Comment on Can socialism or communism have incentives (even without markets)?

• BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  “ Labour voucher”is a fancy way to say money

  source
• birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Labour vouchers are different. They’re a bit of the “work an hour, you can buy something that takes an hour to work for it with it”.

  The upside they have, is that unlike money, such labour vouchers are not transferrable from person to person, nor for any means of production. Therefore, they can’t become capital. It also ensures that there’s no way to accumulate money by having a lot of money - you either work for the voucher or you can’t buy.

  The issue with such labour vouchers however, is that they still tie your worth to a sort of wage. It’s money, just by another means. So people who work 60 hours a week and burn themselves out, would have an advantage, whereas people who couldn’t work, would have issues. Sure, that could be taken into account, but essentially it retains a form of wage labour.

  source

  • DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    How does a gift economy work? is it market socialist by all means?

    source

    • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      A gift economy is not market socialist. Let’s visualise it with a few examples, on a spectrum. I’ll add a few remarks on the politics.

      Anglo-Saxon model
      Close to “free” capitalism, in that companies experience relatively little regulation (or consequences when they behave against the general wellbeing, such as dumping sewage in rivers, and the CEOs not being held responsible). The economy is highly linked to supply and demand, but this can be very variable and thus crashes and crises will be worse for the public, and peaks as well.

      In there, hierarchy and private property play a large role; the boss ‘owns’ the machinery, through which their employees actually do the hard work to generate profit, which mostly goes to the boss. The US and to a lesser extent, the UK, are examples of this. The police and politics frequently are under the leadership of former company leaders, who earn their political power through bribery thanks to the power of companies. As such, they have an interest to repress socialism.

      Rhine model
      In there, labour union, company, and government leaders, often collectively negotiate with each other. Generally, regulation is higher, with an accent on family, friends, and social workers first taking care of the impoverished and disabled, and after that, the state. The market does play a role, but there is a relatively greater degree of social security - Germany is an archetypical example of this. These seem to mostly occur in countries that do not have a political duopoly, since groups have to negotiate more often to govern.

      Mediterranean model
      Similar to the Rhine model, although with a strong accent on care for the elderly with high pensions. I unfortunately do not know much of this one, otherwise. Italy and Spain are examples. Co-operatives and family companies tend to be very common in these.

      Nordic model The most extensively socialised form of a capitalist market economy; it has strong wellbeing and labour protections, and provides a “from the cradle to the grave” model. The Nordic countries are good examples of these.

      In good years, the state saves up the profit so that in bad years the state may be able to cover the fall; the public as thus does not experience much of financial crises. In my opinion, this is one that has worked very well; but my main criticism for this model (although much less than on other models) is that economical leadership is still in the hands of CEOs. Were these to be supervised by e.g. trade unions instead, and were labour decentrally organised, I think this model would go a long end towards democratic market socialism. And thus we enter;

      Market socialism Which functionally encompasses just that; like the Nordic model, it increases socioeconomic equality by a great extent; but the problem is that it does not change the pattern of ownership too fundamentally. Supply and demand also still influence the market, and that might be g

      source