[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1751404350666.jpg (700.46 KB, 1779x880, 5YvBqRu.jpg)

 

I feel labor vouchers restrict my choices on what I can get. For example, what if I have to choose between 2 items but I want both, such as food ingredients? What would happen to digital goods? I would expect all videogames and cinema to become public (free). But what if I can only get 1 videogame per month? How would this work?

Since game devs and artists in generals have their needs met, I suppose most content would be freely available? Similar to mods in videogames.

Also this voucher would have to be rather plentiful. What if I want to travel to another city, stay at a hotel a few nights, eat out, etc? This labor voucher sounds rather magical.

I prefer the anarchist-communism described by Kropotkin: labor is based on needs and free association, and access to good and services is based on the willing work of the people. So instead of a voucher, you live according to what people around you produce, with both its prosperity and limitations
113 posts and 20 image replies omitted.

>>2368103 (Me)
The biggest reason for this sort of misconception were the underdeveloped postrevolutionary societies of the 20th Century, which called themselves socialist, and are worshipped by many contemporary (largely ineffectual and inactive) self-described socialists, but whose economies were centered around production for exchange, the accumulation of surplus value, and the necessary extraction of said surplus from politically dominated waged laborers

>>2368103
If you ever smashed a rock or did a production line you would know

>>2368118
I’ve done both those things, have you? For real? Hard work isn’t inherently suffering. That’s the problem with red liberals. They have no vision. They consistently remind you “Labor under capitalism is suffering!” and then, if they are especially intelligent, will reference previous modes of production. They cannot adequately explain the horrors of hard (as in, physically taxing) labor if it were to be parceled out efficient solely to meet people’s desires and needs, rather than the requirements of self-expanding value; what they mean is, “I don’t want to work a 16 hour shift in the people’s mine to receive my compensation in the form of the people’s wage in a job I do not control and have commanded down to me by higherups in the social division of labor”; but at that point they’re actually stating “I don’t want to live in capitalism” and refusing to understand that what they are describing, is capitalism

Even in capitalism, compared to other jobs I have done, physical labor was the most tolerable despite being the lowest paid; but not all people are identical either, people like me enjoy seeing the direct products of our labor in the form of an actual physically changed product, I hated jobs where I couldn’t even comprehend what I was doing aside from increasing shareholder value by shuffling products around or indoctrinating kids to the state (I have done many jobs)

Why do red liberals typically assume, if you do not see labor as an evil, that you haven’t worked?

wow lotsa left-anticommunists around here these days, must be the DSA shills doing overtime for zohran's campaign

>>2364784
>I dont like the labor voucher
Its a really shitty idea but classical economists couldn't understand this. Economics as a science improves as new evidence to support new theories are presented.

>>2368133
>make up a red liberal strawman
>ask it rhetorical questions

>>2368170
>Economics as a science

Labor vouchers are a temporary measure. It wouldn't even apply to all products. A communist society would rapidly move towards abolishing exchange right from the start. Vouchers only exist in this transitional phase for those areas where exchange isn't abolished yet.

File: 1751571484549.jpg (473.32 KB, 2560x1176, phonto-18-scaled.jpg)

>>2368170
>Its a really shitty idea but classical economists couldn't understand this
classical economists didnt propose the notion of labor vouchers. they began from the ideas of the early communists josiah warren and robert owen, as a way to quantify exchange in an ethical manner. marx later suggests labor "certificates" as a medium of exchange in a future cooperative society during the first phases of communism, where each man will receive what he gives toward the public wealth fund. many technocrats later on conceived of a similar idea, where energy expended in production should be measured according to one's input of the economy. paul cockshott also holds to this view, i believe.

the alternative vision of the classical economists is simply market equilibrium, where labor values will meet each other in exchange by the balancing of effectual demand to supply (a process which smith says is inevitable, but hastened by "liberty" in the market). marx's issue is that he sees the ways in which capital accumulation sustains indefinite cycles of disequilibrium, leading to general crises. keynes then attempts to resolve this in his own terms, by correcting the internal errors of capital's marginal disutility.

>>2368036
…why wouldn't labor vouchers buy you beer? the beer's "price" would just be the socially necessary labor time required for its production instead of a money price

>>2368372
I agree humans are reasonable creatures but what if someone decides to take too much of one thing? I think for food maybe it’s okay but for other more limited products we need some control.

>>2369332
What do you gain out of taking more food than you can eat at any one time if there’s not a scarcity of food (as there isn’t without capitalist distribution and concomitant restriction of food products) and nobody is going to stop you from just acquiring food?

>>2369380
There’s always people with hoarding disorder out there, theoretically you could force them to take a picture of their house and refuse to serve them like how bars and liquor stores will refuse to serve an already visibly drunk person

>>2369380
I’m talking more about limited things like electronics.

>>2369445
I think your missing the point
Why would anyone care?
That’s why I said, why would you take more than you immediately need, if no one will stop you from acquiring more when you need it?
Hoarding will only inconvenience you as an individual, not the collective

we already have a contemporary analog of labor vouchers in today's markets; namely, store coupons. these are tokens which limit our consumption and have a time-frame which render them necessarily superfluous media of exchange. this can be likened to a form of barter, since we are staking a claim for a specific product, rather than having access to the body of social wealth. some stores also offer alternative options like store credit or point systems based on past consumption.

now, a question i always consider is this one. would you rather be paid in wages, or double the amount of your wages in store coupons? if a capitalist was paying people in coupons, they would be arrested, even if it was double the value of cash. this says something about the justice we place on money as a property rightfully earned. in gamestop for example, they always offer more store credit than cash, showing how credit is less valuable, even if it has a greater claim to stocked goods. the very access to social wealth thus entails a value of its own, as mediated universality.

again, vouchers are a form of regulated barter, since they cannot overcome the double coincidence of wants except by a conditional time-frame, which represents the holding of perishable goods (rather than preserving value in imperishable material). it is a pre-metallic strategy which leads to pre-metallic results. the frustration of vouchers then reveals itself as an artificial inefficiency in exchange.

File: 1751616566745.jpeg (26.21 KB, 452x376, insanity.jpeg)

>>2369332
luckily, with money, individual consumption is inherently limited on a time-scale by one's purchasing power, leading to a priority of demands in the market, rather than needless waste due to "abundance".
>>2369471
in markets, highly valuable goods are regulated in consumption by high prices, which make access limited to higher earners and savers. the principle of saving for a future investment is called "time preference" and this underlies much sociological phenomena.
>>2369594
if the social wealth fund is untouched by individual hoarding, then hoarding clearly mitigates an inherent waste at the heart of this mode of production. this waste can only lead to harmful effects like pollution, which seems counterproductive for social concerns (as marx would say, this creates a contradiction between man and nature). why not just limit consumption to limit waste, instead? at least the labor voucher aims to do this task by limiting individual consumption by a person's individual production.

>>2364823
People like you need to be exorcised from the left, you only follow the politics of spite and envy.

>>2369710
> if the social wealth fund is untouched by individual hoarding, then hoarding clearly mitigates an inherent waste at the heart of this mode of production.
Under communism, products are made for use, not exchange, cyclical waste cannot occur because products are not being restricted from the public to further the imperatives of accumulation; the major reason for endemic waste in capitalist economies is the separation of control over distribution for consumption from labor, this leads to a strategy of hoarding by those with power over distribution, because items are only given away in exchange for money, and destroyed or discarded if it is impossible to exchange them for money, however in anticipation of future demand, items are still produced at a rate exceeding current demand. Capitalism is a desperately failed attempt at planning.

>>2369751

Indeed one can view capitalism as an antagonism/conflict of an arbitrarily large number of petty plans.

The resulting dysfunctions, crises and waste are the very obvious logical consequences (and in this sense parallel the destruction due to wars that emerge between feudal lords).

>>2369771
many planners are better than a few, especially when bad planners are the ones who face the consequences for their mistakes, rather than everyone else. some say that the current system privatizes gains and socializes losses; this is true to a certain extent, but in a system which equally socializes gains and losses, i fear that no one would win at all.
>>2369751
>Under communism, products are made for use, not exchange
yes, but how do you measure social use if exchange cant be quantified in something like a price system? just the rate of consumption?
>cyclical waste cannot occur because products are not being restricted from the public
wouldnt a definition of waste be a form of unrestricted production/distribution (overproduction)? in markets, this becomes insoluble because profits fall. do you imagine that there will be periodic failures in supply dynamics under communism also?
>the major reason for endemic waste in capitalist economies is the separation of control over distribution for consumption from labor, this leads to a strategy of hoarding by those with power over distribution, because items are only given away in exchange for money, and destroyed or discarded if it is impossible to exchange them for money
well, its twofold. there is waste in the market due to a lack of consumer demand. for example, so much is thrown away because no one actually wants it, but at the same time, people might take it if it was freely offered, and so it has a marginal utility which doesnt reach its market price. this is a failure of the price system, i agree, and it can be done to boost profits through a form of artificial scarcity (like how mcdonalds puts its unused stock in private trash lockers, or how restaurants put poison on their leftover food). it would definitely be better if companies had mass discounts for items to increase sales. some businesses do actually deliver leftover items to charities though. i think a more robust form of distribution should be striven for then.
>in anticipation of future demand, items are still produced at a rate exceeding current demand
yes, i agree. overproduction seems to be part of the logic of profit, which can be corrected by redistribution.
>Capitalism is a desperately failed attempt at planning.
i certainly wouldnt go that far. having excess is at least better than having a deficit.

>>2369795

"many planners are better than a few, especially when bad planners are the ones who face the consequences for their mistakes, rather than everyone else"

This where are our disagreement is categorical, & irreconcilable, my libertarian enemy. The great irony is precisely by having a background in large scale industry that made your position completely untenable to me, both in theory and in practice.

It is not simply that there are many people involved in making plans (which was the case in gosplan itself, as it had thousands of employees).

The "many planners" of capitalism are in conflict with one another, and hence their plans against each other. They are not even all strictly just people that are in conflict, but entities like firms as well. It is a war of all against all, primarily in the economic sphere.

Ergo the emergence of dysfunction & waste, because it is always possible to gain at the expense of competitors & third parties.

Under single unitary planning body, there is no external sources to profit at the expense of, to destroy, weaken or simply not cooperate with in order to advance the relative position of organization (usually a firm).

t. Sincerely, your totalitarian enemy, wishing you death.

>>2369795
> yes, but how do you measure social use if exchange cant be quantified in something like a price system? just the rate of consumption?
Production under communism is not for the purposes of exchange, but for use. Exchange is not being quantified. Rate of consumption is indeed what would be measured, and it would be measured against the labor time necessary to make any product to be consumed as well. A lot of communism is also centered around the sphere of production rather than distribution; the main point is to give control over labor back to labor, ergo, what is produced is what the laborers desire to produce, which is determined by what people want in general.
> wouldnt a definition of waste be a form of unrestricted production/distribution (overproduction)?
That’s not what overproduction is. Overproduction has thus far only emerged in economies centered around exchange, and it occurs because products are not being made so that people can use them, their use is irrelevant to those who command production, they are being made so they can be exchanged; what capitalists may call not getting “something” for “nothing”. Production itself is not unrestricted, it is restricted by people’s own wants, consumption itself is unrestricted, but this solves the problem of overproduction, as things no longer exist to collect dust and ultimately be discarded if they cannot be sold for money.
> do you imagine that there will be periodic failures in supply dynamics under communism also?
Perhaps there could be, an asteroid could still strike the Earth after all, perhaps the climate changes significantly in a way humans cannot control on a societal level. Would the specific crisis of producing more than is even needed, alongside the production of entirely artificial wants and needs that the most advanced economies turn on, and the necessity of waste (to meet the demand of profit, that thinks be made as cheaply as possible, and discarded if they cannot be sold; which includes ultimately even things that ARE successfully sold) continue to exist? Almost certainly not, provided we are discussing a communist society with an economy built around the creation of use-values rather than the production and accumulation of exchange value under the needs and imperatives of self-expanding value known as Capital. It is perplexing to me that this so boggles the mind of people sympathetic to bourgeois economics, when the capitalist economic system is the first and thus far only economic system wherein production is for exchange rather than use.
> well, its twofold. there is waste in the market due to a lack of consumer demand. for example, so much is thrown away because no one actually wants it, but at the same time, people might take it if it was freely offered, and so it has a marginal utility which doesnt reach its market price.
So then we are in agreement that one of the general contradictions of capitalist economies that directly necessitates and contributes to waste is the fact that products are made to be sold for money rather than to be used by a consumer?
> yes, i agree. overproduction seems to be part of the logic of profit, which can be corrected by redistribution.
This misses the another key contradiction induced by the need to secure profits, which emerges in capitalist economies as a necessary imperative rather than a chosen endeavor, namely, redistribution is merely an added cost to the capitalist for no gain whatsoever. Redistributing that which goes unsold is directly antagonistic to profits. You can say, then, the state should do this, it should buy up the waste products and give them away for free, but this ignores that the state itself is reliant on the profits of capitalists to function, this circular motion would only serve to drain the coffers of the state until they must turn back to the capitalist, hat in hand, for assistance. It is infeasible, hence why waste and at best trying to sell waste to other, less advanced economies, so that they can scrap them into even more wretched products to hopefully sell like in a more primitive state of capitalism, or otherwise let gather in the junk heap, is what states have ultimately done in response.
> i certainly wouldnt go that far. having excess is at least better than having a deficit.
This is true, and is why Capitalist apologetics relies either on comparing itself to prior modes of production, or to the eastern, post-revolutionary form of capital accumulation. However, the obvious outcome of this cycle, other than the systemic production of poverty and famine, now done without any material justification whatsoever but treated nonetheless as a product of necessity, is the accelerating impoverishment of the world’s own ability to sustain complex ecosystems and therefore a complex civilization as well. The resolution of the communist is to break-even production. Utilize the advanced means of production, the demonstrable interchange all of mankind is forced into by historical change itself (the emergence of capitalism itself), and the capacity due to these developments to organize human labor on a planetary scale that is already demonstrated by capitalism, to produce the exact amounts people want and need, which can only be achievable by granting labor control over its own powers of production, distribution, and consumption.

>>2369847
>The "many planners" of capitalism are in conflict with one another, and hence their plans against each other.
this is entirely relative to a division of labor and capital in the market. not all workers or capitalists compete with each other, because there is no benefit. a steel company has no antagonism with a lumber company for example, so competition only occurs from within the same market, such as many people applying for the same job, or many businesses competing for consumers. competition ideally produces the best results and distributes non-competitive capital in an area where it may achieve greater opportunities as a benefit to the particular loss.
>Under single unitary planning body, there is no external sources to profit at the expense of, to destroy, weaken or simply not cooperate with in order to advance the relative position of organization (usually a firm).
if there is not even internal competition (or lets say, "incentives" for innovation), then what gives the possibility of progress?

File: 1751628315031.jpg (45.33 KB, 1400x840, 0_Fp2BE21NFNZq-Izo.jpg)

>>2369861
>Rate of consumption is indeed what would be measured, and it would be measured against the labor time necessary to make any product to be consumed as well.
right, so its a calculation of supply and demand, which creates a price system. my position is simply in saying that setting prices for commodities themselves automates the process more efficiently. an issue is what someone else brought up though. certain electronics will necessarily have the highest demand but the lowest supply, which should lead to high prices, but if you dont regulate consumption, you just create indefinite scarcity.
>what is produced is what the laborers desire to produce
i would say that the market is a democracy and we vote with our dollars.
>it occurs because products are not being made so that people can use them
so would you characterize overproduction as underconsumption? to me, there is always a limit to marginal utility, so a certain gradient of waste. for example, even if you gave out free stuff, eventually, there would be a limit to consumption. i suppose you imagine that limit is more "rational" than i do.
>the capitalist economic system is the first and thus far only economic system wherein production is for exchange rather than use.
every exchange value has a use value
>products are made to be sold for money rather than to be used by a consumer?
its twofold, again. the barrier of consumption to me is the inflexibility of prices, especially at scale. for example, haggling may be employed in smaller, local markets, but never in corporations. this leads to an inherent waste. sometimes discounts are set to encourage consumption, but this doesnt resolve all cases. if the product is going to expire anyway, then you might as well sell it for anything. the only question then is, is profit necessitated upon NOT selling commodities at a certain rate, by a monopoly on waste?
>redistribution is merely an added cost to the capitalist for no gain whatsoever. Redistributing that which goes unsold is directly antagonistic to profits.
my idea isnt that businesses redistribute directly, but that licensed redistributors (charities, et al) come in and take the stock off of the businesses' hands. some extraction companies in the third world even pay for waste, so they can find material in electronics, and the like. so i imagine this comprising a waste market.
>which can only be achievable by granting labor control over its own powers of production, distribution, and consumption.
as i say, cooperation is fine, as long as you permit markets, money and a division of labor. i understand the workers' struggle for whatever its worth, but why does this then turn into a global state controlling human behavior? a leap in logic is made, i feel. okay, you dont want to prioritize exchange value over use value, but to me, use-values are most effectively sought after by a corresponding exchange value, or price mechanism, which calculates demand. i know market socialism is "cringe" or whatever, but it at least makes some sense. to me, at least - and not just as a "stepping stone" either.

>but how would you X under capitalism????
by thinking really hard

File: 1751637560579.png (332.92 KB, 2875x2935, cybersoc logo 2.png)

>>2369795
>many planners are better than a few
excellent, because in communism everyone plans, not just Porky

>>2368078
>heh look at this ultras, we have beers and videogames! now that will certainly prove the fact that we are socialist and not capitalist because as we all know the entertainment and alcohol industry are definitely not something which won't exist under communism!

>>2370098
so efficient. its a mystery why we dont have a vote on every executive decision…

>>2373537
1. because businesses are dictatorships, duh
2. you have liberalism-brain, there's many more and better ways to democratize planning than by directly vooooooooooting on issues

>>2373542
voting is probably the worst form of democratic consensus forming tbh

>>2373542
i would say that production is necesarily hierarchical, but consumption is horizontal, hence the adage, "vote with your dollars". price mechanisms then allow businesses to adapt to consoomer demand, rather than demand being a predetermined factor.

>>2373549
what if something's not on the market, how will you "vote" then?

Also, democracy and hierarchy aren't opposites

>>2373551
thats why entrepeneurs set up their own business or go to investors, to try and sell useful things to people which they come up with.

>>2373556
so they directly plan for the research and manufacture of goods, interesting.
and why does this particular group of people get to be in a position to command the productive forces for this or that end, and not some other group of people? On what basis are they selected?

>>2373537
Wolff is a market "socialist", so it's no wonder he has issues separating production from distribution since in the market they're handled the same way
>its a mystery why we dont have a vote on every executive decision
companies literally hold votes on what to do. you vote with your wallet (shares) but there's ultimately a vote. not that I think we should vote over whether this or that person should have a PS5. instead what might be up for political contestation is what kind of specs the Workers' Playstation should have. it would likely be Open Hardware and run entirely Free Software
>>2373544
voting is a last resort
>>2373549
>hierarchical
>horizontal
meaningless buzzwords

>>2373558
>so they directly plan for the research and manufacture of goods, interesting.
well, at certain scales, management can have relative controls; like how some mcdonald's menus are local.
>On what basis are they selected?
they provide the capital. a majority shareholder pays to be in power over a company. if instead of wages, you offered workers shares in companies, there could be bargaining, but in that case, most shares would be willingly bought up anyway.
>>2373562
>companies literally hold votes on what to do. you vote with your wallet (shares) but there's ultimately a vote.
yes, but it is a plutocracy of sorts, like the early american system. whats beneficial about private plutocracies however is that they utterly depend on a public democracy in the market, so its not top-down rule, but a form of cooperation between spheres.
>it would likely be Open Hardware and run entirely Free Software
if we got rid of IP, we could have much more innovation, since it would force companies to be competitive against the public. in digital media like videogames, we easily see how taking the source code of properties creates endless modification. it allows people to make games from existing games. this is also just a natural consequence of digital media in general, like how PDFs allow us to read books without paying for it. the internet is pure free association.

>>2373569
>whats beneficial about private plutocracies however is that they utterly depend on a public democracy in the market, so its not top-down rule, but a form of cooperation between spheres
voting with your wallet is oligarchy, not democracy

>>2368078
>now, show me an anarchist society producing vidya. or beer
I, individually, have produced both.

How fucking alienated are you?

hey i like making glasses and helping people who need them

>>2373654
>one individual is a society
>my individual petty artisanship within capitslism = its own mode of production, other peoples' labor be damned
Oh, you're an anarchist alright
Ironic of you to be accusing anyone else of alienation when you're this deep in the individualism sauce

>>2373838
Beer isn't hard to make at all. Assuming you can make food, you can probably make some kind of alcohol. You can forage wild berries and make a fruit wine with it. If you can get access to honey, you can make mead.

>>2373886
yeah, but an anarchist society still hasn't produced neither beer nor video games

that's largely due to the fact that anarchist societies historically had a hard time materially existing at all, but my charge still stands

>>2373906
Pretty sure if they lasted a month at least, someone made some alcohol. Hard times are even more reason to drink.

>>2373911
Alcohol is decadence unbecoming of a worker

>>2373920
You’ve literally never met a working person

>>2373920
>no fun allowed wagie, you dont want to be hungover for your shift

>>2373920
you're retarded

>>2369917
>what gives the possibility of progress?
MY WILLPOWER


Unique IPs: 27

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]