Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

a voucher has a direct correlation for hours worked, so everyone who works 1 hour gets 1 voucher, regardless of the work. with money, the CEO gets thousands of vouchers for every 1 voucher the worker gets.

5

Sablinker OP wrote

What happens If someone finish the job earlier but refuse to tell anyone then?

He'll have more vouchers If he doesn't tell anyone that the job is done?!

1

mofongo wrote

The work someone makes would be measured against the "Socially Necessary Labor Time", in other words the average/acceptable time it takes to do X. If it takes a person 3 hours to perform a work that an experienced person can do in 1, then they'll only receive 1 voucher. If they take half the time, they'll receive 2 per hour.

This is to compensate the difference in experience, but it has a bias towards younger abled bodies.

3

Sablinker OP wrote

Much more interesting and reasonable.

Who decides the number of "socially necessary labor time"?

0

mofongo wrote

The workers.

Keep in mind that labor voucher was only a proposal and never a serious suggestion. Marx's interest in it was mainly to prevent financial especulation, to prevent making money out of money.

3

lori wrote

Keep in mind that labor voucher was only a proposal and never a serious suggestion.

By Marx, at least - I know a few anarchists who propose the same, as do a lot of other collectivists.

3

mofongo wrote

But everyone ends up referring to Marx anyways and I don't think anyone else expanded upon the idea in a significant way.

3

ziq wrote

Vouchers are the whole thing anarcho-collectivism revolves around. It's what sets it apart from communism.

2

lori wrote (edited )

What happens If someone finish the job earlier but refuse to tell anyone then?

You tell them to fuck off because presumably you'd know, given the work isn't done?

1

Sablinker OP wrote

yeah I'm not convinced for these vouchers story...

It gives workers an incentive to stall the clock and more efficient workers don't have anything to gain

And what If you don't know who these assholes are & can't detect them lol

1

trashcan wrote

It gives workers an incentive to stall the clock and more efficient workers don't have anything to gain

How is this different from wage labor? Like I used to stock a grocery store. I was there for as long as it took to get through the contents of that day's truck. I got paid more if I took my time. I was definitely incentivized to stall the clock.

And like even working a job that's always 8 hours a day for 5 days a week I get paid the same regardless of how much I work. I have no real incentive to finish anything before its deadline, so there's still no incentive to work efficiently.

5

lori wrote

more efficient workers don't have anything to gain

They definitely do - under the current economic system, CEOs tend to make the most, yet the worker at the nearby burger place who does the real hard work makes shit. Labour vouchers would ensure that's not the case - the contest isn't between who flips burgers fastest, and that shouldn't be the concern. The concern is the disparity in wealth gained between the rich and the poor, despite the amount of work the latter put in as a group.

And what If you don't know who these assholes are & can't detect them lol

Then clearly their job wasn't needed. If there's labor vouchers, bullshit work would hopefully be wiped out anyways.

3

Sablinker OP wrote

the contest isn't between who flips burgers fastest, and that shouldn't be the concern.

It's exactly the concern. We want people who work harder a.k.a labourers to make more money. The less pleasant the task: the better the reward.

Then clearly their job wasn't needed. If there's labor vouchers, bullshit work would hopefully be wiped out anyways.

I'll give you an example.

I am paid to write a few articles about an anarchist commune. I have 4 hours to do all of this. I finished the job in 1 hour, because I am productive. Should I stay silent or announce that my work is done. If I do the latter I am only paid 1 hour, whereas If I keep my trap closed I am paid 4 hours. Why should I speak up?

A task-based system would easily solve this problem but I don't know If anarchists are willing to go for it...

−1

lori wrote

We want people who work harder a.k.a labourers to make more money. The less pleasant the task: the better the reward.

No, we don't. That's patently ableist to value people on the amount of output rather than by the amount of effort. Its a terrible system.

I have 4 hours to do all of this. I finished the job in 1 hour, because I am productive. Should I stay silent or announce that my work is done.

You should probably pick up more work to help the people in your commune, given they help you.

Having 4 hours to finish a 1 hour job is exactly what I would consider bullshit work - the whole system now where if you have an 8 hour shift and finish your work in 3 hours, you're fucked over because you're perceived as "not working" for having worked.

And presumably it wouldn't be hard to tell you weren't typing for 3 hours, so your comrades in commune would have reason to confront you for not offering work according to your ability.

5

Sablinker OP wrote

No, we don't. That's patently ableist to value people on the amount of output rather than by the amount of effort. Its a terrible system.

I value both & more hours is not always equal to more effort.

But I mainly value demand.

what I would consider bullshit work

Or you know someone is productive

the whole system now where if you have an 8 hour shift and finish your work in 3 hours, you're fucked over because you're perceived as "not working" for having worked.

Except when you work in task-based work environments, they are plenty of them

And presumably it wouldn't be hard to tell you weren't typing for 3 hours, so your comrades in commune would have reason to confront you for not offering work according to your ability.

Good Luck! I am a good actor ;) Or I can work at home too, ya know.

It will be even harder to detect when the task takes multiple days or even MULTIPLE MONTHS

0

lori wrote

All this sounds like is that you can't comprehend other people not being assholes, or that they'll tell you to fuck off for being an asshole if you decide to leech off of them despite your ability not to.

5

shanc wrote

workers

no

clock

no

efficient

no

−1

ziq wrote

yes.

1

Sablinker OP wrote (edited )

That's a problem. Because I have an incentive to be LESS productive.

The optimal play for me is to shut up.

The community who needs my job lost a nice opportunity...

0

ziq wrote

productivity is bullshit

4

Sablinker OP wrote

I live in an ancom community, I ask someone to code a software for me.

Person A gives me a program full of bugs and very ugly.

Person B gives me a very clean program.

Do you really think that they are both the same!!!?

0

ziq wrote (edited )

labor vouchers aren't ancom, they're anarcho-collectivist. ancoms don't have any kind of currency. you just take whatever you want from the communal stores.

if someone in an ancom commune writes code for you, they'd do it because they want to, not because you're paying them. so why would they fill it with bugs?

5

Sablinker OP wrote

labor vouchers aren't ancom, they're anarcho-collectivist. ancoms don't have any kind of currency. you just take whatever you want from the communal stores.

Then, how do you solve the free rider problem?

I am just going to take, take, take, take and never contribute. What prevents me from doing this? What prevents me from taking a lot of your stuff and reselling it for profit?

so why would they fill it with bugs?

Incompetence, mistakes, human errors

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm not an ancom.

I am just going to take, take, take, take and never contribute. What prevents me from doing this?

Nothing.

What prevents me from taking a lot of your stuff and reselling it for profit?

There's no money and everything is free so how can you sell free stuff and make profit?

Incompetence, mistakes, human errors

Code it yourself. Why should anyone labor to code for you when you just take take take?

4

Sablinker OP wrote

There's no money and everything is free so how can you sell free stuff and make profit?

So, the whole world need to be ancom for it to be working lol.

If It's not the case I can barter/sell my stuff to people who are willing.

And like I said free rider problem. Some people won't be willing to work and will just want to take. This may decrease people motivations, everyone will just take at the end and everything will collapse quite fast

Code it yourself. Why should anyone labor to code for you when you just take take take

I like to be good at multiple things, but I also believe in the division of labour. I can't DIY EVERY SINGLE THING IN MY LIFE. Did you DIY your smartphone/computer? Did you mine the resources to create it yourself...etc And that's just the beginning. Now, let's talk about everything else!

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't care. If you're gonna take take take other people's labor and try to profit from it, then no one has to do shit for you. Do it yourself or go without.

Free rider problem.

Raddle is coded by a single person /u/emma out of the goodness of her heart. Everyone here consumes her product without contributing anything back to her. It doesn't stop her from coding.

The bulk of the workload is always done by a few dedicated people. There is no equal distribution of labor because few people are as skilled or motivated as emma. In hunter gathether societies, the best hunters provided the most food for everyone. They worked hard so no one in their community would go hungry; including children and the elderly that contributed no food. But if someone like you comes along, mocks the hunters, stuffs your pockets with food and runs off to sell it, the community is gonna cut you off for being an exploitative dipshit.

6

[deleted] wrote

5

Sablinker OP wrote

who is going to be willing when they can just take it for free themselves?

Outside world / capitalist world (unless we live in a post scarcity society, but by this time property is useless and ANY resource management system will be an utopia)

I don't think free riders would be as common as people seem to try to make out

Maybe...

1

lori wrote

Some people won't be willing to work and will just want to take. This may decrease people motivations, everyone will just take at the end and everything will collapse quite fast

Or you just tell them to fuck off and stop letting them take, just like you'd reject any other reactionary forces. Mutual aid has 'mutual' as a keyword for a reason.

4

Sablinker OP wrote

They will try to take as much as they can "legitimately" take without looking suspicious/like assholes. As long as they can get away with this, they'll do it!

All of this, while putting the minimal amount of work

−1

lori wrote

If they're putting in the minimal amount of work, its not very difficult to tell them to fuck off regardless.

2

[deleted] wrote

1

shanc wrote

When he says 'they', he means 'me'

Not everyone is as greedy as you /u/Sablinker. In fact, even though we're told to be greedy every day of our lives, most people aren't.

0

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

I know ancoms claim every individual will just take whatever they 'need' (want) from communal stores, but I'm going to ignore that because it's really not practical in an industrial society - resources aren't infinite and no one is going to spend their life doing gruelling manual labor and then just give everything they produce away to some random asshole who shows up at the communal store with a dumpster truck and says "I need the community's entire monthly output today, load it up". For some reason ancoms think assholes would cease to exist in a communist society.

When they says "some random asshole", does they means "me"?

Seriously, is it fine for /u/ziq to use, what seems to me, exactly the same reasoning against ancoms, but /u/Sablinker is just greedy, somehow?

2

ziq wrote

My critique comes from the knowledge that industrial society is inherently alienating and scarcity (hierarchy) forming because it depletes resources, destroys the ecosystem, limits self sufficiency and autonomy and forces everyone into a bubble with a rapidly shrinking habitable region, but with a constantly growing population where they have to compete for dwindling resources to survive.

Changing the economic system won't stop that bubble (civilization) from imploding.

Making products free won't stop the ecocide, and that's if the communal store system will even work, which I argue it won't and limits (hierarchy) will immediately be placed on it to keep shitty people like sablinker from exploiting everyone.

I'm not making the argument that capitalism is better because of 'meritocracy' or whatever this clown is spewing, I make the argument that shifts in how profits are distributed won't stop the ecocide or end systems of authority.

The problem IS production, not how workers are rewarded for their production.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Yeah, I've discarded the whole context of your post. I shouldn't have done that. Did that for the sole bold purpose of being a bit cheeky, and because for some reason I've suddenly felt protective to /u/Sablinker, cause I felt they is being (mostly) unjustifiably attacked for asking (mostly) legit questions. I don't know how to put it, but I want you to understand that I absolutely don't want to tone police anyone, and I'm afraid that it seems like I do.

4

ziq wrote (edited )

sablinker is an ancap who we ban everyday and everyday he makes a new account to concern troll some more. He's made some very tos-breaking comments so people are understandably sick of him.

He's learned where the line is now I think because I didn't have to ban him this time. Last time he was saying 'Africans suck milk out of cows, that is what anarchy is' and 'take a wife from a local tribe' and other weird shit.

3

Bezotcovschina wrote

Oops, didn't know that. If they is that no-trans-in-my-store-ancap, then I probably need to take a shower, so disgusted I am, for touching this shit.

3

shanc wrote (edited )

tbf you were defending his argument, not his shitty personality. The 'labor vouchers'/'collective store' idea is (mostly) flawed, and I don't blame Mr Ancap for trying to poke holes in it, but the 'SOMEONE WILL TAKE IT ALL BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE GREEDY' argument is weak. It's been argued to death now, but one last point for you and u/ziq and u/sablinker to consider is: it is already very easy to steal truckloads of produce without consequence. Where I live this time of year there are fields bursting with veg. I could fill a truck overnight no problem. The chances of being caught are next to zero. So why don't I do it, morality aside? Because it's a chore. It takes a tenth of the time for me to walk into a store, fill up on stuff from the reduced isle, hand over a few notes and leave. The idea that someone would make such a huge effort just to have a pile of rotting veg in their yard is ridiculous.

1

ziq wrote

I steal fruit from rich farmers all the time.

2

shanc wrote

I take your point, but I don't see the same reasoning in both examples:

u/sablinker is arguing that no one will work without a profit motive, or they won't work 'efficiently'

u/ziq is arguing that the hypothetical 'communal stores' will not ensure everyone's needs are met because 1) the store would become a centre of hierarchy 2) it would be exploited by random assholes

2

shanc wrote

And like I said free rider problem. Some people won't be willing to work and will just want to take. This may decrease people motivations

That's already a problem today, if you haven't noticed. See: your landlord, the CEO of the corporation you wage slave for, the shareholders etc etc etc

everyone will just take at the end and everything will collapse quite fast

Again, that's exactly where we are today.

2

Majrelende wrote

So, the whole world need to be ancom for it to be working lol.

how can you sell free stuff and make profit?

2

mofongo wrote

What prevents me from doing this? What prevents me from taking a lot of your stuff and reselling it for profit?

Your mother pulling out your ears while telling you to stop your selfish lazy ass from ruining her reputation and to do something outside the house so she can have a private time with her partner.

3

Majrelende wrote

I am just going to take, take, take, take and never contribute. What prevents me from doing this? What prevents me from taking a lot of your stuff and reselling it for profit?

This is called theft. It is not considered acceptable in a mutualist society, and neither is it in an anti-market anarchist one.

In this case, people would probably stop giving to you.

There is also the culture to consider. If the cultural image of happiness is an excess of material wealth, that is what people are going to think they want, whether they actually want it or not. However, if the cultural image of happiness is non-material or nonexistent, this will be much less of a problem.

Incompetence, mistakes, human errors

It makes no sense for someone to ask someone to write code for them if they are incompetent— neither does it make sense for them to write without any effort if they agreed to do so.

3