Is capitalism a special form of slavery?

[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.

You say that the workers should own the factory and the tools.

Well, there is an existing mechanism for that to happen.

AND, what if the workers want to expand the factory and buy more tools.

AND, there is an existing mechanism for that to happen, as well.

There is a name for that mechanism.

The name is called: shares

The workers can issue shares. Everybody gets some based on their contribution.

And when they need to expand the factory, they can issue more shares.

And in exchange for the shares, they get from other people, the “labor vouchers”.

And they exchange the labor vouchers for the materials and specialized labor skills to erect a building expansion and buy more tools.

Suppose the workers need to retire [or pay for some doctor – who doesn’t and can’t be expected to work for free – ], then they can take their shares and exchange them as needed for the labor vouchers so they can pay for the other stuff.

There is a building where you can go to make that transaction. It is called an “exchange”.

There are a number of them around.

There is one in New York City and it is called the New York Stock Exchange.

Maybe you don’t like the names, but these systems and methods already exist.

Instead of going to the New York Stock Exchange in person, you can visit an office near you to see a broker and have him or her make the transaction for you.

You can also do it on line, if you prefer. Or by telephone.

And you can exchange many other things.

Farm produce.

Iron and steel.

Oil.

All sorts of things.

If you want to, you can also look up things like auction sites on line.

Such as ebay.

However, it seems to me that all of the issues you are concerned about have already been dealt with.

However, for some reason, you have been led to believe that the names given to them are bad, in some way.

 

[_thaddeus]

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Pope Francis.

“Pope Francis Address to Representatives of the Confederation of Cooperatives 2015”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=10846

Promote the Economy of Honesty
by Pope Francis
"
…
Today, I would like our dialogue to look not only at the past but above all to be directed forward to new perspectives, to new responsibilities, to new forms of initiatives of cooperative enterprises. It is a true mission which asks us for creative imagination in order to find forms, methods, attitudes and instruments, to combat the “throw-away culture”, that we are living in today, the “throw-away culture ” cultivated by the powers which uphold the economic and financial policies of the globalized world, at the centre of which is the god of money.
…
It is not easy to speak about money. It was said by Basil of Caesarea, a Church Father of the fourth century, and then taken up by St Francis of Assisi, that “money is the devil’s dung”! Now the Pope also repeats it: “Money is the devil’s dung”! When money becomes an idol, it commands the choices of man. And then it destroys man and condemns him. It renders him a servant. Money at the service of life can be managed in a just way by a cooperative, if however, it is an authentic, true cooperative, where capital is not in command over men but men over capital.
…
"

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The word “should” implies a moral obligation. Who has this obligation to transfer the property of one person to another?

The workers should seize the property themselves. Private property is not inherently legitimate, it’s only maintained through violence, or the threat of it.

Would there be a just compensation?

Yes, the owner would be compensated nothing.

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.

The workers are the first to suffer if things go badly, not the owner. The workers have their wages or hours reduced, or are fired. Everything else you mention as being the role of the owner could still take place without one, if the workers were to manage the workplace themselves.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

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.

Well they could start off by using what already exists. If a country were to become socialist, it’s not as if they would demolish all industry and start again. Industry that already exists should be seized by the workers.

A “labor voucher” is, in fact, money.

No it isn’t. There are a number of things that make it significant.

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?

They would receive labour vouchers for the labour they have performed.

If anyone can issue labor vouchers, then how will you control people who just print up labor vouchers?

Obviously not everyone would just be able to produce them. Production and distribution of them would have to be carefully managed.

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

I should clarify the society of superabundance, a society based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, is not the one with labour vouchers.

This would be a society that is a bit far off, not one you or I would experience. People would have different expectations from their labour, a different sense of responsibilities and there would be different societal norms. Obviously the feudal peasant did not view their labour in the same way we do today, and I would imagine people in this late-stage society of superabundance would view labour differently as well.

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 don’t understand what your obsession with workers council meetings is. The point of them is to manage the workplace bottom-up, rather than top-down. This avoids an incompetent bureaucracy. Not to mention that businesses today have to have meetings and stuff, and they still get stuff done.

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

See above. I am not advocating a top-down bureaucracy.

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.

Under the transitional state, production and distribution of goods will still be regulated. People will need to work to obtain things. Under the higher stage of communism, where people can just take what they want, societal norms and such will ensure that people don’t do this.

As for your comments about the USSR, I’m not sure a lot of what you said is true. I should clarify that the USSR was not anarchist and was not favourable to anarchists, and it spent a lot of time killing anarchists. I accept that they were materially worse off, but there were factors influencing that beyond just them being socialist.

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.

A cheque represents an amount of money to be made from one person to another. It is nothing like a labour voucher.

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.

Labour vouchers aren’t exchangeable. This is exactly the kind of thing that they would help to stop happening.

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

We have that now.

We really don’t. Wages are paid almost arbitrarily, and vary widely across jobs. Labour vouchers would be paid according to the value someone produces/the amount of time they work. This is a major difference between money and labour vouchers

Another difference is the fact that money can be spent to get more money. If I am a millionaire, I can invest some money in a new factory or some shares in a company, and make more money out of that. Essentially, if you’re rich, you can make money without actually contributing anything. Under capitalism, you can make money simply by having money. Labour vouchers avoid this.

You say that the workers should own the factory and the tools.
The name is called: shares

Do you honestly believe that workers owning a few shares amounts to actual, serious control of their workplace? I have already described a system of democratic workers’ councils. They do not exist under capitalism, no matter how many shares you own. It’s also very hard for a worker to ever own a meaningful amount of shares, and even if they own a few it does not give them back all of the value that is taken from them as surplus.

Secondly, labour vouchers exist precisely to prevent things like people making money out of shares. Money can be spent to make more money. Labour vouchers cannot.

 

[Brendan]

The workers should seize the property themselves. Private property is not inherently legitimate, it’s only maintained through violence, or the threat of it.
.

And if the workers in the factory down the street like the other factory better, can they just seize it? What would prevent them form doing so?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

And if the workers in the factory down the street like the other factory better, can they just seize it? What would prevent them form doing so?

I’m not advocating the introduction of some kind of weird workplace tribalism, though the idea is funny. I’m just advocating a change of property relations in society. There would be no reason for the workers to seize another factory. If they prefer it, they can work there. I’m calling for the creation of a socialist society, one where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers. It doesn’t stop at the level of the workplace.

 

[graciew]

I’m not advocating the introduction of some kind of weird workplace tribalism, though the idea is funny. I’m just advocating a change of property relations in society. There would be no reason for the workers to seize another factory. If they prefer it, they can work there. I’m calling for the creation of a socialist society, one where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers. It doesn’t stop at the level of the workplace.

What do you have right here and now that we can expropriate or seize? Where can we publish it…?
Where can we send the notification that you would be willing to receive labour vouchers? Where do you work?

Do you live in more than X square feet? You are rich!, Go get it!

I mean…who would voluntarily buy this idea?

And there is something you might not know. Persons whose homes are very precarious cannot sometimes leave them for long periods of time alone because other people " seize" them…It happens … And so good neighbors take care of each other.Could you believe something like this?

Once upon a time…there was supermarket pillage. People who lived in very poor places ran to grab what they could. But,…but…many remained because they had values and dignity and would not go to steal,even if they would need it.
So this proposal is aggressive for persons,just persons who respect other persons.
It would be insulting for many persons to even suggest that they would be able to " seize" a factory,and I am frankly with them. There is no reason to understimate persons who are in need this way,Regular.
Help work yes,degrade them,no…

 

[graciew]

A “labor voucher” is, in fact, money.

r.

No,it isn’ t…it is like watching the game from outside…That is why it cannot coexist with money ,at least available,and it takes time,and they need enclosures or to be " isolated"

Once upon a time… there was this idea . The short story is that no store would take them,and those that did " exchanged" them for less their value,or points,or beans,or whatever you want to call them. And we weren t all precisely paid in these " vouchers",just some unfortunate .

It does take isolation,and keeping money out of sight…for a long long time.
This explains much of the violence also to impose it. How can one now within a globalized world and communications ignore the outer world exists?
This system is obsolete. At least for me. And forced. It cannot work that way.

 

[stinkcat_14]

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.

Actually, quite a bit is contributed by capital. I am more productive if I have more capital. For example, I am more productive if I have a better computers, my boss knows that and provides the computer. What incentive will the workers have to provide better computers?

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.

Who would accept a labor voucher if it was destroyed once it is used. When I do work for others, I accept money because I know I can spend it elsewhere. What incentive would I have to accept a labor voucher?

 

[Brendan]

I’m not advocating the introduction of some kind of weird workplace tribalism, though the idea is funny. I’m just advocating a change of property relations in society. There would be no reason for the workers to seize another factory. If they prefer it, they can work there…

If the factory is nicer, has newer equipment ect…

As for working there, what if that factory is fully staffed already? Yet the workers in the older factory still want it.

What, in your model, would prevent them from seizing it from the other workers?

As far as being ‘funny’ I don’t think the workers in the factory that the other workers just seized would find any humor in it.

But what would prevent it from happening?

 

[stinkcat_14]

I’m not advocating the introduction of some kind of weird workplace tribalism, though the idea is funny. I’m just advocating a change of property relations in society. There would be no reason for the workers to seize another factory. If they prefer it, they can work there. I’m calling for the creation of a socialist society, one where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers. It doesn’t stop at the level of the workplace.

So, to give a concrete example. Harvard has much nicer means of production than my university. Are you saying that I can just decide that I want to work at Harvard and they have to accept me? Or would I have to get my workers to gang up and expropriate their means of production?

 

[o_mlly]

The workers should seize the property themselves. Private property is not inherently legitimate, it’s only maintained through violence, or the threat of it.

Private property is inherently legitimate. If a human need exists, a corresponding right also exists. Private property is not an absolute right (i.e. eminent domain).

Since government has a monopoly on violence, what you propose is revolution and the resulting anarchy. Get a grip, man.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The Ten Commandments FORBID stealing and coveting. [Coveting is envy.]

Private ownership of property is essential.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, quite a bit is contributed by capital. I am more productive if I have more capital. For example, I am more productive if I have a better computers, my boss knows that and provides the computer. What incentive will the workers have to provide better computers?

?

Something I learned early in in business-you provide you employees with the best equipment possible and a pleasant working environment and everyone gains from it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well they could start off by using what already exists. If a country were to become socialist, it’s not as if they would demolish all industry and start again. Industry that already exists should be seized by the workers.

No it isn’t. There are a number of things that make it significant.

They would receive labour vouchers for the labour they have performed.

Obviously not everyone would just be able to produce them. Production and distribution of them would have to be carefully managed.

I should clarify the society of superabundance, a society based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, is not the one with labour vouchers.

This would be a society that is a bit far off, not one you or I would experience. People would have different expectations from their labour, a different sense of responsibilities and there would be different societal norms. Obviously the feudal peasant did not view their labour in the same way we do today, and I would imagine people in this late-stage society of superabundance would view labour differently as well.

I don’t understand what your obsession with workers council meetings is. The point of them is to manage the workplace bottom-up, rather than top-down. This avoids an incompetent bureaucracy. Not to mention that businesses today have to have meetings and stuff, and they still get stuff done.

See above. I am not advocating a top-down bureaucracy.

Under the transitional state, production and distribution of goods will still be regulated. People will need to work to obtain things. Under the higher stage of communism, where people can just take what they want, societal norms and such will ensure that people don’t do this.

As for your comments about the USSR, I’m not sure a lot of what you said is true. I should clarify that the USSR was not anarchist and was not favourable to anarchists, and it spent a lot of time killing anarchists. I accept that they were materially worse off, but there were factors influencing that beyond just them being socialist.

A cheque represents an amount of money to be made from one person to another. It is nothing like a labour voucher.

Labour vouchers aren’t exchangeable. This is exactly the kind of thing that they would help to stop happening.

We really don’t. Wages are paid almost arbitrarily, and vary widely across jobs. Labour vouchers would be paid according to the value someone produces/the amount of time they work. This is a major difference between money and labour vouchers

Another difference is the fact that money can be spent to get more money. If I am a millionaire, I can invest some money in a new factory or some shares in a company, and make more money out of that. Essentially, if you’re rich, you can make money without actually contributing anything. Under capitalism, you can make money simply by having money. Labour vouchers avoid this.

Do you honestly believe that workers owning a few shares amounts to actual, serious control of their workplace? I have already described a system of democratic workers’ councils. They do not exist under capitalism, no matter how many shares you own. It’s also very hard for a worker to ever own a meaningful amount of shares, and even if they own a few it does not give them back all of the value that is taken from them as surplus.

Secondly, labour vouchers exist precisely to prevent things like people making money out of shares. Money can be spent to make more money. Labour vouchers cannot.

So, how do “labor vouchers” differ from money or from checks?

You can only use “labor vouchers” for certain things but not for other things.

What good is a labor voucher if you can’t use it for anything.

Labor vouchers cannot be used to make more money.

What if I choose to spend my labor vouchers frugally and choose instead to use them to buy things that grant me greater productivity … or … to reinvest my labor vouchers in more shares.

Labor rates vary because actual work content varies greatly.

Very few jobs are interchangeable.

People have a long working career and they can accumulate shares. Over a long period of time, the shares can become worth a great deal of money. People who work for the telephone company and for UPS are famous for building up a very large amount of value in their shares.

The workers councils … how much time would they take each day?

Meetings take up a lot of time.

What if people cannot agree.

If top down bureaucracy is not allowed, then how will strategic decisions be made? New products, new services, joint ventures, expansions, new facilities, facility closures. Who decides. How much time do you allocate to those decisions.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well they could start off by using what already exists. If a country were to become socialist, it’s not as if they would demolish all industry and start again. Industry that already exists should be seized by the workers.

No it isn’t. There are a number of things that make it significant.

They would receive labour vouchers for the labour they have performed.

Obviously not everyone would just be able to produce them. Production and distribution of them would have to be carefully managed.

I should clarify the society of superabundance, a society based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, is not the one with labour vouchers.

This would be a society that is a bit far off, not one you or I would experience. People would have different expectations from their labour, a different sense of responsibilities and there would be different societal norms. Obviously the feudal peasant did not view their labour in the same way we do today, and I would imagine people in this late-stage society of superabundance would view labour differently as well.

I don’t understand what your obsession with workers council meetings is. The point of them is to manage the workplace bottom-up, rather than top-down. This avoids an incompetent bureaucracy. Not to mention that businesses today have to have meetings and stuff, and they still get stuff done.

See above. I am not advocating a top-down bureaucracy.

Under the transitional state, production and distribution of goods will still be regulated. People will need to work to obtain things. Under the higher stage of communism, where people can just take what they want, societal norms and such will ensure that people don’t do this.

As for your comments about the USSR, I’m not sure a lot of what you said is true. I should clarify that the USSR was not anarchist and was not favourable to anarchists, and it spent a lot of time killing anarchists. I accept that they were materially worse off, but there were factors influencing that beyond just them being socialist.

A cheque represents an amount of money to be made from one person to another. It is nothing like a labour voucher.

Labour vouchers aren’t exchangeable. This is exactly the kind of thing that they would help to stop happening.

We really don’t. Wages are paid almost arbitrarily, and vary widely across jobs. Labour vouchers would be paid according to the value someone produces/the amount of time they work. This is a major difference between money and labour vouchers

Another difference is the fact that money can be spent to get more money. If I am a millionaire, I can invest some money in a new factory or some shares in a company, and make more money out of that. Essentially, if you’re rich, you can make money without actually contributing anything. Under capitalism, you can make money simply by having money. Labour vouchers avoid this.

Do you honestly believe that workers owning a few shares amounts to actual, serious control of their workplace? I have already described a system of democratic workers’ councils. They do not exist under capitalism, no matter how many shares you own. It’s also very hard for a worker to ever own a meaningful amount of shares, and even if they own a few it does not give them back all of the value that is taken from them as surplus.

Secondly, labour vouchers exist precisely to prevent things like people making money out of shares. Money can be spent to make more money. Labour vouchers cannot.

Based on your writing, it seems to me that you are trying to codify “intent”.

Labor vouchers can only be used for certain things and not for other things.

Worker councils can only make upwards decisions but there is no mechanism for downard decisions.

Intent.

Pure intent.

But there are a lot of complex things that go on that your creation is unable to address.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Actually, quite a bit is contributed by capital. I am more productive if I have more capital. For example, I am more productive if I have a better computers, my boss knows that and provides the computer.

Yes, but not by the ownership of it. Private ownership doesn’t provide anything, it just means someone can live off of the labour of others and provide nothing.

What incentive will the workers have to provide better computers?

To make their work easier and increase productivity. In a socialist economy, you’ll get the immediate rewards of increasing productivity. In a capitalist economy, you just increase profits that you never see. It reminds me of this joke:

My boss showed up in a fantastic new car today, and I complimented him on it. He said, “Well, if you set goals, you’re determined, and you work really hard and put in the long hours, I can get an even better one next year.”

Who would accept a labor voucher if it was destroyed once it is used. When I do work for others, I accept money because I know I can spend it elsewhere. What incentive would I have to accept a labor voucher?

Well if you’re accepting labour vouchers then presumably you’re working at whatever the place is called where people exchange their labour vouchers for goods, so you’d receive labour vouchers for the work you do there. The point of labour vouchers is to prevent circulation and get rid of a market economy. Nobody is expected to exchange them for their own personal use.

If the factory is nicer, has newer equipment ect…

As for working there, what if that factory is fully staffed already? Yet the workers in the older factory still want it.

What, in your model, would prevent them from seizing it from the other workers?

I am a capitalist. I own a factory and it’s okay, but the neighbouring capitalist has an even nicer factory with better equipment that is producing more profits. What under capitalism is to prevent me from violently seizing the other factory with my workforce?

As I said, I’m not just advocating some kind of weird workforce tribalism. I am also not advocating a system where workers own their own workplace but just trade with each other in some kind of market. This is a non-market socialist society. There would be a workers’ state with some kind of body to enforce laws, presumably. Not to mention that workers in the first factory would still benefit from the better production in the other factory, having more access to whatever goods are being produced there.

I would also like to note that it’s less likely for a workplace to be fully staffed under socialism. Under capitalism, it is common for capitalists to have to limit the workforce to keep profits high, particularly as the rate of profit declines over time. Less people will often be expected to work longer hours for less pay. This won’t be such an issue under socialism. Workplaces could employ a lot more people, being a lot more efficient, and people would be expected to work a lot less hours.

So, to give a concrete example. Harvard has much nicer means of production than my university. Are you saying that I can just decide that I want to work at Harvard and they have to accept me?

Read my response above.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So, how do “labor vouchers” differ from money or from checks?

Labour vouchers do not circulate, are created upon being issued and are destroyed upon use, are issued according to labour done, and cannot be used to purchase capital.

What good is a labor voucher if you can’t use it for anything.

You can use it for lots of things. Food, clothes, cars, board games, and so on.

What if I choose to spend my labor vouchers frugally and choose instead to use them to buy things that grant me greater productivity … or … to reinvest my labor vouchers in more shares.

You can spend your labour vouchers frugally if you wish, but you can’t use them to buy shares. They cannot be used to purchase capital.

The workers councils … how much time would they take each day?

That would depend on their own individual organisation.

If top down bureaucracy is not allowed, then how will strategic decisions be made? New products, new services, joint ventures, expansions, new facilities, facility closures. Who decides. How much time do you allocate to those decisions.

By a democratically elected body, I already said. These very weird specific questions you’re asking I cannot answer. It would depend on how long they decided to take. I’m not dictating to some hypothetical workers council how long they can take on discussions. How long do meetings of a board of directors take?

Labor vouchers can only be used for certain things and not for other things.

To some extent this is true, but not entirely. There are many things about them which are different to money, like I clarified earlier.

Worker councils can only make upwards decisions but there is no mechanism for downard decisions.

They can make downward decisions, that is their purpose. The point is that they are organised bottom-up, and are completely democratic. They are completely at the mercy of the workers, figuratively speaking.

But there are a lot of complex things that go on that your creation is unable to address.

It is not my creation. It originates from the 1820s, from a socialist called Robert Owen. It has been adopted by many socialists since then. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin all advocated the use of labour vouchers, along with some anarchists and other socialists.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, but not by the ownership of it. Private ownership doesn’t provide anything, it just means someone can live off of the labour of others and provide nothing.

The ownership of capital is what makes it appear in the first place. Capital just does not appear by magic.

To make their work easier and increase productivity. In a socialist economy, you’ll get the immediate rewards of increasing productivity. In a capitalist economy, you just increase profits that you never see. It reminds me of this joke:

Who is going to make the computer that the workers are going to use and how is going to be paid for?

Well if you’re accepting labour vouchers then presumably you’re working at whatever the place is called where people exchange their labour vouchers for goods, so you’d receive labour vouchers for the work you do there. The point of labour vouchers is to prevent circulation and get rid of a market economy. Nobody is expected to exchange them for their own personal use.

I thought labor vouchers were destroyed after being used. So if I am selling potatoes and someone gives me labor vouchers for potatoes and then I use those labor vouchers to buy bananas, how is that different from money?

I am a capitalist. I own a factory and it’s okay, but the neighbouring capitalist has an even nicer factory with better equipment that is producing more profits. What under capitalism is to prevent me from violently seizing the other factory with my workforce?
./QUOTE]

Laws protecting property rights will prevent this.

As I said, I’m not just advocating some kind of weird workforce tribalism. I am also not advocating a system where workers own their own workplace but just trade with each other in some kind of market. This is a non-market socialist society. There would be a workers’ state with some kind of body to enforce laws, presumably. Not to mention that workers in the first factory would still benefit from the better production in the other factory, having more access to whatever goods are being produced there.

I would also like to note that it’s less likely for a workplace to be fully staffed under socialism. Under capitalism, it is common for capitalists to have to limit the workforce to keep profits high, particularly as the rate of profit declines over time. Less people will often be expected to work longer hours for less pay. This won’t be such an issue under socialism. Workplaces could employ a lot more people, being a lot more efficient, and people would be expected to work a lot less hours.

This has never worked anywhere, so what makes you think that your plan will be successful?

[Read my response above/QUOTE]

You didn’t answer my question. If the US becomes socialist, will my university end up with the same means of production as Harvard? If so, how will that occur?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What is essential is to read up on examples of capitalism and socialism and communism.

And understand how each of these works in real life.

It is important to know how examples function.

For two resources, I recomment Atlas and FEE.

Both have useful publications.

atlasnetwork.org

fee.org

Atlas is more international and their publications are excellent.

atlasnetwork.org/assets/uploads/annual-reports/Atlas_Network_YIR_2014.pdf

get their newsletter.

atlasnetwork.org/partners/how-we-can-help

The essay “I, Pencil” is famous.

And now it is available under new media:

fee.org/resources/i-pencil-audio-pdf-and-html/

In addition, Henry Hazlitt is perhaps the most popular writer … he did a LOT of excellent work.

fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson-2/