Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:10:18 +0000
From: Lew <Lew-AT-dialogues.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-I: Law of value and labour time vouchers


In article <199703260820.IAA28918-AT-gn.apc.org>, Chris Burford
<cburford-AT-gn.apc.org> writes
>I was interested in the comments of Carl Davidson and Lew about
>labour time vouchers. (We seem to have a bit of thread drift here
>from the issue of state capitalism, but it is relevant to the 
>whole debate of what models of socialism could conceivably 
>function).
>
>I too have been surprised by the reference to these as a 
>substitute for money from people like Cockshott, because it
>seems to me to be so obvious that they would be used as 
>money. Is the point for such writers however, that the 
>different name is meant to indicate that they cannot be
>used to purchase the means of production, or to earn 
>interest? In that case the point I would have thought is
>better made politically, about what laws and administrative
>procedures could be implemented under socialism to bring
>the economy under more social control.
>
>My overall standpoint on this, is to assume that we could make
>a lot of headway on a) social control of land and the environment,
>b) socialisation of the control of finance c) greater social
>accountability for businesses. I doubt if the market and money
>for the market could be abolished by the year 2050, but it 
>would be easier to see how it could be controlled socially if 
>we had made headway on other matters. 
>
>I wonder if Lew has a reference or better still a quote for
>the remarks of Marx he refers to :
>
>>>
>I agree with most of what you say. We were discussing Marx's ideas on
>the early stage of communism. Marx believed that, because of the low
>level of the productive forces (in the 1870s) consumption would have to
>be rationed, possibly by the use of labour-time vouchers similar to
>those advocated by Robert Owen. These would not function as money, and
>they would have the disadvantages you attribute to them. But as you say,
>we need to develop a society of abundance, and for that we do need
>socialism.
><<
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
 
"Owens labour-money, for instance, is no more money than a ticket
for the theatre. Owen presupposes directly associated labour, a form of
production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of
commodities. The certificate of labour is merely evidence of the part
taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a
certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption"
(Capital, Vol. 1).

"These producers may... receive paper vouchers entitling them to
withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity
corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They
do not circulate"
(Capital, Vol. 2).

"Within the co-operative society based on the common ownership of the
means of production, the producers do not exchange their products"
(Critique of the Gotha Programme).

Perhaps those who think it is utopianism to want to abolish money can
find evidence of where Marx says money can be used to serve workers'
interests?

I don't want to be seen as a defender of labour-time vouchers, even
though I can see why Marx suggested them. Now they're irrelevant. But
the principle still holds good: socialism will be a moneyless society of
free access.
-- 
Lew


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---