reminder there is nothing wrong with money.
its efficient to allow people to swap things with each other. swaps always make both people better off.
so long as they are going to be allowed to swap things, people will always develop money so they can do more efficient swaps.
you cant get around this pals.
but you shouldnt want to either because its all completely efficient.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1200x794, 1.58M)

Other urls found in this thread:


Attached: 4cf0aa66afff7ca0bee5b037344b63fd599ff7ae7c3dd2a990639052a13439f2.webm (450x360, 4.26M)

reminder money, as value-token that doesn't rot or expire, was a way for temple priests to tally loans and has always been fucked and that people have developed robust societies and trade without money as we know it (Melanesians come to mind)

which of my premises is wrong?


Why are there so many shit threads the past few days?

Tyrannical government that owns everything: Work or else you'll starve or be thrown in prison
You: OMG, this is a nightmare!

Amoral corporations that own everything: Work and earn vouchers you can pay us back for food and shelter or you'll starve or be thrown in prison
You: Ahhh, true freedom!

Attached: libertarian nightmare.png (504x864, 616.42K)

straw mans are cool bro

It's nothing more than a medium of exchange, its "value" is illusory and dependent upon the system in which it exists and circulates.

this is middle school tier argumentation. please read the first three chapters of kapital or never post here again.

why is it 'fucked'? why do you hate convenient way of trading things?

how large and complex was their society?

this is why everyone hates commies
explain which of my premises is wrong or go fuck yourself.

You can attempt to make arguments for money, but efficiency definitively isn't one of them. Mere personal exchange does not make up an economy and does not occur in a vacuum, and even if we were to imply that the rates of personal exchange by some alchemy reached the levels that would facilitate your claim for the necessity of money, better systems exist. Energy credits/certificates, labour vouchers, digital labour tokens, etc.. Money is an antiquated system.

How is rich people telling you what to do for money any different from the government just telling you what to do directly?

Pareto-efficient, you mean.
They expect both to be better off, you mean. The swap is Pareto-efficient if both are well informed (usually the case) and there are no externalities (extremely unrealistic assumption). Example: I swap my money for somebody's guitar. Me and guitar guy are happy. Now I make music (or what I think is music) and you are my neighbor and very annoyed by that. The sound isn't louder than the legal limit, so you are screwed.
Currency was developed by the state starting from tax-in-kind systems. The basis of money is coercion and expropriation by the state.

OP is right. Theres nothing capitalist about producing some goods in your freetime as a sort of hobby and selling it at cost to your comrades. This sort of natural human behavior can and will exist in a socialist society, and labor vouchers won't stop it, it would just force people to barter with goods instead.

dont see the relevance

i didnt claim it was necessary, just inevitable and beneficial.

if you pay someone a labour voucher less than the value of their labour, they will eventually work out that they can request more for their services and be paid it, and so you will rend up with money replacing your labour vouchers.

>if you pay someone a labour voucher wage less than the value of their labour, they will eventually work out that they can request more for their services and be paid it
welcome to communism

If it is just natural and can't be stopped, why do you whine about interference? If it can be strongly reduced by regulations, how can it be part of human nature? You sound like someone who doesn't even believe his own words. Sad.

Its more that such activity wont be as common because people will be able to acquire the goods they need from a general store or the equivalent of one more conveniently. For niche objects however, this may be the case for a while (crafted personalized figures, drawings, etc.).

Define both of these. In what way is it inevitable when if it is superseded by a superior system, and in what way is it beneficial when it retains inefficiencies and is riddled with issues.
Excuse me what

Here are some good videos of money by Cockshott. They are short and I advise you watch them.

less than the value their labour would get in a market.
for example, a doctor is paid the same as a barber for one hour of his services.
he will work out that he could demand to be paid lots of good instead of the labour voucher.

that isnt true though, because to get the value out of the labourer you would need to supply them with capital, which costs money. so its not true they could request more and be paid it.

So is he gonna accept eggs, milk, bespoke furry art, boutique furniture, tattoos, et cetera for his work from people then turn around to sell them? Obviously not

no he would simply ask to be paid in lots of one kind of good, for example cigarettes. his customers spend part of their labour vouchers on cigarettes. bring him the cigarettes. he trades the cigarettes for whatever he needs. cigarettes became the money.

Excuse me, what? You want to point to Marx or any socialist state in which people were paid the same?

Attached: da6fcf6ff47ae192fd4ecb535350622d444c195f2f7ec4d05ad0df1926cc39b2.png (1086x1086, 358.2K)

they can just get rid of you and keep the produce they created by using the capital

Wouldn't it be easier if he just… you know, worked for his wage in labour vouchers and didn't have to worry about that?

A company producing some product and paying taxes can figure out that they would have higher profit if they didn't pay their taxes. They can try to do that, but just because they want this to work out for them like that doesn't mean it happens. Likewise with your doctor story. Do you actually believe Cuba has a big black market in doctor services?

i dont claim marxism pays people the same
it was just an example where someone is paid with a labour voucher that's worth less than what he could get in the market.

when there is 'need' (life or death), there is nothing easier or more difficult about using money for trade except its mobility. Otherwise we can play barter for any given items. However, Melanesians keenly distinguish between petty trading called gimwali and exchange between nobles or chiefs which is ritualized and the items exchanged are specific and sacred, called kula. They would sail between islands for kula ceremonies of various sizes, the biggest being as big as pic related though obviously not as complex as any modern capitalist society. I suppose there is some special political-geographical considerations to be made for a series of islands. My issue with money as I described it is that it is first of all monopoly money (not exactly fiat) but it's a religious-state affair and does not represent money like coinage used by normal people. Sources: Marcel Mauss' Essay on the Gift, Bronislaw Malinowski's Argonauts of the Pacific

fugging pic related

Attached: mela.jpg (2292x1425, 368.21K)

In this case why wouldn't everyone ask to be paid in cigarettes? To make a profit he would have to sell the cigarettes for something which is "worth" more than then them, and the people buying the cigarettes from him could instead just get their cigarettes cheaper from where he got them. This doesn't add up.

do cubans buy their healthcare with labour vouchers?

everyone would, provided their labour voucher was worth less than what their labour was worth in the market.
worth in the market = how much goods you can buy if you swap your labour for cigarettes then swap cigarettes for goods.

What the retard probably meant is this: A service is undersupplied, the price is fixed at a low level by state order, so there's a long waiting list. Service providers can then discriminate between consumers and demand something in addition to the official price. In ye olde days they could just demand more money than the official price. With electronic tracking of consumer spending this simple option can be erased, but the service provider can ask for some other thing or service in addition to the official price. And it can happen that some small and durable thing becomes the general thing that people ask for in that situation, and people keep asking for it because people have asked for it, so it becomes something like a currency. He just couldn't come up with a good example for the mechanism.

This doesn't happen with doctors because a doctor doesn't choose his patients.

Except your example starts off with the premise that both people are being paid the same and that somehow his demanded goods could be sold for more even though where he got his goods from also pay everyone else and so those people could also just ask for said goods instead of just paying the guy for them.

Lets say for example you work at a store with other people. During your break, you can buy stuff from the store. An orange is worth 5 credits. You spend 5 credits to buy it. You go up to another person and then state you will trade the orange for something else he got in the store worth more than 5 credits. Why would he agree to this when he can just get an orange for less?

Again, what? Why would they swap with you higher "priced" goods for cigarettes they can get from the same place cheaper? Why would they trade with you?

you mean they could just go to the other doctors who are continuing to accept labour vouchers?
that would make sense except prices do rise in market societies.
it would probably happen quite slowly, like one doctor wants to be paid labour voucher plus a cigarette, next week all the other doctors have copied so he charges labour voucher plus two cigarettes.

so eventually you couldnt just go to someone else, all the doctors are charging higher prices

It would be illegal to accept bribes to do your actual job, so that's a nonissue. If someone was doing that, an investigator could just come in undercover and bust them. I don't see how this could ever become a widespread thing.

If it was so rampant for there to be long waiting lists, that would/should be addressed directly by the state.

Why exactly do you think private doctors are a thing in socialism and that the doctor determine the price of the visit?

Attached: 1519756050576.jpg (250x248, 38.24K)

well im assuming there is a system where labour vouchers are exchanged for goods and services.

Are you retarded on purpose? Once again: THE DOCTOR CAN'T CHOOSE PATIENTS. The provider of some product or service who is subjected to price controls can only subvert these regulations if control over who is a costumer and who isn't still lies with the provider.

This doesn't equal private doctors or private practices.

This fam. The hospital, machines, medical devices, etc. are the property of the community. They will not let the doctor use them if he is going to charge people a price above the price set.
In the same way doctors in currently existing public health systems do not charge 'extra' despite being free and often quite scarce.

why not? who can force him in anarchy?

LVs aren't an anarchist concept.

ah okay, i thought they were. did marx not have them in his idea of how communism would work?

Right. Despite the fact that there's a long waiting list for specialist treatment in the NHS, if my doctor offered to bump me to the top of the list for a wad of cash, I could and would have him arrested.

Marx wasn't an anarchist (he wasn't a M-L either before you start).

Socialism (lower phase communism), user. Please, read Critique of the Gotha Program before you come here and discuss labour vouchers and the like, especially in regards to Marx's view on them.

Money is a reward for fractional austerity, trust in society, and long-term planning. It’s a storable, divisible, fungible, and inedible good. Any good that is storable, divisible, fungible, and inedible is money and will be used to create money’s rewards. This is why money cannot be abolished.

The things that money rewards are things that refine the degree to which resources can be used elsewhere.

Not all swaps make people better off. It is tyrannical to expect all people in society to know all necessary things for making ideal swaps. Did you know that your employees’ health would improve if you replaced every doorknob (and especially your bathroom doorknobs) in your corporate HQ with brass doorknobs? Have you perhaps been undervaluing swaps for brass doorknobs? Society’s repository of best practices helps with things like this.

Do you even know how labor vouchers work? You're receiving what it costs society to get whatyou're putting out. By definition you can't do better in a market.

The degree of corruption in public health services is a dramatic differentiation between nations. America, Canada, New Zealand, most of Europe, and I believe Australia all have notably uncorrupted medical establishments. This is one of the hidden factors to the quality of a nation - medical corruption crushes real patriotism without impacting the appearance of patriotism, and people who encounter corruption in medicine develop strong drives towards emigration.

Labor vouchers aren't exchanged. They're redeemed

>Any good that is storable, divisible, fungible, and inedible is money and will be used to create money’s rewards
>This is why money cannot be abolished
I want you to think about what you just typed

Attached: DUL18QTWAAEH2HJ.jpg (500x750, 59.92K)

In the capitalist system a certain medium can be used as exchange, like for example we use money to quantify and keep track of the relations of different values to one another. I wouldn't trade 100 lamps for a car but I can sell 100 lamps to get the money and then use it to buy a car. Theoretically you could have a much more efficient economy if you both had a tracking system to keep track of purchases (demand) and then have a computer keep track of the supply. Then have it delegate resources to places that are in high demand and less to places with lower demand. Its much more efferent than voting with your wallet because it has no profit motive.

In the future I expect there to be like a card system that keeps track of your labor hours so that after a given amount of hours a week lets just say 30, you receive all the basic amenities you need to survive. Then have a secondary credit system on top of that which would work as a currency.

maybe this is all retard speak but at least its an idea

Money may always exist, but the purpose of money depends on the larger social context. For most of human history, before the invention of general commodity markets, money was only a mark of social status.

Money is only as good as what you can buy with it, the less commodities that exist, the less meaning it has. our goal is not to destroy money because we have a fetish for in-kind transactions, but because we hope to decommodify goods so people will not have to sell their labor to surive.

Labour vouchers and mutual credit are better forms of currency.

That's what labour vouchers are, they aren't a literal 1:1 replacement for money, they're more like, well, vouchers. You can't give them to people directly, they are spent at institutions for (non essential) services, then the people who work there are paid labour vouchers as wages.

I don't know very much about the labor voucher system as a whole so I would like if either you can tell me about it or point me in the right direction.

See and the videos here by cockshott. The first response video is also good, but is built for a technocrat economy and not a socialist one.

Sorry, the first response I'm talking about is this

profit "emerges" from money cirulating
vouchers don't circulate, you get payed in vouchers locked to you person (not transferable) , vouchers are created by performing labour and destroyed by spending it. It's more like a movie ticket.
This is manly done to avoid black markets.

You might say that profit is a bit like a hiden tax you pay but don't get any representation. So in the voucher system, you will have to pay lots of taxes, those are however visible and hence you can get representation. Basically you still have surplus extraction but people get a say in what happens with it, through various democratic means. You'll get more for your work because the current rulers are wasting the surplus they extract from you on lots of pointless stuff that don't matter to you, like their luxury they won't share with you, or playing games of thrones but with big military spending on pointless wars, Also no more gambling on wall-street.

There's an economic planer that will work out with computers what would usually happen in markets to be able to set prices. The system will be proactive, instead of markets that are reactive. That will spare us economic crisis.

Labor costs will be higher because people are payed in full, meaning there is a greater incentive to apply new technology quickly and at scale. because the main driver of technology is reducing labor cost.

Holy shit learn mmt(modern monetary theory) and fiat currency
Money is worthless without the backing of taxes that must be paid in your currency or 'labor tickets.' Without taxes there will be no demand for the currency in the market and so wont be used in favor of bartering and thus be worthless
However this doesnt mean that the poor must pay taxes, only those who live comfy can be taxed. It only matters to tax those in power

A socialist state can only be funded with a fiat currency that does not over spend for the goods and services that its country can provide

No need to reinvent the wheel
You cant kill profit but you can nueter it with just as much legislataion as a labor ticket system would require
Bitcoin wont work cause the state cant print more without accelerating the energy crisis

No? You are currently PAYING the current full value of people's labor costs, the important point is that the labor isn't GETTING it. That's what makes it theft.