Dear DB:
It is clear to us that the opponents of Labor Time Vouchers (LTVs)
are at their wits' end in their burning desire to discredit this
priceless contribution to Socialism so painstakingly developed by
Marx in his treatise, Criticism of the Gotha Program. Failing to
refute Marx, these nay sayers have by and large fallen back on
equivocation in an effort to win credibility. Just how credible
are the anti-voucher crew may be judged from examples taken from
recent issues of the Discussion Bulletin.
For instance take a look at the performance of Dr. Who in DB107.
Having presented his "doctoral" thesis that opposing
views can eventually coalesce, he further displays his scientific
acumen in his "objective" approach to the LTV issue, to
wit:
"I find this lifting of Marx to Biblical dimensions ...
highly alienating. When reading these endless interpretations as
we have read in prior issues of what was meant here in the Gotha
Program or there in some other text, I can't help but feel like
shouting 'so what!' If it turns out that Marx really did feel that
labor vouchers were to play a part in socialism ... this merely
reflects Marx's thinking with the data available to him at the
time he analyzed them."
In short, Dr. Who, who by his own admission has not read the
Gotha Program, presumes to pass judgement on its current
relevance!
*
No less reprehensible in our opinion is Frank Girard's anti-LTV
comment in DB 107's blurb wherein he poses the question:
"Wouldn't you [the reader] think that far more dangerous to
socialism than a few ex-capitalists getting more than their share
of the vast bounty of this planet would be the possibility of the
rise of a new and powerful bureaucracy with the special skills
needed to work out deductions and pay rates and prices in the
socialist market economy."
Here, surely, Girard is completely off base on two counts, arguing
in essence: (l)--That altho LTVs are intended to facilitate a
transition from Capitalism to Socialism, they should nevertheless
not be employed due to a danger that their bureaucratic
administrators might conspire to undermine social control, and
(2)--That in any case LTVs will not be needed to help quell a
possible capitalist-inspired reaction because ex-capitalists,
being
relatively few in number, can be expected to pose no serious
threat to the triumph of Socialism.
As to (1): We readily admit the possibility that bureaucratic
elites may be smitten with a desire to rule the roost! The possibility
is implicit, also, in The Gotha Program wherein Marx states: "What we
are dealing with here is a Communist [i.e., a Socialist] society ... as
it is just issuing out of capitalist society; hence, a society that
still retains, in every respect, economic, moral and intellectual,
the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it
is issuing." Apropos, we repeat here what we said on a previous
occasion:
"We must ... conclude with an admission and an admonition. The
point is, that while we have advanced social control of both the
political and industrial government forms as the best protection
against corruption of socialist democracy, what guarantee is there that
such control, once won by society, might not one day slip out of
society's grasp? Obviously there can be no such guarantee, only the
counsel that survival of a Socialist Republic must ultimately hinge
upon vigilance, eternal social vigilance!"
(See the July-August, 1996 issue of the then DE LEONIST REVIEW
featuring material captioned Einstein, The Socialist Labor Party,
and Socialism.)
The bearing of the foregoing upon the question of LTVs should now
be obvious. If danger of a powerful bureaucracy lurks in a
transition
from Capitalism to Socialism (and it does), how much greater must be
this danger were a transition to be launched without a classwide LTV
structure in place, integrated as it would be into an encompassing
Socialist Industrial Union!
As to (2): There are times for jesting but we think this is not
one of them. We think Girard's cavalier suggestion that Socialism
shouldn't bother its head over "a few ex-capitalists" is
just that -- a cavalier suggestion! Skipping far too lightly over
the tangible depths of the class struggle, it , ignores both the
vulnerability of a newborn socialist society and the social chaos
demon which these same "few ex-capitalists" might
possibly invoke in a criminal attempt to destroy it. Labor Time
Vouchers are obviously needed in order to help society protect
itself against lingering capitalist depravity!
*
Having proceeded thus far it remains for us to wind down our
thoughts on the matter.
First let us say how greatly encouraged we were to learn that
there has been at least one voice in addition to ours that has been
speaking out in favor of the Marxist Labor Time Voucher (LTV) idea. We
look forward eagerly to SLP Carl Miller's promised critique of "free
access."
For the rest, it seems that we are for the most part being bombarded
with a fantastic litany of anti-Voucher arguments that cannot
pass muster as sensible and that in some cases appear downright
devious. For example:
* Much indignation has been expressed by LTV opponents at the
no-nonsense stance which their adoption would project on the
matter of erstwhile Capitalists and work. Apparently horrified
that Socialism will no doubt consider these former exploiters of
Labor as potential additions to the Work Force, be it noted that
the objectors have raised howls of protest to the effect that the
idea smacks of slavery! Thus in DB106 Ronald Young alleges that
by promoting the LTV concept, "Marx has merely substituted
one form of worker slavery for another..." (Incidentally, the
DLSC did NOT, repeat NOT, as claimed by Young, "attempt to
make the case that there is not a two phase transition enunciated
by Marx in The Gotha Program.")
* As to the technical difficulties which are widely seized upon
by LTV opponents as arguments against their adoption: While we
ourselves are not technicians, we nevertheless hazard a guess
that, given a desire to resolve these problems, Socialism will do
so.
* As regards Charmian Skelton's DB107 letter, there are several
points that we should take up at this time --
(1) Although Skelton is correct in gathering that the DLSC
stands by the principle of "he who does not work, neither shall he
eat," she is wrong in believing that the principle must
therefore reject the needs of those who will be unable to work. The DLSC is a
Marxist organization. Among the various deductions which Marx
indicates will have to be made from the total social product are "Funds
for those unable to work, etc." (See The Gotha Program.)
(2) We think Skelton is wrong to claim that "The DLSC assume
that none [sic!] of the former capitalists would be willing to work at
all."
(3) Skelton says that these labor vouchers would function as a
medium of exchange. Quite so! But the similarity to money ends there
because the voucher, unlike money, will not be convertable into
Capital!
(4) What the DLSC finds "purely Utopean" is not the
exchange that will motivate what Marx terms the "first
phase" of a socialist economy. On the contrary, what we find
Utopean is the belief, apparently held by LTV opponents, that the
"higher phase," the non-market phase, the "free
access" phase, can be reached by simply pole vaulting over a
first phase!
* Adam Buick's catalog of objections to the Labor Time Voucher
idea is impressive by its length and would challenge our ability to
take them up seriatim were we tempted to do so. Nevertheless, while
admitting that we do not have an answer for every question he
poses, we think that by separating the wheat from the chaff of his
essay we can at least win enough elbowroom to suggest that by
virtue of its pricing mechanism, built as it is on the statistics
of socially necessary labor, Capitalism has already shown
Socialism how it can price consumer goods in non-monetary terms to
the satisfaction of the said "Human Nature Objector."
Be this as it may, however, there can be no room for doubt it
that, contrary to Buick's tortuous effort to equate
"labour-money (labor time vouchers) with "conventional
money as today" (wages), there is a world of difference
between these two methods of payment for labor! Accordingly, we
have to instruct Buick in what today should be common knowledge
among Socialists, to wit: (l)--The Wages System fleeces workers
at the point of production out of the bulk of the value of their
product. Profit represents unpaid labor! (2)-Far otherwise with
Socialism! Here, the Labor Time Voucher (after deduction of labor
that is due to the common fund for collective services like
hospitals, etc.) will permit its bearer to "draw from the
common store as much of the means of consumption as cost an equal
amount of labor." (Marx. Our emphasis.)
With strong hopes that workers will soon unite on both the
Political and Industrial fields for ABOLITION OF THE WAGES SYSTEM!
Sincerely,
THE DE LEONIST SOCIETY OF CANADA
The De Leonist Society of Canada
P.O. Box 944, Station F
Toronto, Ontario MY 2N9
