

I'm not sure if this is true for TLVs, but if it is ture then it presents a problem. If it could be negotiated the value of goods could fluctuate according to its demand or scarcity which will undermine your measurement of labour going into a product. This also bring up another problem with labour that I will go into.

Under TLVs the value of a good is embodied completely in the time of it's production (total production time). It does not fluctuate at all. Since the compensation for one's labor is inherently linked to that value which they produce or add to a given good you will see demand fairly consistent with supply at all times.

Second is the supply problem if saved TLVs could allow a section of the population to obtain a controlling share of a critical part of the distribution channel be it logistics, production or distribution part of the channel.

All such things would be socially owned. That is to say, no one could privately buy a factory using TLVs. While these things too will have a value, they will be paid for socially by workers deciding how much of their TLVs is cut out for the creation or advancement of new productive forces.

Furthermore, there's the motivational aspect of a rationed labour system which has not been discussed. Many workers engaged in uninspiring manual toil will desire to escape their situation through either working toward being able to engage is more privileged, inspiring work or through hoarding of resources (point #2) so as to enable them to control a part of the distribution channel so that they can be in a position to gain excess wealth from either of the two tactics discussed: overcharging for consumer goods or introduction of artificial scarcity. No matter how you look at it TLVs is not a permanent solution and will eventually degenerate back towards a value based commodity system.

In spite of its flaws TLVs are a step in the right direction, but I doubt such a system will be stable enough to not degenerate at some point. Technology innovation to eliminate the need for certain jobs is the only long term solution that is viable. Once that is achieved an energy accounting based system as proposed by Technocracy could be implemented. After all, by then I would expect most menial jobs to be done by energy-fed machines which would make energy accounting necessary.

Yet another argument from someone who appears to have read absolutely nothing about TLVs.

Actually, I have looked at some other things, and I have 'come around' to LTVs as a possible interim measure, a measure we will be forced to use if material conditions are not developed enough for 'free access' communism.

It's good to see you've taken the time to understand how TLVs work. Maybe you can convince red team to do the same.

Essentially, its function is to eliminate the existence of surplus value, and it accomplishes this.

Indeed -- a stable economic system free of exploitation.

Once communism 'gets going', certainly the TLV system can be ditched as technology, such as that you mentioned, becomes more and more readily available.

The interesting part, as I pointed out earlier, and you will probably discover later if you continue reading the link I provided, is that the TLV systems proposed by Hempel account very much for how you go from TLVs to communism... they are in fact, a built in function.

I believe Hempel calls this the General Social Labor Units (or something to that effect), which are essentially used for social distribution of all things which are readily able to be overproduced and compensated for easily in terms of labor value.

As I said, the TLV system never really goes away -- it is essentially enumeration of the general principles production and distribution as they relate to labor. The difference we would see between a system where TLVs are actually actualized and that where they don't appear to even exist is that all products/services will have shifted to socially distributed goods/services and all labor will be general social labor. Behind the scenes, working still in accordance with the labor theory of value, TLVs are still there... just no longer actualized, as there is no point.

nickdlc

3rd March 2006, 04:15

The link that I provided stems from a man named Max Hempel. The economic theory and understanding was the work of a group of communists in holland who saw socialism as requiring an objective determination of value and a system which accounted for reproduction in its equations.

Jan Appel A.K.A. Max Hempel was a German communist who moved to holland and helped form the group of international communists.
http://libcom.org/library/autobiography-jan-appel
They GIK wrote the fundamental principles of communist production and distribution in 1930.

I still have reservations about the LTV system because the LTV system places a distinct seperation between work and liesure. Again for LTV work is not a means for fullfilment but something that must be done to "increase the means of production." LTV's are a form of wage-labour no matter how you try to dress it up. Our job is the abolition of wage-labour not to continue it with new words.

In communist society if you volunteer for a job because it is fullfiling would you care if you got a voucher for it? What if you working on a project and you wanted to do the most detailed work but you were forced to hurry up because if you went too slow that would mean you would increase the average time required to prouduce the work, leading to a decrease in pay of vouchers for that organization? What if one section of workers does not want to adopt the average social hour of labour for distribution but wants to move directly to something more emancipitory like "from each according to his/her needs, to each according to his/her abilities" (which i say is possible now for the most part with the exception of "very expensive goodies").

All that being said i think we should study the Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and distribution which i will start to comment on next post.

NovelGentry

3rd March 2006, 06:11

LTV's are a form of wage-labour no matter how you try to dress it up. Our job is the abolition of wage-labour not to continue it with new words.

No no, wage is in essence the value of one's labor power... LTVs are the value of your labor.

In communist society if you volunteer for a job because it is fullfiling would you care if you got a voucher for it?

No, but I don't expect to be examining LTVs in communist society. This is strictly a means for transitional periods.

What if you working on a project and you wanted to do the most detailed work but you were forced to hurry up because if you went too slow that would mean you would increase the average time required to prouduce the work, leading to a decrease in pay of vouchers for that organization?

You don't understand. Products have to be comparible. If you put great time and effort into producing a detailed or fine piece of whatever, you have created a different product. The value of that product is indeed the value of your time. Just as if someone else were to produce one with relatively similar skill and technological capacity, it should take them similarly as long.

Say for example you compare machine made shoes to hand made shoes. Machine made shoes would not be socially averaged with hand made shoes. The productive forces are too different, the product themselves are too different. Not everything would be accounted for by TLVs, in fact, it would only be those things to which society agrees upon, generally those things which we produce regularly in mass quantities.

We would not calculate the value, for example, of a painting and socially average it with other paintings. If indeed society decided to account for that value created and make it readily consumable, they may indeed do so. For example if people voted to populate an art gallery, they may do so for the artists that contribute to it. I'd imagine they'd have to think it "worth it" though.

What if one section of workers does not want to adopt the average social hour of labour for distribution but wants to move directly to something more emancipitory like "from each according to his/her needs, to each according to his/her abilities"

We all want to move in that direction, the question is can we? If they want to attempt it, they are more than welcome -- and you could do such with LTVs. Essentially all labor would become part of the General Social Labor, and all distribution/consumption would be socialized. In short, everything that is produced is produced freely, no one is given any voucher... and all goods are readily and freely consumable.

That is 100% possible with LTVs, it doesn't "break them" or anything like that.

I still say good luck to them, as I don't think they will find it possible.

(which i say is possible now for the most part with the exception of "very expensive goodies").

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292028263 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=46647&st=25#entry1292028263)

Faceless

3rd March 2006, 17:17

I've picked up the general thread of this thread and I have some criticisms of the ideas of most of the people taking part in the discussion. This is a long thread. although I am deeply interested in it, I may be highlighting issues which were long ago resolved:

A minor point:

No magic needed. In Homage to Catalonia,Orwell describes how he and other people voluntarily decided to co-operate in dangerous missions which could possibly lead to their deaths! Now you think people who have fought for a "socialist commonwealth" will all of a sudden be lazy? It seems likely that if people will volunteer to do missions in which they might die that people will volunteer to do a couple of hours of "hard labour." You could call this magic Human Nature
Not all "people" would have fought in this revolution. I am sure everyone here would not be lazy or cynical, and would see their relationship to the emerging society clearly, but that does not mean everyone would.

Communists don't seek to destroy the state with revolution. And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus.
I would disagree. The Communists seak to destroy the bourgeois state completely. However, that does not preclude the formation of a new extremely inclusive and democratic state apparatus of the proletariat. That these two radically different apparatus are being confused and it is not helping the discussion.

To manage the distribution of the TLVs, you introduce the state. ...The very two things the revolution sought to destroy!
See above. "The state" is not some homogeneous form which is the same for feudal, capitalist and socialist society. In capitalist society it has not independence from the bourgeois class. Likewise in a socialist society, it would have no independence from the proletariat. In this society, the bourgeoisie do not find themselves oppressed by their own state apparatus. The functions of these two states however are very much different.

By the time revolution comes about, material conditions will be such that the state can be abolished. Unless, after the revolution, you seek to impose a rigid class system (and with whom? the bourgeoisie will be overthrown!), there is no reason why we need to hold onto the state. And, rather than build the state, I say we should push toward communism from day one.
As I have stated, Communists have no intention to "hold onto the state". If they did then yes indeed, your criticism would have been correct, it would be unnecessary since the usefulness of a bourgeois state is zero in an emerging socialist society. However, there will remain within society bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and trecherous elements of the proletariat which will act in a counter-revolutionary way; they will require supressing. This presupposes the existence of an armed body of men who do not constitute the whole of society, but only that part of society which is most zealous and able, and naturally, of the right class composition. This is a state on its own. Another thing which will remain within the emerging society will be the old moral, economic and legal prejudices which accompanied bourgeois society and which will not "just go away", particularly since they will take on their most intense form at the very pinacle of capitalist society, at the moment before its downfall. It is not simply a matter of the development of productive forces which will economistically dictate whether or not we can simply "abolish" the state (without constructing a new apparatus). In newborn capitalist society, reactionary feudal ideas remained for decades and centuries after the last bourgeois revolution in the west. So too will ideas lag behind material conditions in a socialist society

As to why exactly it is that at the time revolution occurs conincides with the time the state can be abolished at (without constructing a new apparatus), you leave us to guess, inspite of the fact that the statement is totally meaningless.

NovelGentry

3rd March 2006, 17:31

I would disagree. The Communists seak to destroy the bourgeois state completely. However, that does not preclude the formation of a new extremely inclusive and democratic state apparatus of the proletariat. That these two radically different apparatus are being confused and it is not helping the discussion.

I never said anything about the bourgeois state. I said very specifically, "Communists don't seek to destroy the state WITH revolution."

We do seek to destroy the state, we do so as a product of seeking to destroy classes, we do not seek to do so with revolution though. And "the state" does not equal "the bourgeois state."

Faceless

3rd March 2006, 21:06

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that this was your misunderstanding, the statement is ambiguous though and some people seem to have taken the bourgeois state and proletarian state and put them under one heading.

To manage the distribution of the TLVs, you introduce the state. ...The very two things the revolution sought to destroy!

I thought it would be useful to make a clear distinction since comments like this make no distinction and therefore see inconsistencies where there are none (In this example the thing we sought to destroy was the bourgeois state and "the state" which encompasses the proletarian state is a meaningless umbrella term)

anomaly

4th March 2006, 06:07

Well, the posts in which I said we ought to destroy the state, I do mean we should destroy the state entirely. I do not think we will need to form a proletarian state after the revolution, but rather we should start building communes right away. TLVs can still be used; they need not be 'administered' by anyone but the people in each commune.

Of course, I am well aware that these ideas are 'utopian' and 'unrealistic', however I think the anarchists on this board would disagree!

Faceless

4th March 2006, 17:16

The thing is, if these LTV's are legal tender in all areas, there needs to be some coordination, either between industries (in the case of the syndicalist) or all areas, which means centralised planning, no matter how democratic.

Social Greenman

4th March 2006, 18:00

Quote from website:

It is the proletariat itself which lays in place the foundation-stone cementing the basic relationship between producers and the product of their labour. This and this alone is the key question of the proletarian revolution. In just the same way as the feudal serf struggled in the bourgeois revolution for his piece of land and for the full right of disposal over the fruits of his labour, in the same way the proletariat now struggles for control of the factories and other industrial establishments and for full right of disposal over production - an outcome which is only possible if the fundamental relationship between producer and product has been fought to its final conclusion in a new social legality. The decisive question at issue here is precisely that of the place the proletariat is to win for itself in society; the question as to whether, along with the right to labour in the work-places, the right of disposal over the products of these work-places is also achieved; or, on the contrary, whether the proletariat is once again to be pronounced incapable of discharging responsibility, and leaders, experts and scientists are to be entrusted with that right of disposal. In the final instance, this struggle will be fought out against those who believe that they are destined, after the revolution, to assume responsibility on behalf of the proletariat. It is for this reason that the cooperation of such people is only appropriate if the foundations of communist production have first been laid. It is this basis alone that their skills may work for society, whereas otherwise they can develop only into a new ruling caste.

As far as I am concerned, there will be no central administrative authority of TLVs or central administration of what is produced and distributed. Central administration is nothing more than alienation and exploitation. What may or may not exist is a industrial form of government organized and run by the workers themselves in which TLVs are used as a medium of exchange for the full value of their labor. We can "what if" ourselves to death in the meantime.

nickdlc

5th March 2006, 03:27

never said anything about the bourgeois state. I said very specifically, "Communists don't seek to destroy the state WITH revolution."And you left out the most important part from that stament which was....

And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus. We don't need this kind of state because it would lead us back to capitalism very fast. A true proletarian "state" would need to be extrememly decentralized because of the economic system we want to establish demands it! It's kind of odd that you wrote that because the GIK adopted labour vouchers in order to prevent a centralized administrative apparatus! What differentiates socialisation from nationalization is that socialisation presupposes that means of production are under common ownership not state ownership (supposedly on behalf of the people).

I am sure everyone here would not be lazy or cynical, and would see their relationship to the emerging society clearly, but that does not mean everyone would. So we have to introduce labour vouchers because a small portion of the population may not decide to work?

This presupposes the existence of an armed body of men who do not constitute the whole of society, but only that part of society which is most zealous and able, and naturally, of the right class composition. This is a state on its own. Workers militias composed of ordinary people would constitute the armed gaurd of the "socialist commonwealth." These militias would need to be as democratic as possible.

No no, wage is in essence the value of one's labor power... LTVs are the value of your labor. Labour power is your ability to work and labour is the act of expending labour power. Under certain social conditions labour power is a commodity. So while your labour power may not be a commodity it is still wage labour i.e. getting paid for your ability to work. Some LTV advocates actually do want a labour market for jobs that are in low demand, these people apparently will get paid more vouchers. Under both capitalism and LTV communism you do not get the value of your labour but the socially neccasary labour time that it takes to create a good (in most cases).
Both you and I know that under the LTV system you do not get the full proceeds of your labour because of deductions for health care and other socialized services.

This also very interesting because apologists of the soviet union said that because labour power was not purchased as a commodity that the soviet union was socialist.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292028263 You seem to be saying that until the division of labour is completely faded away that things can not be completely socialised. I disagree, in the lower stage of communism i would expect labour to be voluntary so that pepople would be able to decide what kind of job the feel like doing. This would be possible because of the jobs that are going to be destroyed after captilism has been abolished. For example jobs that will be socially unnessary for communism would be things like legal workers, chartered accountants, cost accountants, estimators, valuers, claims assessors, underwriters, brokers, taxation workers, marketing and sales personnel, advertisers, social security workers, cashiers and check-out assistants, police, prison workers, security guards, charities, armies, navies, air forces, and many more.Millions of people would start producing useful things that humans actually need.

Why I say basic necessities (food, shelter, water, health care) must be completely socialized "right off the bat" is because not only can these things be provided abundantly right now but these goods and services should be considered human rights under communism.

anomaly

5th March 2006, 06:26

Well, in a TLV system, I don't think everything would actually cost vouchers. Some things, as you note, nickdlc, would be immediately socialised.

But, I think the basic argument for TLVs is that we simply won't have the productive capacity to make every single unit of production socially distributed. That is, material conditions just won't be advanced enough.

Whether this is true cannot be determined until we have reached the lower stage of socialism. Indeed, I think we should all keep our minds open. If we don't need to use a TLV system, then we should definitely not use it. A free access system is certainly a better one.

The reason I have sort of come around to TLVs is because they are an objective measurement for the value of one's labor. That is, unlike in capitalism, how many vouchers you receive would depend upon your labor to output ratio. This means that the system is quite 'fair', in my mind.

"Some LTV advocates actually do want a labour market for jobs that are in low demand, these people apparently will get paid more vouchers"
I would like to see who these 'advocates' are. TLVs will be determined only by one's labor to output ratio. It will not depend upon the job, though for each job, obviously, the 'units of output' will be different.

"Both you and I know that under the LTV system you do not get the full proceeds of your labour because of deductions for health care and other socialized services."
True, depending upon your perspective. Marx said that these deductions for socialized services would indirectly benefit the individual paying for them. I tend to agree with him here, but I suppose it can be argued that these deductions 'unjustly' take value away from the worker. However, I think this is a weak argument, because it does indirectly benefit the worker (and, indeed, all of society).

Let me finally reiterate that I do not share NG's approval of any type of 'centralized state', whether it be bourgeois or proletarian. Nor do I particularly care for a 'state' at all. As you point out, if we must have a state, it should be rather decentralized, so that transition to communism can be more 'natural', if you will. But, I think the TLV system can work quite well without any kind of state.

Social Greenman

13th March 2006, 00:22

Anomoly wrote:

But, I think the TLV system can work quite well without any kind of state.

But it can function under a department administration of the IWW for example. It can function under a department administration of a commune. All in all they are linked together with the same computer software. So, no there should not exist a government central authority. It will exist right at the point of production because that is where the actual calculations are made. Perhaps what NovelGentry refers to as a state being that all industries, agriculture and shops are in cooperation with each other when social ownership of bourgeiosie property is a reality.

I believe that the economic aspect of the LTV will be the glue that will hold the new society together which is better than political enforcement as we see today.

Well, in a TLV system, I don't think everything would actually cost vouchers. Some things, as you note, nickdlc, would be immediately socialised.

But, I think the basic argument for TLVs is that we simply won't have the productive capacity to make every single unit of production socially distributed. That is, material conditions just won't be advanced enough.

Whether this is true cannot be determined until we have reached the lower stage of socialism. Indeed, I think we should all keep our minds open. If we don't need to use a TLV system, then we should definitely not use it. A free access system is certainly a better one.

Free Access is only possible when material condition makes it feasible on a planetary scale and not before. What access can be realised in the beginning is education, social services and health care. No exchange of TLVs to recieve an education or health care. Not only that, people will not pay for social services such as psychological treatment or counseling. We can also include garbage pick up. Those who work in these fields will recieve TLVs. Remember the Lapore website on TLVs calculations? Labor Time is added at the point of production and deducted to pay for other services. It is not deducted from the worker. These added TLVs pays for indirect labor from industrial administration right to the class room, hospital, etc. Hell, TLVs can be given to a single mother to help raise her children. To the disabled who cannot work, etc.

I don't believe a person who recieves a bit more in TLVs due to physical and stressful conditions will think himself/herself more superior. We'll leave that shit to the White Nationalist mental masterbation on another website.

Social Greenman

13th March 2006, 21:31

To emphesize on what makes "free access" possible is when technology advances production to the point that labor power and hours are drastically reduced to near zero. Machine will do all the work and repairs, When that happens the taking what is needed becomes reality but not until then.

Another thing I noticed on this board is the day after the revolution fantasy. The "we are going to do this or that." Thing is...no one knows what will happen until we get to the material conditions of that time. It's absurd to say that "we" are going to take those extra cars, TVs and other possessions from people. Problem is that I have more than one item and I earned them through my own labor-power (being exploited at the point of production) and to take them would constitute theft--something I would expect the Leninist and other Commies to do--in which I would respond with bullets. And I don't mean I will be throwing them either. Talk of taking people belongings is what the capitalist media would take hold of and use as propaganda. In other words, you just shot yourself in the foot. :rolleyes: Just think of it...Workers are exploited at the point of production. They take what they earn and buy their houses, cars, computers, etc. On top of what they purchase they pax taxes and insurances which is another form of exploitation. So, when the new society emerges you and some assholes are going to march up and demand that items of personel belonging be taken from workers. Rock salt does not feel good in the ass if you didn't know.

NovelGentry

14th March 2006, 10:10

We don't need this kind of state because it would lead us back to capitalism very fast.

The form which the state takes is not the cause but the product of economic relations.

A true proletarian "state" would need to be extrememly decentralized because of the economic system we want to establish demands it!

Now you're getting it, sort of... it's not so much the economic system we want, but the economic system that develops from the productive forces... but yes, it does demand it.

It's kind of odd that you wrote that because the GIK adopted labour vouchers in order to prevent a centralized administrative apparatus!

Do not confuse centralized administration of TLVs with centralized planned economies, they're very different things, and very different ideas.

What differentiates socialisation from nationalization is that socialisation presupposes that means of production are under common ownership not state ownership (supposedly on behalf of the people).

Agreed.

Labour power is your ability to work and labour is the act of expending labour power.

Labor is the actualization of labor power, it is not merely the act, but the product of the act.

Under certain social conditions labour power is a commodity.

Such as capitalism.

So while your labour power may not be a commodity it is still wage labour i.e. getting paid for your ability to work.

You've mixed up terms here. Labor power is not a commodity under the proposed system, true. In order for it to be wage labor, however, labor power must be a commodity, because wage is the necessary payment to reproduce labor power. Just like every other commodity has a reproductive cost, so too does labor power. If labor power is not a commodity, then payment must be determined by some other means than that reproductive cost. The other means is by the value of one's labor, not labor power. But "paying" someone the value of their labor is in no way a wage, quite the contrary, it isn't even paying them at all. No one is paid, but the value of their labor is THEIRS, it doesn't come from someone else, it is created by them and they get to keep it!

Some LTV advocates actually do want a labour market for jobs that are in low demand, these people apparently will get paid more vouchers.

I'm not one of them.

Under both capitalism and LTV communism you do not get the value of your labour but the socially neccasary labour time that it takes to create a good (in most cases).

The socially necessary labor time it takes to create a good becomes price, the value you create is separate from that.

Both you and I know that under the LTV system you do not get the full proceeds of your labour because of deductions for health care and other socialized services.

Apparently I don't know that. It is always up to the workers what is to be socialized and what isn't. You can even have mixed socialized services, where those who decide to pay out towards the socialization of it get cards to utilize it freely and others "pay per use" for example. Under that method, eveyrone controls the value of their labor. Regardless, you always get the value of your labor, if you decide to put some of it towards socialized health services, that is your decision, you have exercised your control over that value and have made a conscious decision to give some towards a particular goal. Still, it is yours and you have excercized control over it, you have merely decided with that control, to devote it towards a socialized service.

This also very interesting because apologists of the soviet union said that because labour power was not purchased as a commodity that the soviet union was socialist.

Labor power was indeed a commodity in the soviet union, while it is true it was not "purchased" in the sense it is under capitalism, it is only so true as it would be speaking of any other commodity. It was state controlled... it lacks a market, in the capitalist sense of the word, that doesn't mean you have escaped the aspects of markets which make us consider something to be a commodity. Wages were still paid, that is, people were still paid with regard to the value of their labor power, as opposed to the value of their labor. The only difference being that the surplus value went to the state. Hence why we call it state capitalism.

You seem to be saying that until the division of labour is completely faded away that things can not be completely socialised.

That is precisely what I'm saying.

I disagree, in the lower stage of communism i would expect labour to be voluntary so that pepople would be able to decide what kind of job the feel like doing.

If you have such economic relations then you have already abolished the division of labor.

Why I say basic necessities (food, shelter, water, health care) must be completely socialized "right off the bat" is because not only can these things be provided abundantly right now but these goods and services should be considered human rights under communism.

These things can be provided abundantly right now under the current division of labor. As for what they should or should not be considered, I don't play that game.

NovelGentry

14th March 2006, 10:12

Let me finally reiterate that I do not share NG's approval of any type of 'centralized state', whether it be bourgeois or proletarian.

I don't know where I ever claimed to be in favor of a centralized state.

NovelGentry

14th March 2006, 10:26

Perhaps what NovelGentry refers to as a state being that all industries, agriculture and shops are in cooperation with each other when social ownership of bourgeiosie property is a reality.

What I refer to as a state is the political organization of the proletariat. I see it to be a very decentralized thing.

TLVs don't need a centralized state, indeed that would be quite antithetical to the economic and thus political organization which I think the productive forces will necessitate.

anomaly

14th March 2006, 22:44

And I agree, vouchers are best served with a centralized state administrative aparatus--NG
I believe this statement has confused some people as to your stance, NG. Too many adjectives, I think. You probably should have just said a 'state administrative aparatus'.

A small question that does not warrant a separate thread, to NG:

You said:
What I refer to as a state is the political organization of the proletariat. I see it to be a very decentralized thing.
Well, so long as it's 'very decentralized', I support it. However, what will it look like, and how will it function?

Social Greenman

15th March 2006, 02:18

NG wrote:

What I refer to as a state is the political organization of the proletariat. I see it to be a very decentralized thing.

I don't see the new society as political in any sense decentralised or not.

Mikhail Bakunin wrote:

Organization of Productive Forces in Place of Political Power. It is necessary to abolish completely, both in principle and in fact, all that which is called political power; for, so long as political power exists, there will be ruler and ruled, masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited. Once abolished, political power should be replaced by an organization of productive forces and economic service.

Also:

The Ideal of the People. This ideal of course appears to the people as signifying first of all the end of want, the end of poverty, and the full satisfaction of all material needs by means of collective labor, equal and obligatory for all, and then, as the end of domination and the free organization of the people's lives in accordance with their needs - not from the top down, as we have it in the State, but from the bottom up, an organization formed by the people themselves, apart from all governments and parliaments, a free union of associations of agricultural and factory workers, of communes, regions, and nations, and finally, in the more remote future; the universal human brotherhood, triumphing above the ruins of all States.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...us/soc-anar.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm)

I was hoping what you mean't by "state" as being the administration of things by the workers. The administration of TLVs would be in the hands of a department of industry--IWW, agricultural commune, etc. Even the weblink you supplied always refered to a free association of producers.

I do admire your advocation of LTVs. However, how the new society will function (out side of theory) remains to be seen. Otherwise no one knows. Chances are we will end up in barbarism as I wrote before.

anomaly

15th March 2006, 03:01

Chances are we will end up in barbarism as I wrote before
What do you mean? If we go to barbarism, the revolution will have been extremely reactionary. Perhaps revolutions may fail a few times, but I do not think we will descend to barbarism. I think we'll see a successful communist revolution in Europe by the end of the century.

Social Greenman

15th March 2006, 23:00

Anomoly wrote:

What do you mean? If we go to barbarism, the revolution will have been extremely reactionary. Perhaps revolutions may fail a few times, but I do not think we will descend to barbarism. I think we'll see a successful communist revolution in Europe by the end of the century.

If Europe has a revolution at the end of the century I will not be alive. I am afraid that no revolution or even an attempt at revolution will ever occur in the U.S. I think the U.S. will end up with a racist form of government. I do pay attention to what people say and also monitor that icky website from time to time. The pattern is that they are hoping to get is the most negative responses in public from those that oppose them. Basically they are attempting to protray themselves as law abiding citizens, patriotic, mom, apple pie and they will God Bless America every time to gain numbers for political action.

anomaly

16th March 2006, 01:39

Well, yes, currently the United States is experiencing a period of reaction. However, such things do not last forever.

US capitalism will fall just as European capitalism will fall. The new capitalist center of power is east Asia: China, Japan, South Korea.

And once things 'turn to shit' economically in the US, such 'values' that you mention (law abiding citizens, patriotic, mom, apple pie) will disappear very quickly. And, if communist revolution is successful in Europe, Americans will look at this and say "why not us?"

Social Greenman

16th March 2006, 23:28

Anomoly wrote:

And once things 'turn to shit' economically in the US, such 'values' that you mention (law abiding citizens, patriotic, mom, apple pie) will disappear very quickly. And, if communist revolution is successful in Europe, Americans will look at this and say "why not us?"

You fail to understand (and I am sorry we are off topic) that this is what the so-called WNs want as well. Things to turn to shit so they can win over many a White folk. Germany had a great socialist movement going on and Hitler came along and we all know what happened afterwards. The values mentioned are being used as a recruiting tool and it appears to be working in their favor.

anomaly

18th March 2006, 00:04

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 16 2006, 06:31 PM
You fail to understand (and I am sorry we are off topic) that this is what the so-called WNs want as well. Things to turn to shit so they can win over many a White folk. Germany had a great socialist movement going on and Hitler came along and we all know what happened afterwards. The values mentioned are being used as a recruiting tool and it appears to be working in their favor.
Things have been sufficiently 'off topic' in this thread for some time. So I think it's safe to begin a new topic.

None of what you mention matters. WNs (white nationalists?) are in a battle they cannot possibly win. You fail to take into account prevailing material reality in your analysis. Germany in 1933 did not have the material conditions neccesary for communism. We still lack those today. But, you are right about one thing: things will begin to turn to shit in this century in the US. However, as things turn to shit, more and more petty-bougeoisie will be pushed into the proletariat, and slowly, as material conditions continue to fall out of their favor, the proletariat will become more and more revolutionary. It just takes awhile, that's all.

Social Greenman

18th March 2006, 03:19

And what would be the so-called material conditions that would bring about revolution? We could play the guessing game till the cows come home. No, if anything, those in power will put a military type of state into existance with an all powerful leader to protect the capitalist class ability to make profits. Never underestimate their ambitions to keep power and to use propaganda. They have had a lot of practice and material conditions may not matter to them at all so long as the working class mental processes remain mallable to their point of view.

To get back on topic...the concept of TLVs needs to be presented to the workers as an alternative to the present economic system. It will get their attention when it dawns on them that they can get the full fruit of their labor, in the form of labor credit units, to exchange at the social store. Workers will also have to organise industrially, at the point of production, which the IWW has been doing for the past 100 years.

anomaly

18th March 2006, 03:30

so long as the working class mental processes remain mallable to their point of view
My very argument is that "working class mental processes" will not remain "mallable", but rather will change accordingly with prevailing material conditions. When poverty levels go to 50% or so and wages continue to depress and show no signs of rising and wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, at this point revolution becomes inevitable. When will such conditions be seen? Guesses range anywhere from 40-150 years in the United States. But we know it is coming, sooner or later.

Social Greenman

21st March 2006, 10:45

I have one hell of a headache right now. :angry: Anyways, I don't seem to comprehend on what material conditions mean. Historical Materialism is one thing but what makes a material condition other than falling wages, poverty levels and such for revolution? I did point out that Geman workers had gone through times that were harsh while the capitalist were making profits post WW1. Gemany had a very large socialist movement going on as well. You would think that a real revolution would have happen but the other thing was elected. The capitalist put their trust in the state to represent their interest. The socialist movement was murdered along with Jews and other people. The workers became the slaves in a literal sense.

Capitalist here in the U.S. are already represented by both major parties. Workers interest are secondary. One could say the U.S. is already facist and no doubt that it is. Except that the U.S. needs people from outside the U.S. to work low paying jobs. The American worker, who is always bombarded with propaganda, cannot see the "forest for the trees" often blame these workers as job thieves. The capitalist are very happy about this seeing that workers remain divided. :(

What Gents and I presented here in this thread is a very important tool. Workers today think in capitalist terms and are bombarded with propaganda over the concept of wages and markets. Money is the most coveted object people talk about. They talk about making as much of it as they can and many are willing to work long hours or open a business. TMost are willing to step on or screw over the next guy to get money for their own personel consumption. I have seen it done many times over the years. Presenting the concept of "Free Access" and to do voluntary work would make most people laugh to tears.

Talking to workers about the TLV would make them realise that they are exploited at the point of production and what steps have to be taken for them to get the full fruit of their labor. Workers who now only think in terms of money would gradually see that a new economic system would benefit them far greater in the long run. It is not about the lower or higher stages of communism at this present time, it is about the workers interest and needs. It's about the common ownership of production and product flow. Workers would learn the relationship of their labor with the product made. Enough for now my head starting to split. :angry:

Social Greenman

25th March 2006, 10:43

Anomoly wrote:

My very argument is that "working class mental processes" will not remain "mallable", but rather will change accordingly with prevailing material conditions. When poverty levels go to 50% or so and wages continue to depress and show no signs of rising and wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, at this point revolution becomes inevitable. When will such conditions be seen? Guesses range anywhere from 40-150 years in the United States. But we know it is coming, sooner or later.

I've been trying to read up on historical materialism:

http://www1.minn.net/~nup/chlist.htm

So, an economy that has low wages, long hours at work, wide spread poverty, (no doubt, lower education among the working people) and high profits would be the material condition to which a revolution would occur. However, 19th century England had much the same circumstances which I will add that the government always sided with the capitalist class. But no revolution occured.

The problem I see is that even if the material condition were to be as you wrote we still may find history repeating itself once again. I am a bit of a doubter at times when it comes to preditions seeing that they usually don't come to pass. Seeing that there are different idelogical points of view on "what to do," it would seem IMHO that the poletariet will remain directionally impaired.

I was hoping that the TLV economic plan would serve as a foundation and direction which everyone could agree on to educate the working class with as an alternative to capitalsm.

Social Greenman

28th March 2006, 06:19

Another reason for the LTV is that after the revolution and the means of production are socially owned...the division of labor will come along with it. There is no escaping the fact that the production process after the revolution will still require the division of labor. From the point where raw materials are brought in the factory right on down the line until the finished product is shipped out. Each step will have to be done by workers. When will the division end? When science come up with better processes which may take years. In other words, we don't know.

Until that time, since many types of work are either repeatative, labor intensive, stressful or down right dangerous, workers will want compensation of some type and the TLV would give them their full labor value. In other words, these workers will recieve a higher rate than other workers. There most likely be a rate scale of some sort as pointed out by Daniel De Leon. I personally don't believe people will have the "brotherly love" to do tasks that could remove fingers or limbs, a mine caving in over your head, fall to ones death from a sky scraper, etc. Many workers would not even consider doing those types of work. Some do because, not only got the balls, they are physically able and agile. But they are compensated big bucks even though they are exploited at the point of production. Even the Leninist in the Old Soviet Union knew to compensate the laborer for work done except it was still wage slavery despite the social programs.

So, the idea that communism will develope immediately after capitalism borders on wishful thinking. I don't doubt that there will be a socialist reconstruction of society. A state in other words. Personally, I don't like the idea of a state but there could be one because we don't know how history will play out. What I may not like may prove to be what is needed. We just don't know and as much as we like to argue on how the new society would look like and function. Its all speculation with no unified plan of action. Even the TLV argument does not mean that the new society will use them nor does it mean that "fee access" will exist either. For all we know money may be used to pay workers their full labor value somehow.

Social Greenman

2nd April 2006, 01:16

One more thing since the topic of a state was brought up and discussed. I came accross this article on the deleonist website:

Far from being a state-controlled society, socialism would be a society WITHOUT A STATE. Marx once said that "the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." Consonant with this truth, socialism would have a GOVERNMENT, but not a separate, coercive body standing above society itself -- a state. The people themselves, through the democratic associations of workers, would BE the government.

This is an article reprinted from "The People" which is a publication of the SLP.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=95120001

Here is a reprint from "The People" about Labor Time Vouchers.

http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=91101901

Note: No one at the deleonist.org website are members of the Socialist Labor Party.

Donnie

2nd April 2006, 13:43

What do you think of labor time vouchers?
Practical?
Do we need them?

Also, can someone tell me how these vouchers will be created and issued.

Who would issue these vouchers? Can those appointed to issue vouchers be trusted?

Thx.
I think it would be a mistake to use LTV. I believe LTV to be unjust, the reason why I would believe this to be unjust is say for example 'three hour's of Peter's work will may be worth five of Paul's'. Other factors than duration must be taken into account into determing the value of labour like; intensity, professional and interlectual training, etc. The family commitments of the workers must also be taken into account. Moreover, in a collectivist regime the worker remains a wage slave of the community that buys and supervises his labour. Payment by hours of work performed cannot be an ideal solution.
We must put an end an end to the morality of account books, to the philosophy of "credit and debit". This method is derived from modified individualism and is in controdiction to the collective ownership of the means of production.

Social Greenman

3rd April 2006, 03:17

Donnie wrote:

I think it would be a mistake to use LTV. I believe LTV to be unjust, the reason why I would believe this to be unjust is say for example 'three hour's of Peter's work will may be worth five of Paul's.

Only if Paul's work was more physical and stressful than Peter's. That difference would be be justified (read the link to Daniel DeLeon's 15 questions on Socialism). Otherwise, more workers would seek out Peter's type of work leaving Paul's department with a lot of vacancies.

From the SLP pamplet:

Although the overwhelming majority of workers [This is just the SLP's opinion. My opinion is that we would be lucky to have 51 percent here in the U.S.] will undergo a profound change in the course of becoming classconscious and carrying out the struggle for socialism, it cannot reasonably be expected that every member of society will have transcended years of social conditioning by capitalist ideology and the effects of living in a cut-throat, competitive, harsh social environment. Selfishness, avarice, personal ambition and hunger for power, mistrust, elitism -- these potential sources of trouble would be largely [Their opinion] destroyed among classconscious workers, but it would be folly to expect them to be completely destroyed throughout society at the moment of the workers' triumph. Certainly the recently deposed capitalists and their hangers-on would still possess these characteristics. [Depends on how many workers still embrace the old society's ways and how much of the old society would exist as Marx pointed out.]

If you would read the section (15 Questions on Socialism) on the motormen and conductors you would understand why there is a difference in the LTV scale rate.

Also:

Other factors than duration must be taken into account into determing the value of labour like; intensity, professional and interlectual training, etc. The family commitments of the workers must also be taken into account.

LTV's takes full account of labor time values. In other words, workers would recieve the full value of their labor no matter the intensity. Professional and intelectual training is free as medical and other social services. I don't see how a LTV program would inhibit a worker's commitment of family.

Moreover, in a collectivist regime the worker remains a wage slave of the community that buys and supervises his labour. Payment by hours of work performed cannot be an ideal solution.

You are confusing LTV's with money and capitalist exploitation. A wage slave works part of the day for his/her wage and the rest of the day is spent creating surplus value with his/her surplus labor which becomes profits for the capitalist class. There is no "buying or selling" with LTVs but an exchange of workers full value of labor for use value items at the social stores. Those who supervises labor are democractically elected to do so and not appointed. Please read the entire thread and not just a few post. Is not the creation of the new society based on work and the collective ownership of the means of production?

We must put an end an end to the morality of account books, to the philosophy of "credit and debit". This method is derived from modified individualism and is in controdiction to the collective ownership of the means of production.

Ah, you wrote earlier that the value of labor, professional and intelectual training and family commitments must be taken into account. There will always be some sort of bookkeeping and keeping of accounts of not only of labor hours but what comes in and out of the factory. There has to be bookkeeping and accounting of what is ordered from the social stores, how many hours are needed to produce items for the social stores, what materials (and how much) are needed to be shipped in from other factories to produce those items, the wear and tear on humans and machines, what new machines have to be ordered, how much waste is produced in the manufacturing process, how much of those items are in the warehouse, what needs to be rotated on the shelves, and what is shipped out to the social stores. We cannot forget that items of food, clothing, blankets, etc., has to be produced for disaster relief so an account of those things has to be kept. I wonder how many workers would fight over who would be the bookkeepers without LTVs. I see no contradiction and yes, there will be a collective ownership of the means of production.