Thread: LTV's

Labour Time Vouchers

Labour vouchers (or labour cheques, labour certificates, labour-time vouchers) are a device suggested to govern demand for goods in "socialism", much as money does today under capitalism.

Originally proposed by Robert Owen in 1820, they were later taken up by Marx in 1875, to deal with the immediate and temporary shortages remaining from capitalism, if socialism had been established at that time.

Labour voucher supporters hold the following general beliefs:

Most labour voucher supporters agree that:

Labour vouchers are paid for hours of labour performed.

Labour vouchers are not money.

Labour vouchers are used to purchase goods and services.

But they disagree with each other:

How are labour vouchers apportioned?

1.Each worker gets the same quantity for each hour worked. If the agreed upon rate is 100 labour vouchers for 1 hour, everyone who works for one hour gets 100 labour vouchers.

2.The number of labour vouchers paid per hour depends upon the difficulty or desirability of the work performed.

Temporary or Permanent?

1.Labour vouchers are a temporary measure. The general feeling here seems to be that people are used to money now and need time to wean themselves from it.

2.Labour vouchers will be permanent. These advocates say that society needs some method to restrict access to goods, and/or that without them there is no way to determine what items should be produced in what quantity when there are conflicting desires for goods.

What about those who do not or cannot work?

1.Basic necessities should be free to all.

2.Enough labour vouchers should be given out to those who do not work (or don't work enough) to ensure that they can afford basic necessities (and perhaps more).

3.Enough labour vouchers should be given out to those determined (by someone or some group) to be needy, or justifiably unable to work, to ensure that they can afford basic necessities (and perhaps more).

What about non-traditional work, or work not paid today? (housework, art, etc.)

1.Pay for housework, art etc. on an hourly basis like any other work. (possibly including difficulty factors, etc.)

2.Pay for art based upon desirability: how many people go to see it or some such measure.

3.Straight exchange: art is purchased with labour vouchers for whatever the buyer and seller agree upon.

Can labour vouchers circulate?

1.No. Once a purchase is made the labour vouchers are either destroyed, or must be re-earned through labour.

2.Yes. It appears that there are few who believe that labour vouchers should circulate like money, but there are those who believe that they can be "invested" (although not for profit, proponents assure), or that when something is purchased, the seller could use them for their own purchases.

Why the World Socialist Movement opposes Labour Vouchers

Labour vouchers are not necessary
The technical ability exists today to produce, in an ecologically responsible manner, more than enough to satisfy the self-defined needs of the world's population. There will not be a shortage of goods and therefore, artificial access limitations - labour vouchers - will not be required.

It is obvious that if everyone decided that they needed everything, free access could not work. If people want socialism to work, they must decide that they will not work to destroy it. Common sense will prevent outrageous overconsumption.

The WSM has always said that socialism cannot be established by 51% of the working class. The conscious support for socialism by the vast majority is key to the success of socialism. If only 51% of the working class support socialism and they haven't thought it out, then failure is certain. If the vast majority of the working class understands and supports the ramifications of socialism, then success is guaranteed.

Labour vouchers, given that they are unnecessary, are undesirable
Labour vouchers would tend to maintain the idea that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can own (or produce).

Labour vouchers require administration. People must spend time administering the labour vouchers themselves - who gets them (and how many), how they are reused or destroyed, etc.

Labour vouchers imply that someone must police who takes the goods produced by society. In other words there must be people who spend their time ensuring that other people do not take things without paying for them. That is normal in a profit oriented society, but a waste of human labour in socialism.

Labour vouchers, as suggested by some, are money
If "labour vouchers" circulate, they are money, no different from today and should be called money. Labour vouchers cannot circulate.

If used as originally intended, to account for hours worked, and goods taken, they are not money as meant in the broader capitalist sense. Although for workers the everyday use of labour vouchers would be very similar, labour vouchers could not be used to accumulate the means of producing wealth, which is a very important difference. Their only purpose would be to limit consumption and enforce work. Note that enforcing work was not the initial idea, but has become, to some, an important feature.

Comments?

(Note Marx was and was not a supporter of LTV's)

Labour vouchers would tend to maintain the idea that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can own (or produce).

I think this sentence sums it up quite good. Communism and socialism mean every one is equal and there should be no difference between people. This would get back to the idea of: I am worth more than you, my work is more important or I deserve more: the basics of capitalism: comparation.
If we live with comparation we won't be happy, this is why capitalism doesn't work at all (not to mention poverty)

I think this sentence sums it up quite good. Communism and socialism mean every one is equal and there should be no difference between people. This would get back to the idea of: I am worth more than you, my work is more important or I deserve more: the basics of capitalism: comparation.

I would agree that LTV's do have many problems however to quote a fellow Comrade.

It has to do with genuinely wanting to find a working basis for an advancing socialist economy which objectively measures the value of man's labor and creates the necessary transparency and flexibility to ensure complete and utter lack of exploitation.

hmmm
Maybe you are rigth about that, people need to feel that their work is apreciated, that would increase their motivation, but then you fall into the risk of making differences between people what could lead to envy and discontent.

hmmm
Maybe you are rigth about that, people need to feel that their work is apreciated, that would increase their motivation, but then you fall into the risk of making differences between people what could lead to envy and discontent.

That seems to be it's major downfall during the Socialist stage but before Communism the monetary economic situation must be eliminated.

Given people's attachment and need for worthless pieces of paper it was felt that this would solve some of the problems associated with capitalism and it's transfer to socialism.

Particularly in the way capitalism drives society as a whole to consume and barter.

Envy will exist even if everyone is called "equal". Those who create more and are never compensated lose their interest in creating anything. Those who are lazy and get compensated will continue to be lazier. Socialism can not work to move a country productively forward.

No form of government in perfect. No form of government is inherintly bad. Any form of government and its abillity to be good or bad is based on those in leadership and what the people allow to happen, be it Comunist, Democracy, Republic, Socialist, Monarchy, Dictatorship, or any other form of government.

Envy will exist even if everyone is called "equal". Those who create more and are never compensated lose their interest in creating anything. Those who are lazy and get compensated will continue to be lazier.

that seems to be a common held theory amongst the right however, it is a deeply flawed we as humans strive to change and alter society into something better for it's people.

Examples can be found in history itself for instance take the issue of segregation of schools in the United States humanity altered society for the benefit of its citizens segregation became obsolete.

A societies people will not tolerate a downward spiral into oblivion if it can be avoided (I'm refering to internal circumstances)

The instinct of survival has not diminished through the centuries.

Socialism can not work to move a country productively forward.

Perhaps, perhaps not only time will tell.[/quote]

It is not a theory, but an observation of countries that tried socialism in the past. It never worked.

It is not a theory, but an observation of countries that tried socialism in the past. It never worked.

That brings me to my next point no country has ever been Socialist the furthest a society has come to developed Socialism was the Paris Commune and even they counted conservatives amongst their ranks.

So you mean to say that if a conservative exists in the country, it can not be socialist? I thought socialism touted everybody as equal.