How would labour be valued?

I disagree, what if the 300 watches are shit and the 30,000 socks are not? The time spent is not the same as the quality of the item.

You give everyone rations (everyone gets a basic amount of everything) that are equal, and everyone also has to work if capable. To encourage people to work in needed fields (more difficult work or work that requires training), give those fields social status and extra benefits.
But how do we measure their value to determine how much benefits they should have? Well you don't. We don't need to reward then equivalently to value produced, only what is needed to have people in those positions.
Not enough people in a field? How about 5% more vacation days or 5% more entertainment credits (assuming there is a simple point system on top of basic rations). Still not enough? Keep incrementing and put out some pro-doctor/lawyer/whatever propaganda

this is autism. read Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The idea of abstract labor is assuming the labor is competing or at least some factor is keeping it uniform in some way
For example, We know one person weaving baskets can do a given amount within less time than another person, but you can still measure each against an average within the system of production. And in that case, the person under performing can be motivated to keep up and the person over performing can be rewarded because they are performing different amounts of labor, but that labor can still be measured against abstract labor time. And you don't have to reward directly proportional to labor, but according to what motivates as I say here which is a sociology/psychology study rather than economics

Higher quality is linked to time though. Higher quality is above average. If the higher quality good doesn't take any time at all then it would't really be high quality in the first place.

And you don't have to accurately measure in either case. All you need is motivational tools (material rewards), which don't necessarily have to be exactly proportional to output to successfully motivate people.

You could easily optimize the allocation of labour democratically.

It's pointless considering that we aren't talking about guilds man who physically create goods. Idk how there can be such a discrepancy when we are talking about factory work and overall modern production.

so how do you reward the overperforming worker specifically? Because you cannot give them more resources than the underperforming worker without initiating some system that will lead to the creation of an upper class again, right?

Worker A takes one hour to make an item.
Worker B takes one hour to make the same item, but higher quality.
There is an inequality here. Let's say they are both doing their best, what happens to Worker A?

The ruling class is called the ruling class because they rule over people.

The basic idea is that we break down each labor type to unskilled labor depending on the average time it takes to become skilled in each job. Then people get vouchers according to their unskilled labor time on the job.

Organize a tribe then work your way up from there.

How is labour valued in a tribal setting? You take more than you give and you stand to lose the protection that living in numbers provides.

But is there a burden on giving more than you take?

Standardization and industrialization makes the product of Worker A and the product of Worker B indistinguishable. One widget is the same as another widget. The inequality evaporates under mass production.

so how do you reward the overperforming worker specifically? >Because you cannot give them more resources than the underperforming worker without initiating some system that will lead to the creation of an upper class again, right?
Marxists don't care about equality, reread . Of that is too complicated, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Again, Marxists don't care about equality. But to entertain this, understand that quality control doesn't just dissappear under socialism. Both workers still have to to be above or within a certain standard as in any industry and a manufactured product must be within proper tolerances to be accepted. If a worker goes beyond what is required and proves himself as such, he can be rewarded either by recognition or resources. The USSR pre-Khrushchev did as such en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Fuck, just realized how much I messed up that formating. You get what I was saying.

Look, if you didn't know what the LTV is you should have just said so, and I would have explained it more to you.
And, looking at this thread, a lot of you need to have this explained to you.
If in an average hour, 300 watches are made of an average quality, then the worker should receive an hour as payment. If, in an hour, 300 watches are made of below average quality, the worker should recieve less than an hour of labor.
These values would have to be determined on an "individual" scale.

This is obtuse and bad writing, and it is a clear misinterpretation of what Marx wrote there.

Marxists don't though, "equality" is a nebulous and ultimately liberal concept.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

I might be an absolute brainlet but I don't get this
what the fuck is he even saying? that different people are not equal in terms of labour quantity and quality but the worth of their labour should still be measured in labour time?

I always thought Marx was shit at writting/explaining, or maybe it's just difficult to translate 150 years old german texts, I don't know.

You probably are stumped because you suspect there must be something particularly clever or creative in that quote, but there really isn't. The good side is that it looks really workable. The hypothetical society in the following is the imagined communist one, just arising out of capitalism (as it existed back then).
Intensity: Alice and Bob work the same physical job at the same place and work the same amount of hours, have the same reliability and so on, but one aspect is different: Alice only works at 3/4 the speed of Bob. Then, Alice only has only a right to 3/4 of the reward of Bob.
Duration: Bob and Carl work the same job at the same reliability and speed, but Carl works a few more hours than Bob, 20 % longer, so he gets more reward. Alice gets 75 % of what Bob gets, Carl gets 120 %.

(When capitalism apologists talk about incentives, these distinctions are their go-to examples. But it's silly to bring up these in defense of capitalism, because these distinctions also existed in the GDR etc. and also with only this stuff you never get to somebody having ten times the salary of another person. It's a non sequitur to talk about these distinctions as if they could justify passive income from being a landlord.)

Is this as good as it can get? Marx goes on that people have different needs:
Income strictly according to job performance wouldn't help with that. He expected that early post-capitalist society would largely, but not completely, operate on the principle to each according to contribution (it's not completely that way, since he mentioned deductions), and as society and technology develop more, the part of income that is distributed according to need will grow.

yeah but those examples are very simple, what about services? what about office workers? how do you measure the average amount of time required to give a massage?
or how do you measure the average time spent on each person's contribution to something that requires several people to produce?

How do you think this is done now?

I bet you think you're smart or something, did any of my comments make you think I support capitalism?
how about answering me instead of asking retarded unrelated questions?

Well, how do you think it is done now?

it isn't done, there's wage labour.
now tell me, why did you ask a retarded and unrelated question twice?

Read Cockshott. It has the answer on page 29.

But people do obtain an income from that. How is the size of that determined?

Anyone know of that study that showed giving material incentives in a workplace decreased productivity compared to an egalitarian workplace? It was in intellectual labor I think

Having a small black market if people bartering excesses goods is ok imo as long as there is a general oversupply of goods and services and the market doesn't exist to overcome general shortages

Like the others have said, It's really very simple. You are paid one hour for one hour's work, with some small bonuses or reductions depending on your performance. Prices are set according to the hours of labour needed to produce them, so a one-hour massage session would cost one hour. So you would go to the masseuse with your one-hour "labour token", you would give it to them, they would note it down and destroy the token (they don't circulate like money), and you would get your one-hour session. If a job does not produce a discrete commodity (say, being a teacher) those jobs would be paid through taxation, so a portion would be deducted from everyone's wages in order to pay for the wages of the non-productive workers (this means that a person working and being paid 8 hours would only receive, say, 5. This would be the main and likely only means of surplus value extraction under such a system). What you get is a sort of zero-sum system where you issue exactly as many credits as there is stuff to buy them with. Very simple and very easy to calculate and tweak based on demand. This is the hypothetical system that Marx proposes in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, and in a more refined form what people like Cockshott propose.

good post

I would add (and this is just my hot take) that the taxes for non-productive workers could be extended to any uncommodified good or service. So if you are the Cyber-Soviet Union and you want to make food free for everyone, you just pay food workers with the same taxes you pay teachers. This obviously starts to break down if you keep doing it, since you would end up with a 100% tax rate, but if you can pull that off and not have a total collapse of the economy, you have basically reached full communism.

I would still rather live in a standardized house with 1 fridge 1 couch 1 etc etc based on the number of people in the house, and fill out a meal plan online (oh no I can Only request lobster once a month or something like that) where the state sends me x number of eggs, x pounds of flour etc than see capitalism just continue on forever

Do you actually believe individual consumption budgets cause capitalism?

No?
My point was I'd rather live in a Democratic socialist society with limited access to luxuries than future capitalist authoritarianism where I can buy some Nutella

The elimination of classes literally makes people, when viewed as workers, equal to one another. Furthermore, Marx consistently uses language that repeatedly emphazises equality. Seriously, read the post I have here and see how many times he says "equal", "the same", and so on…

But, I will address your quote as well.
That quote isn't "against equality". It is against an innaccurate statement. A Socialist society isn't "an equal society"; it is a society without classes. Marx is pointing out that this is a dubious statement, because it is. Why would a Communist not state there goals with how they will achieve them? Why is the goal "equality" instead of "abolishing class"? It stinks of onesided, liberal bullshit, and Marx is right to point that out.
It doesn't mean equality isn't a reasonable ideological/philosophical/ethical guide, just because you can't nail down equality overall.
L O L
You might as well say it is Globalist or Statist. That means absolutely nothing, literally just "It is bad" but dressed up like it connects to something. You have no argument here, just a paragraph of a letter of a dead man that doesn't even assert your beliefs. Weak.

The elimination of classes does make everyone workers, but this is not done out of a focus for equality. Marxist don't care for equality as a concept or goal, they care for the abolishment of the class system. Whether or not this results in equality is not the concern.
He is not emphasizing equality, he is explaining how equality, at least in lower stage communism, is impossible.

I don't care because I didn't ask about capitalism's system you dense retard.
I asked how this would be done in socialism, and you started asking me about something else as if it was relevant to the discussion.
kys you fucking mong

an what's stopping them from doing a shit job in an hour?
I get how you'd measure it for commodity production, but it doesn't make sense for services and I doubt some of these services should be paid through taxation.

also does the LTV address the fact that labour that doesn't produce a commodity (like you siad teaching) is not really measurable unlike that labour that does produce a commodity?
this seems like a big problem in my opinion.

the fact that if nobody wants their services they'll lose funding for their job. everyone would be paid in labor tokens but these tokens are issued via a central finance system and don't circulate like money. meaning that if you collect payment from consumers then you will get paid via the central finance or planning system. but if you can't register any kind of consumer payment for your services you'll most likely be de-funded.

In this way it's possible to keep production and services parallel with demand but to avoid the development of private capital or the accumulation of value in private hands, which would lead to markets and capitalism all over again.

but like people have said - it IS measurable and it's measurable in exactly the same way, i.e. labor-time.

but there's no production of commodity which means you can't assess or measure his labour in relation to the average production.
customer satisfaction is fucking marginalism. how's this any different or better than capitalism?
bare in mind that mos of today's economies are based on services.

same as above, you can't compare the value of services and commodities because you can measure how much of a commodity you produce, which you can't do with services.
some people are doing a better/worse job at producing commodities and getting rewarded/punished for it because you can measure it, how do you do that with services exactly?