Is capitalism a special form of slavery?

[Regular_Atheist]

I will try to follow you.
No problem with workers being owners and choosing their manager.Guess a primus ínter pares.

Yes, perhaps. They would be subject to immediate recall too.

Would they own their factory or not?

Yes, they would, collectively. Everybody who works there would.

And what is the purpose of asking for resources and on what ground will they be given resources?

Well they will need something to start up their new enterprise. Capital - whatever they need to start production of the things they want to produce. I suppose these resources would be allocated according to the needs of the community.

Are you talking about this as a private iniciative?

No. As I said, it could not be privately owned. One person could not own the place of work and extract value from employees. It would have to be collectively owned.

 

[graciew]

Yes, perhaps. They would be subject to immediate recall too.

**
Why perhaps?
What is immediate recall( I just use it for car parts!)**

Yes, they would, collectively. Everybody who works there would.

**Like a "society " you mean,legally speaking? **

Well they will need something to start up their new enterprise. Capital - whatever they need to start production of the things they want to produce. I suppose these resources would be allocated according to the needs of the community.

Ok. Presupposing they would need extra capital as a sort of loan.

No. As I said, it could not be privately owned. One person could not own the place of work and extract value from employees. It would have to be collectively owned.

**How does " private" to you oppose " collective "in this case?
What difference does it make in your scheme that they freely fix the terms of their private society?

---

Say the “workers” do not believe I am extracting value but adding value,and they are pleased with that. What about this " enterprise".?**
Mine in bold,sorry if it looks messy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And that is clear for Venezuela people and we are hurting for them.too. It is a nightmare.
So by claimimg they are a disaster we are not giving them much hope.
You play the big league,probably see the big picture,how does one get there without becoming a copy paste or dying in the attempt or crushing whoever stands on the way ?
I am sincerely asking you.

I am sincerely answering you: if someone does self-destructive things, then all the hope in the world will not convert self-destruction to good fortune.

Good wishes will not convert bad actions to good results.

Good intentions are not enough.

There is a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein:

**Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. **

If politicians want a good economy, they need to embrace policies that have historically produced good results.

But imposing policies that have always always always produced poor results, will continue to produce poor results.

Bad policies will always produce a bad economy.

Compare the results of Argentina [poor policies >> poor economy] with Chile [good policies >> good economy].

There are many many examples:

Compare: North Korea [poor policies >>> poor economy]

Compare: South Korea [good policies >>> good economy]

Compare: Haiti [poor policies >>> poor economy]

Compare: Dominican Republic [good policies >>> good economy]

Compare: East Germany [poor policies >>> poor economy]

Compare: West Germany [good policies >>> good economy]

To repeat: Compare the results of Argentina [poor policies >> poor economy] with Chile [good policies >> good economy]. Chile even recovers from earthquakes itself. Haiti is a basket case.

No nice words or good wishes can convert bad policies to good results.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And that is clear for Venezuela people and we are hurting for them.too. It is a nightmare.
So by claimimg they are a disaster we are not giving them much hope.
You play the big league,probably see the big picture,how does one get there without becoming a copy paste or dying in the attempt or crushing whoever stands on the way ?
I am sincerely asking you.

I am sorry … I apologize … if I seem to sound harsh.

But … if Venezuela continues on its present path … there … is … no … hope.

Individuals may win the lottery.

But nations do not win the lottery.

If a nation does things that have always produced good economic results, then that nation will also produce good economic results.

There are many many examples of good policies producing good economic results.

The best thing is to look them up and emulate them.

But if a nation or a state has good intentions but embraces policies that have always produced poor results, then it will get poor results.

Good wishes or good intentions do not produce good results.

The only way to get good results is to employ good actions.

Employing bad actions always produces bad results.

My wife showed some friends photos of our goldfish pond. One of her friends told me I was “so lucky”. Well, yes. But we live in a place where there are frequent severe droughts. So what I did was to go to Home Depot and purchase some plastic pipes and put those so that when it did rain, the water would be routed to a low spot away from the house … and then I dug a hole and installed a plastic liner … and by and by when it did rain, the water collected in one spot. Then I put in some goldfish to eat mosquito larvae.

I paid ten cents for the gold fish … they are used as feeders … I could not afford Koi. So I bought the cheapest fish I could find. And they eat the bugs and get fat.

It was not luck.

It was hard work … lugging the pipe home from the store and digging trenches for the pipe.

It did not happen by itself. I did not win the lottery. I have to tend the pond so that if the liner gets damaged, I have to repair the tears.

It takes hard work and continued maintenance and repair.

It takes tending.

One time, I installed some snails … and a raccoon got in there … it must have smelled the snails … and I guess raccoons LOVE escargot. Well that raccoon just tore up the pond hunting down every last snail. Did serious damage. Never put snails there again.

But desireable results require hard work and diligent work.

Saying, “gee I wish I had a pond” … good wishes and good intentions … will not produce a pond.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That would depend on the actual specifics of the socialist economy. In all cases there would be an option similar to this if there was enough demand for what you want to produce. You and others who want to start this enterprise would maybe have to petition your local workers’ council for resources. However, you obviously wouldn’t be able to individually own a business and employ others.

This, in my opinion, is the biggest problem with socialism. Socialism requires that you give up freedom and why would people voluntarily give up freedom? After all, you seem fine with people being restricted from leaving socialist countries. What is the merit in a policy like that? I look at the ability to start your own business as a fundamental human right. If I want rent out my house, who could be against that? If I want to buy a second house to rent out as well, why would anyone want to stand in my way? What do we gain by giving up our freedoms?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Socialism is wonderful until you run out of other people’s money.

In other words, socialism is not self-sustaining.

In other words, socialism does not work.

In other words, socialism fails every time it is tried.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What is immediate recall( I just use it for car parts!)

I guess it was an awkward phrase to use. I just mean that they would be instantly revocable.

Like a "society " you mean,legally speaking?

I’m not sure. Could you explain? I just mean to say that they would all be involved in the running of the place of work and would all be entitled to a certain amount of what they produce according to their labour. There wouldn’t be anyone extracting the value they produce for them.

What difference does it make in your scheme that they freely fix the terms of their private society?

They can organise things how they like, democratically. I don’t know what you mean by “private society” here.

Say the “workers” do not believe I am extracting value but adding value,and they are pleased with that. What about this " enterprise".

Value is not a subjective measurement here. Let’s say you work in a factory, and produce $20 worth of goods a day. You earn $10 an hour. By the end of your day, you have earned $80 and produced $160. That extra $80 is taken from you by your employer, even though you produced it with your labour. Under socialism nobody will extract this surplus value from you, so you’ll be entitled to more of what you’ve produced, after you take away the value of the raw materials needed to create the products and whatever is necessary for social programs and stuff (care for the elderly, etc).

This, in my opinion, is the biggest problem with socialism. Socialism requires that you give up freedom and why would people voluntarily give up freedom?

Not at all. How do you see it allowing less freedom? Socialism is true freedom. Under capitalism, most people don’t have economic freedom. They are at the complete mercy of their employer and the anarchy of the capitalist economy.

After all, you seem fine with people being restricted from leaving socialist countries. What is the merit in a policy like that?

I don’t believe people should be arbitrarily restricted from leaving socialist countries at all.

I look at the ability to start your own business as a fundamental human right. If I want rent out my house, who could be against that? If I want to buy a second house to rent out as well, why would anyone want to stand in my way? What do we gain by giving up our freedoms?

What about all of the people that can’t afford homes, or who are evicted because they can’t afford the rent? That seems more important than any right for anyone to own property. Everybody should be provided with the accommodation they need, you shouldn’t be able to profit off of it.

Socialism is wonderful until you run out of other people’s money.

Could you explain? Most socialists are non-market socialists, and want to abolish money. It is capitalism that relies on the extraction of value from other people.

Capitalism is a constant cycle of economic crises. It is not a stable economic system, history has shown this. In 1929 we had the Great Depression. In 2008 we had the worst financial crisis since then. It’s only a matter of time, it can’t sustain itself much longer.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Value is not a subjective measurement here. Let’s say you work in a factory, and produce $20 worth of goods a day. You earn $10 an hour. By the end of your day, you have earned $80 and produced $160. …

What portion of the $160 production do you attribute to the tools used and factory not owned by the worker? What portion to the energy used to run the machines not owned by the worker? Do the providers of the land and capital deserve some portion of the $160 production? Do not the tools and factory wear out from use? How will they be replaced when no longer usable or obsolete?

… Capitalism is a constant cycle of economic crises. It is not a stable economic system, history has shown this. In 1929 we had the Great Depression. In 2008 we had the worst financial crisis since then. It’s only a matter of time, it can’t sustain itself much longer.

Free enterprise capitalism allows many people to make many independent decisions on what goods and services to provide to the community. A centralized planned economy allows few people (government) to make a few decisions on what will be produced. When either economy is not making the goods and services that the community demands, the laws of supply and demand require a reallocation of resources. The free enterprise system makes many small mistakes. The correction is painful but tolerable. The centralized economy makes huge mistakes. The correction is extremely painful and many times intolerable, e.g. Soviet Union.

 

[Latias]

Revolution was an idea revolutionaries brought down to earth to make it hellish in practice for a lot of people.Under a flag of social class warfare.There was hatred,I can assure you…
one thing is to freely live under a system you like,and something very different is to have it smashed on your head.
Many sons started hurting their parents because they " had"…but these revolutionaries forgot to “be”… And who said we are all bricks on a wall,cookie cut,photocopies?

What revolution or counterrevolution doesn’t include any hatred or strong sense of grievance from that hatred?

Socialist revolutions are indigenous mass movements.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I guess it was an awkward phrase to use. I just mean that they would be instantly revocable.

I’m not sure. Could you explain? I just mean to say that they would all be involved in the running of the place of work and would all be entitled to a certain amount of what they produce according to their labour. There wouldn’t be anyone extracting the value they produce for them.

They can organise things how they like, democratically. I don’t know what you mean by “private society” here.

Value is not a subjective measurement here. Let’s say you work in a factory, and produce $20 worth of goods a day. You earn $10 an hour. By the end of your day, you have earned $80 and produced $160. That extra $80 is taken from you by your employer, even though you produced it with your labour. Under socialism nobody will extract this surplus value from you, so you’ll be entitled to more of what you’ve produced, after you take away the value of the raw materials needed to create the products and whatever is necessary for social programs and stuff (care for the elderly, etc).

Not at all. How do you see it allowing less freedom? Socialism is true freedom. Under capitalism, most people don’t have economic freedom. They are at the complete mercy of their employer and the anarchy of the capitalist economy.

I don’t believe people should be arbitrarily restricted from leaving socialist countries at all.

What about all of the people that can’t afford homes, or who are evicted because they can’t afford the rent? That seems more important than any right for anyone to own property. Everybody should be provided with the accommodation they need, you shouldn’t be able to profit off of it.

***Could you explain? Most socialists are non-market socialists, and want to abolish money. It is capitalism that relies on the extraction of value from other people.

---

Capitalism is a constant cycle of economic crises. It is not a stable economic system, history has shown this. In 1929 we had the Great Depression. In 2008 we had the worst financial crisis since then. It’s only a matter of time, it can’t sustain itself much longer.

How do you propose to abolish money?

Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. You can exchange it for food or clothing or shelter or a car or a bicycle. Or you can save it up to buy something at some time in the future. Or you can use money to buy materials and build something. Or you can use money to exchange for tools to make something. Or you can use money to hire someone to teach you to develop skills that other people might want to hire you for.

The alternative is barter. Who decides how much of one thing is equal to an amount of something else.

What happens if “the committee” makes an error and you end up with huge amounts of one thing and not enough of another. How does “the committee” adjust the production flow?

How long would a committee meeting last? What happens if the committee members cannot agree?

Right now Venezuela is disintegrating because no one can agree on anything.

Have you considered flying there to provide guidance to them? Or just observing.

Are there any existing countries that have been even remotely successful in setting up a society where there is no money? Which one(s)? Name them.

How do you propose to exchange your time and effort for other stuff that you need?

Suppose you have a talent. Maybe you are good with numbers. Or maybe you are good with making music. Or maybe you have a talent for medical healing. Or maybe you are big and strong and can lift things.

How do you get food to eat?

If you need to travel or to move something heavy, how do you get those services?

Everybody needs food and water. And shelter.

How do you persuade other people to provide those things for you?

Do you vote that other people should be forced to provide those things?

What if those other people decide they don’t want to participate in that society?

What if those other people decide to leave.

Will you force them against their will to stay?

How do you feel about imprisoning other people and using them as your slaves?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Suppose you pay someone $10 per hour … and somebody comes along and offers to do the same work for $8 per hour.

What do you do?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Venezuela is disintegrating.

I previously wrote that nations cannot win the lottery.

BUT, Venezuela is maybe the #2 biggest country in oil. They have a HUGE amount of oil.

So, Venezuela has won the oil lottery.

So, why is Venezuela coming apart.

They can buy ANYTHING they want.

They have all the money in the world … by exchanging oil for other stuff.

panampost.com/pedro-garcia/2016/05/02/16-reasons-why-venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-collapse/

16-reasons-why-venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-collapse/

Where does that leave Venezuela?

The country of Singapore has NO oil. In fact, Singapore has NO natural resources.

And yet, Singapore is perhaps the wealthiest nation in the world. Pretty close to being #1.

Why?

What is Singapore doing right that Venezuela is doing wrong.

Why is Singapore prosperous and Venezuela falling apart?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Who is Gloria Alvarez?

And why is her message important?

panampost.com/belen-marty/2014/11/07/guatemalan-populism-meets-its-match-in-gloria-alvarez/

guatemalan-populism-meets-its-match-in-gloria-alvarez/

 

[graciew]

Venezuela is disintegrating.

I previously wrote that nations cannot win the lottery.

BUT, Venezuela is maybe the #2 biggest country in oil. They have a HUGE amount of oil.

So, Venezuela has won the oil lottery.

So, why is Venezuela coming apart.

They can buy ANYTHING they want.

They have all the money in the world … by exchanging oil for other stuff.

panampost.com/pedro-garcia/2016/05/02/16-reasons-why-venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-collapse/

16-reasons-why-venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-collapse/

Where does that leave Venezuela?

The country of Singapore has NO oil. In fact, Singapore has NO natural resources.

And yet, Singapore is perhaps the wealthiest nation in the world. Pretty close to being #1.

Why?

What is Singapore doing right that Venezuela is doing wrong.

Why is Singapore prosperous and Venezuela falling apart?

Thanks for your previous answers.
No,you do not sound harsh.
Justo let me convey that the efforts people make cannot be exprrssed in words or comparisons. It would take long to explain what individual nations go through.
In any case, all the hope I can personally send to Venezuelan people, I will do. I firmly believe in work and prayer and God listens.
The hardest I personally lived through was 78% hiperinflation MONTHLY. That was many years ago,and we could not make it to the end of the month both working full time. Nor use the car.
We can. We can. . Yes, there is hope. Always .
And Jesús does belong in history. He is the Lord of history.
You have been comparing corruption to some kind of order. Nothing works within people who dwell years in the sphere of power and greed.
And I made it clear I wasn t socialist,nor I consider it offensive to be taken as one. That,please let it be clear too.
But we can feel the pain.
I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut,and there is no doubt that a lot of effort is needed .And swallowing many tears too. We love our homelands,dearly…no matter how strained circunstances can be.
Thanks,Monte. And I loved you story if your goldfish!

 

[_thaddeus]

The extreme concentration of wealth is a problem in different economic systems; whether[wether] people believe it or not.

Some people, always, have had trouble seeing a lot of differences between Socialism, Monopoly Cartel, Crony Socialism and Corporatism when Capitalism, Monopoly Cartel, Crony Capitalism and Corporatism is so obviously the better system. Throw in a dash of Corporate Libertarian Capitalism and you have perfection.

Human beings don’t always have to be just collateral grist for the wealth concentration mill?

And then we have to rationalise the ongoing rape and pillage of Africa.

 

[graciew]

I guess it was an awkward phrase to use. I just mean that they would be instantly revocable.

I’m not sure. Could you explain? I just mean to say that they would all be involved in the running of the place of work and would all be entitled to a certain amount of what they produce according to their labour. There wouldn’t be anyone extracting the value they produce for them.

They can organise things how they like, democratically. I don’t know what you mean by “private society” here.

Value is not a subjective measurement here. Let’s say you work in a factory, and produce $20 worth of goods a day. You earn $10 an hour. By the end of your day, you have earned $80 and produced $160. That extra $80 is taken from you by your employer, even though you produced it with your labour. Under socialism nobody will extract this surplus value from you, so you’ll be entitled to more of what you’ve produced, after you take away the value of the raw materials needed to create the products and whatever is necessary for social programs and stuff (care for the elderly, etc).

.

Thanks for answering .
It is a complex conversation and I am most likely to use the wrong words to explain it. It ismy second language.
I May mean what uou call association…
Your value is not what you can produce,because the day you are no longer " productive" ,you believe yourself " useless" and that is not true…
I do understand what you are saying about value though as I do understand what other posters are saying about the investment made.
In any case,I f I ever was in charge,which won t happen,so don t panic! ,and you represented a portion of the people, I would call you to talk and listen because nothing is all discardable and nothing so perfect that we may not have good ideas to share…

May God bless you and protect you,if you do not mind …

And thanks for your answers.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What portion of the $160 production do you attribute to the tools used and factory not owned by the worker?

Well that’s my whole point, the workers should own the factory and the tools. Nothing is actually contributed through owning something and “allowing” workers to use it. It just means certain individuals can live off of the labour of others without contributing anything.

Do the providers of the land and capital deserve some portion of the $160 production?

They may deserve to be compensated for providing the capital, but they do not deserve to extract surplus value from the labour of others.

Do not the tools and factory wear out from use? How will they be replaced when no longer usable or obsolete?

I don’t really see the issue here. Some of the value produced by the workers can go to replacing tools and maintaining the machinery.

How do you propose to abolish money?

Some form of labour voucher, maybe? You work for a certain amount of time, and are rewarded with vouchers which you can redeem for goods you want. Money is more than what you say it is. Labour vouchers do not circulate, are not transferable, and cannot be used to purchase means of production. While money can be spent to make more money, this is not the case for labour vouchers. They are created when they are received, and are destroyed on use. This also means people can be rewarded according to the work they’ve done. This answers most of your questions. There are other alternatives to this proposed by socialists, particularly anarchists, but I don’t really know much about it.

Since socialism will be the only way I can imagine we’ll reach a society of superabundance, we could then maybe have an economy where people just take whatever they want whenever they want, and contribute whatever they want. But that will be a long way off.

What happens if “the committee” makes an error and you end up with huge amounts of one thing and not enough of another. How does “the committee” adjust the production flow?

I’m not sure. How are problems like that resolved now?

How long would a committee meeting last? What happens if the committee members cannot agree?

I’m not sure. That is a very specific question that I cannot answer. It would depend entirely on the individuals involved, and how choose to organise their meetings. I am not going to describe the very specific procedures members of a workers’ council might go through.

Are there any existing countries that have been even remotely successful in setting up a society where there is no money? Which one(s)? Name them.

None that are currently existing, no. For many socialist countries it would be a transitional thing.

Everybody needs food and water. And shelter.

Unfortunately not everyone gets it under capitalism, but one day maybe we can build an economy where they do.

What if those other people decide they don’t want to participate in that society?

What if those other people decide to leave.

Will you force them against their will to stay?

I think most socialists think socialism should be voluntary. Certainly most anarchists do. The only time I would think that preventing people from leaving would be okay is in a revolutionary situation, but that would only be in self-defense.

How do you feel about imprisoning other people and using them as your slaves?

That is a terrible thing to do. I do not support forced labour.

 

[o_mlly]

Well that’s my whole point, the workers should own the factory and the tools. Nothing is actually contributed through owning something and “allowing” workers to use it. It just means certain individuals can live off of the labour of others without contributing anything.

The word “should” implies a moral obligation. Who has this obligation to transfer the property of one person to another? Would there be a just compensation? Would the sale be forced? It seems you would create more moral dilemmas than solve.

Under capitalism, the workers can save or borrow either collectively or individually to purchase other tools and factories necessary to compete. Assuming this would be multi-generational process to build a competitive company, the new workers, like the present owners, would then live off the “labor” of others. The “problem” remains.

You are wrong about owners not contributing anything. Capital formation always requires abstaining from current consumption. The owner are the organizing principle that brings the factors of production together, establishes or enter a market and assumes the risk of failure.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well that’s my whole point, the workers should own the factory and the tools. Nothing is actually contributed through owning something and “allowing” workers to use it. It just means certain individuals can live off of the labour of others without contributing anything.

They may deserve to be compensated for providing the capital, but they do not deserve to extract surplus value from the labour of others.

I don’t really see the issue here. Some of the value produced by the workers can go to replacing tools and maintaining the machinery.

Some form of labour voucher, maybe? You work for a certain amount of time, and are rewarded with vouchers which you can redeem for goods you want. Money is more than what you say it is. Labour vouchers do not circulate, are not transferable, and cannot be used to purchase means of production. While money can be spent to make more money, this is not the case for labour vouchers. They are created when they are received, and are destroyed on use. This also means people can be rewarded according to the work they’ve done. This answers most of your questions. There are other alternatives to this proposed by socialists, particularly anarchists, but I don’t really know much about it.

Since socialism will be the only way I can imagine we’ll reach a society of superabundance, we could then maybe have an economy where people just take whatever they want whenever they want, and contribute whatever they want. But that will be a long way off.

I’m not sure. How are problems like that resolved now?

I’m not sure. That is a very specific question that I cannot answer. It would depend entirely on the individuals involved, and how choose to organise their meetings. I am not going to describe the very specific procedures members of a workers’ council might go through.

None that are currently existing, no. For many socialist countries it would be a transitional thing.

Unfortunately not everyone gets it under capitalism, but one day maybe we can build an economy where they do.

I think most socialists think socialism should be voluntary. Certainly most anarchists do. The only time I would think that preventing people from leaving would be okay is in a revolutionary situation, but that would only be in self-defense.

That is a terrible thing to do. I do not support forced labour.

How will workers build a new factory? From scratch. If they don’t have money. Would they buy land? How would that work. Who would design the factory. How would the workers get together. Who would pay them while they deliberate.

A “labor voucher” is, in fact, money.

If you use a “labor voucher” to buy food, and then the labor voucher is destroyed so its use cannot be repeated, then how will the people who grow food buy clothing or tools for farming? If anyone can issue labor vouchers, then how will you control people who just print up labor vouchers? Would that mean that every place that produces anything have a clerk who prints labor vouchers?

A brain surgeon would get more “labor vouchers” than someone who fixes potholes.

A rock star or a movie actor or a basketball player would get more “labor vouchers” than someone who sweeps floors.

Would you continue to make furniture if people could just walk in and take what they want?

If you get onto a committee or workers council, what has been your experience when no one can come to agreement … BUT EVERYTHING HAS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE, BUT NO ONE IS MAKING ANY DECISIONS.

I have worked in government bureaucracies and the top guys keep saying they cannot make a decision because “someone might say something”.

If you do not believe in forced labor, then what will you do when people just walk off the job and take what they want.

In the past, anarchists have assassinated government officials that they did not agree with.

In Russia, also known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they got paid for furniture by labor vouchers based on the weight of the furniture. Heavier furniture paid more than light furniture. Television sets caught fire. Cars? Forget about it. Every hear of the Drabant [or Trabant]? Look it up.

Russia, also known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, rounded up people who they thought would not be favorable to socialism or anarchy … and put them on railroad trains, and dropped them off in the middle of Siberia in the middle of winter. They froze to death in minutes … much more efficient the Nazi’s in terms of getting rid of people. No camps. They just dropped them off in the middle of nowhere in winter.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well that’s my whole point, the workers should own the factory and the tools. Nothing is actually contributed through owning something and “allowing” workers to use it. It just means certain individuals can live off of the labour of others without contributing anything.

They may deserve to be compensated for providing the capital, but they do not deserve to extract surplus value from the labour of others.

I don’t really see the issue here. Some of the value produced by the workers can go to replacing tools and maintaining the machinery.

Some form of labour voucher, maybe? You work for a certain amount of time, and are rewarded with vouchers which you can redeem for goods you want. Money is more than what you say it is. Labour vouchers do not circulate, are not transferable, and cannot be used to purchase means of production. While money can be spent to make more money, this is not the case for labour vouchers. They are created when they are received, and are destroyed on use. This also means people can be rewarded according to the work they’ve done. This answers most of your questions. There are other alternatives to this proposed by socialists, particularly anarchists, but I don’t really know much about it.

Since socialism will be the only way I can imagine we’ll reach a society of superabundance, we could then maybe have an economy where people just take whatever they want whenever they want, and contribute whatever they want. But that will be a long way off.

I’m not sure. How are problems like that resolved now?

I’m not sure. That is a very specific question that I cannot answer. It would depend entirely on the individuals involved, and how choose to organise their meetings. I am not going to describe the very specific procedures members of a workers’ council might go through.

None that are currently existing, no. For many socialist countries it would be a transitional thing.

Unfortunately not everyone gets it under capitalism, but one day maybe we can build an economy where they do.

I think most socialists think socialism should be voluntary. Certainly most anarchists do. The only time I would think that preventing people from leaving would be okay is in a revolutionary situation, but that would only be in self-defense.

That is a terrible thing to do. I do not support forced labour.

By the way … those “labor vouchers” that are destroyed after one use?

We have those.

They are called “checks”. [Or “cheques” if you are in the UK.]

They only get used one time.

And then they are shredded. Or erased.

So what you SEEM to be doing is disagreeing with the language … with the choice of words.

Somehow, the word “capitalism” seems to have gotten you upset.

But the very system you say that you want … is already the system that we already have.

The problem is, that the overall umbrella system … is in fact … “capitalism”.

Your objection seems to be that Unfortunately not everyone gets it under capitalism, but one day maybe we can build an economy where they do.

You want people to be paid according to what they contribute.

We have that now.

The “labor vouchers” are called Dollars.

And YOUR DOLLARS are votes.

You vote with your dollars.

You can save them up for later or use them now.

You give them to who you like and exchange them for products and services that you like or want.

Nothing is free, of course.

A doctor gets paid.

School teachers get paid.

So how do you figure out who gets how much?

Maybe make an offer and they can accept or reject.

If they reject, maybe someone else will accept.

If you want to put some concrete sidewalk in front of where you are living, then you ask for bids. Both you and the contractor negotiate. More costs more. Less costs less.

If you save up your labor vouchers and decide to save some for the future for expending them in the future, you may be able to lend yours to someone else and they will pay you some extra for borrowing them. If there is enough of these labor vouchers available, and if you are busy, you may have to hire somebody good with numbers to keep track of who has what.

They are called money managers.

There have always been money managers.

Apparently being good with numbers is a rare skill and they get paid well for their time.

Some are called hedge fund managers; one of them was murdered the other day because he did not earn enough money to satisfy others.