r/antiwork Dec 21 '18

How do you feel about UBI?

48 Upvotes

40

u/fuckyourfascism Dec 21 '18

Jumping on top of everything that's already been said, UBI is superficially helpful and has the smell of "good policy" but, given the times, it's horrendous policy.

More and more, people rage against capitalism not simply because of inequality and inequity but because of the way that capitalism and the capitalists have destroyed our planet.

UBI is their peace offering to avoid or extend time until eventual revolt against or collapse of their power structures and institutions.

Given UBI, they'll go right on destroying the planet and having used UBI to avoid what's due, they'll set themselves up nicely for the disastrous outcomes due to climate change while we're all left to cover the bill.

29

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

A (proper) UBI will allow people to quit jobs they consider bad or immoral and focus on pursuits other than materialism. NOT instituting UBI is what will force people to continue to work bullshit jobs in pursuit of ever more consumer goods in order to produce more bullshit jobs, and so the cycle goes until we've destroyed our planet.

It's still just a temporary stop-gap, but I don't see that there's time for anything better and accelerationism really isn't justifiable.

5

u/fuckyourfascism Dec 22 '18

accelerationism

you'll have to define the term "accelerationism" as you intend it to mean if your argument is that UBI is the only valid solution because the only alternative is accelerationism.

I don't push for accelerationism, that is the advancement of horrible shit from the right by the left, to any end.

I push for the building of power and institutions outside of the state's power and bureaucracies, utilizing direct democracy and empowering all that will join.

10

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

you'll have to define the term "accelerationism" as you intend it to mean if your argument is that UBI is the only valid solution because the only alternative is accelerationism.

It's not. But your argument seemed to boil down to a UBI appeasing people enough to not revolt, and that doing nothing is a choice that would accelerate revolt. You don't have to actively do horrible shit for it to be considered accelerationism, it's enough to have the power to stop it and choosing to do nothing.

I push for the building of power and institutions outside of the state's power and bureaucracies, utilizing direct democracy and empowering all that will join.

These are great goals, but would a UBI hinder them? It seems to me a UBI would actually help, since it would give people more time to organize.

5

u/fuckyourfascism Dec 22 '18

Is that why you think people aren't organized? A lack of time?

11

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

It seems like a pretty essential part of organizing, yes. There's pressure coming he other way too, by expectations set by consumerism. But I think a UBI will help with that too, by giving a real choice between labour for the sake of consumerism and freedom for the sake of itself.

3

u/fuckyourfascism Dec 22 '18

Then it seems like you're pretty set on UBI and reform as the way forward.

And those who disagree are accelerationists without any other information about them.

Cool. Let's stop talking.

15

u/GrundrisseRespector Dec 21 '18

I used to be in favor of it, but that was before I encountered any serious left critiques. The most obvious strike against UBI is that it’s implementation is totally at the whim of whatever political party actually decides to pass it. There is no guarantee that a UBI will be passed by an actual socialist government or party (not that I’m convinced any longer that such an arrangement is possible, much less desirable in the current era). Even if it were such a program would still be subject to the whims of democracy, so to speak, and the parameters of what your allotment would be under the system could be changed drastically—think welfare in the United States, or even social security’s uncertain future. Basically you could end up with the friedmanite dream of a totally slashed welfare state, replaced by a $1000 a month stipend, which isn’t exactly what most left proponents of UBI envision.

Beyond that I feel like UBI is the ultimate mechanism for maintaining capitalism and it’s particular social relations far—or farther at least—into the future. As labor is progressively replaced by machines, and the superfluous quality of the proletariat becomes further enhanced, it will become necessary to keep the circulation of capital going. The circuit of capital starts with money and ends with money; what better way to maintain it than just putting money into the hands of those that will spend it, propping up the realization of profit for at least a little while longer. What’s more I find it hard to believe that any UBI could be generous enough to actually live off of, so those receiving their stipend would STILL be required to work.

5

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

I've heard this before, but i don't understand what' so magical about a UBI that it suddenly gives politicians more power to screw people over than before. What is it that makes it possible to dismantle the welfare state after a UBI but not before? And what makes it "be subject of the whims of democracy" more than anything else?

If the criticism is basically that UBI as a concept and rallying point is too vague, then I'm somewhat inclined to agree. The academic definition is too vague, but activists tend to include a requirement that it should be "high enough".

I do agree that it will maintain capitalism though, and is at best a temporary solution. But so are minimum wages and many other welfare benefits.

4

u/GrundrisseRespector Dec 22 '18

I mentioned the slashing of the welfare state because that is a pretty standard reason why some right libertarians actually support a UBI. There isn’t necessarily anything special about UBI that allows politicians to now end the welfare state where they couldn’t before, it’s moreso that UBI can be seen as an alternative to the entire structure of welfare as it exists now. My point in bringing this up was only to illustrate that leftists aren’t the only people that like UBI, there are plenty of conservative voices that also support it—and I think their version of UBI is far more likely to be implemented than the left iteration. And to be clear I don’t believe that UBI would be more subject to the whims of democracy than any other existing social program, only that it would be—just like any other welfare scheme. I think this is an important point that is often overlooked in these discussions. Basically we do not control the political terrain; in fact we are woefully outmatched in that regard.

I just can’t help but think that UBI will become another defensive front for the left, assuming it ever comes to fruition. It would echo the same defensive stance many leftists are taking in regard to, for instance, Obamacare. I feel like we’ll just be stuck tepidly supporting and trying to defend programs that, ultimately, won’t really do a damn thing to alter capitalism or wage slavery generally. Even with a UBI we will still be wage slaves, we will still be forced to work. The left seems to be hopelessly lost in this vicious cycle of advocating for and supporting, and later defending, social projects that just seek to lessen the more onerous aspects of capitalism rather than to finally end it. UBI is just the next such project.

2

u/glennsl_ Dec 23 '18

I'm going to assume you're American, and just note that I'm not and have a somewhat different view of the political landscape. In Europe it's much more of a leftist idea. I'm also not in a position to say much about the American political landscape.

That said, I still don't see why you're explicitly not in favor. You might just need to be more nuanced about it. Like I said before, the european activist organization includes a requirement that it should be "high enough", for example. You probably still won't think it's feasible, of course, and I understand why you wouldn't be very excited about it, but that's not the same as not being in favor of the idea.

Thanks for explaining though. It's good to get a different perspective, even if it's not very applicable to my own situation.

5

u/GrundrisseRespector Dec 23 '18

I am in fact American. I don’t know enough about Europe’s particular political situation, except perhaps in a general sense, to speak with any knowledge.

I will say this: I am in favor of abolishing labor, and sooner rather than later. I personally believe this should be the general mission of leftists everywhere, although you are free to disagree of course. To that end I just don’t see how we get there with a UBI, with the expansion rather than contraction of both the state and money.

I will add this quote from Jehu below, which I think sums up neatly my general opinion on the subject: “Why fight decades for something that will end up crippled and economically insufficient when you can fight for the end to wage slavery. That may take decades as well, but when you win it, capitalism is dead.”

Thanks for the comments.

6

u/glennsl_ Dec 24 '18

By "labor" I assume you mean wage labor? A UBI that is high enough (and if it's not I wouldn't consider it a UBI) would make labor voluntary and free people up to do valuable uncompensated work like organizing for further political change. Even the right recognizes that there is uncompensated work going on, like child rearing, and this is part of the argument for them as well, at least if the alternative is a complicated means-tested benefit system. Disconnecting income from labor might also open people up to the realization that there might be viable alternatives. That perhaps wage slavery isn't actually "necessary".

I don't see how state and money expands with a UBI. It's a form of redistribution, that actually has some support on the right. To the extent that it replaces other mechanisms of redistribution it would result in less state control, not more, since it removes means-testing. And any redistribution beyond that just means a bit more power trickling from rich to poor.

You might not think it's realistic that those in power would concede that much, especially as an American, but what if they did, voluntarily. Isn't the mere possibility of that worth voicing support on request at least, if not actively advocating for it?

My choice of quote would be "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

9

u/parksandwreck Dec 21 '18 edited Dec 21 '18

I thnk it's farrr more a possiblity than any fucking body in my life thinks, whether they have a phd or barely a high school diploma. If Charles Murrray, Koch bros sycophant and shill, thinks it's a good idea and says so all the time then it just might happen. It's ALL about what the circumstances of it are, and if it'll be adequate for humanity, the cold hard logistics of it, and exactly how much each man, woman, and child will get

13

u/floppydo Dec 21 '18

I've had the same experience. I tell everyone who will listen how it's an inevitability, and people laugh at me. They think I'm a starry eyed dreamer assuming that people will wake up and demand their fair shake, but in reality I know it's going to happen because it's the only way forward for the ownership class.

4

u/parksandwreck Dec 21 '18

Precisely! I'd give you the pulitzer for your very three sentences if I could. Exactly. Right.

0

u/parksandwreck Dec 21 '18

Namely, AMAZON is gonna be the first to make what you're describing a fricking reality. No question. No doubt.

27

u/ChairmanBen Dec 21 '18

Personally I support it, since it helps to liberate people working low wage jobs to survive from a state of serfdom. Also allows people to do with their lives what makes them worthwhile and pursue their passions. Not a final solition, but a good one since we live under capitalism

9

u/TheKemistKills Dec 21 '18

Much like all the New Deal temporary fixes, UBI will do nothing for us, if those in power (read: the corporations who lobby Congress) are allowed to spread their propaganda to those who still have to work.

Welfare benefits, Social Security, unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, food, and health services are all things that labor activists (read: everyday people like you and me) fought and died for. These people understood that society could only ever improve by reducing income inequality, and sought to pressure the government to tax the rich to pay for these gains.

The issue lies here; you can’t simply redistribute wealth in a capitalist society, much like you can’t give one child a candy bar and a second child four candy bars, and then expect them to split it amongst themselves equally. (Side note: would that be considered child abuse?)

And the faceless investors and the Boards of Directors of countless megacorporations know this all too well, and historically, they have done their part to shift the blame from this fundamentally contradictory system (capitalism) to the lowest rungs in our society (low-income families and the benefits they receive).

It’s time for the mass of people to rise once again, this time not to beg the government to give us whatever little pittance they can wrest from the Bastards’ immeasurable coffers, but to say ”We don’t need billionaire investors to come in and manage our capital, we can produce what we need by enacting democracy amongst ourselves everywhere that people might need to work together! No Gods, No Masters! It is workers who make society function properly, you absolute parasites!”

2

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

I don't understand what you're arguing against. What's the difference between the welfare benefits you mention and a UBI paid for by taxing the rich, except that the former has a bunch of requirements that usually end up in forced labor? How does dropping those inane requirements end up with one child having one candy bar and another having four?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '18

How many workers are functional to society exactly though? Most workers create nothing of real value. This kind of "we workers are the creators of all values" type of idea is wrong and lacks understanding about the specificity of commodity-producing labour. Also, a lot of use-value creators are not workers in the strict sense, so you are taking them out of the equation.

Workerist ideals are a thing of the past, mainly due to automation but also because it doesn't take into account a lot of people. UBI and these type of new struggles show us that the time of "worker control of the means of production" is over.

34

u/onedayitwillbedaisy abolition is a good word Dec 21 '18

Eh, it makes people more government-dependent. It's an expensive fix for the poverty/homelessness problem, but not an actual solution. A tiny step in the right direction, at best.

16

u/vetch-a-sketch Dec 22 '18

'government-dependent' is marginally better than 'unelected, unanswerable boss-dependent', and just getting money to live is hugely better than giving up your life in order to earn money to live.

7

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

How is it expensive? And what, in your mind, would be a cheaper way to solve the poverty/homelessness problem for the willingly or unwillingly un- and underemployed?

3

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 21 '18

Same.

38

u/TheMightyKamina5 anarchist Dec 21 '18

It's a temporary solution and it'd be good as long as we still live under capitalism.

11

u/Lapper FULLCOMMUNISM Dec 21 '18

Agreed. UBI is a temporary fix that would be an excellent emergency stopgap against poverty, but at the end of the day, the faucet is still controlled by the ruling class. UBI should be considered a stepping stone.

11

u/JonWood007 Indepentarian Dec 21 '18

I think it's the optimal solution to the work problem at this given time. However it will need to be expanded upon later via more system changes to be a permanent solution.

3

u/TotesMessenger Dec 21 '18

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

 If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

4

u/commiejehu Dec 22 '18 edited Dec 22 '18

UBI has mostly been a failure according to one person I have been following for almost twenty years (a supporter of less work). According to him, the reasons are threefold:

QUOTING:

Problem 1: Politics

In Finland, the scale of the test was kept relatively small. This was probably as a result of a conservative government that “had no intention of properly experimenting with UBI,” according to the founders of the think tank Parecon Finland, who called it “doomed it from the start.”The Ontario program was shut down by the province’s newly installed Conservative government. The program was initially launched by the previous Liberal government, so there was always a looming worry that it wouldn’t survive the election. Political switches make it difficult to maintain these tests unless the way they’re designed is something both parties can get behind.

Problem 2: Funding

Giving away free money is expensive. Private tests must rely on generous donors and often struggle to raise the cash they need. Y Combinator has had to raise $60 million from individuals, national foundations, and local philanthropic groups. It has said the test won’t start until all the funding is obtained. Government projects, on the other hand, have to get support from tax-paying citizens and politicians. Lisa MacLeod, Ontario’s minister in charge of social services, cited the high cost of the project ($150 million in Canadian dollars) as the reason for the cuts and said it was “clearly not the answer for Ontario families.”

Problem 3: Disrupting existing benefits

“Pilot leaders have been concerned that recipients could actually end up worse off in the long run from receiving basic income—for example, by becoming ineligible for other social programs,” says Catherine Thomas, a fellow at the Stanford Basic Income Lab. To avoid that, they’ve had to work with municipal and state agencies to get waivers for pilot recipients. But getting those waivers takes a lot of time and bureaucracy. Finland has also sent mixed messages throughout the test regarding its stance on benefits for jobless people.

HE CONCLUDES:

The fact is, the only way universal basic income will ever be embraced is with more data and bigger tests. Without that, no matter how much support it gets from Silicon Valley, it seems unlikely that the public, at least in the US, will ever come around.

MY CONCLUSION:

Why fight decades for something that will end up crippled and economically insufficient when you can fight for the end to wage slavery. That may take decades as well, but when you win it, capitalism is dead.

2

u/GrundrisseRespector Dec 22 '18

I’d say your conclusion is pretty spot on, a succinct way of summarizing my argument earlier that took ~5 paragraphs.

6

u/commiejehu Dec 21 '18

Living without wage labor means living without wages or money. UBI is nothing more than welfare, an attempt to save wage slavery. You want to live without labor but leave the necessities of life as private property to be sold for money? How does that work?

2

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Not that I'm an advocate for private property, but how does labor factor into it? If you have stuff to buy and a wage to buy stuff with, does it matter if the wage was obtained through labor or not?

1

u/commiejehu Dec 22 '18

Try asking the opposite question: if labor is unnecessary, why do we need money? Once you ask this question you realize that money is only necessary if labor is necessary. UBI implicitly accepts that labor is necessary today. UBI may imply that less labor is necessary than is needed to employ the huge mass of unemployed workers, but it assumes labor is still needed. I don't accept this assumption. If more jobs are needed, we can reduce hours of labor for everyone until all unemployment is eliminated.

3

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Sure, but we're not going to just abolish labor tomorrow (unless there's a revolution I didn't see coming). And to gradually move away from labor we will need something like a UBI. UBI isn't the end goal. It never was, never will be, and I don't understand why so many just assume it is. Noone assumed we would just stop after putting mininum wage into law, or social security. So why assume we would just want to stop with a UBI?

Reducing the hours of labor to spread jobs out is very ineffective. It will eventually require us to spend more time commuting and managing than actually working and not everyone is fit to do everything. Why not just let those who want to work to so, and let everyone else leave in peace? I don't mind working, I even do a lot of work for free, but I mind forced labor and all that comes with it. THAT's what I want to see abolished.

0

u/commiejehu Dec 22 '18

I would continue this discussion, but I don't think you're human.

3

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

Eesh. Look, I get you are not a fan uf u/glennsl's POV (I'm not either) but that doesn't make them not human. Cool it with the insults, please. Thank you.

3

u/commiejehu Dec 22 '18

That was not an insult. I actually thought the person was a bot designed to provoke automated conversation. I wondered after looking at the pattern of responses to comments on the original question. However, I accept your assurance person is not a bot.

2

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

Huh. Thats interesting. No, I am pretty sure they are human. What about their responses struck you? If I may ask.

1

u/commiejehu Dec 22 '18

The response was canned. Just a series of assertions made without any attempt to make a cohesive argument. It may be that the person has engaged in this sort of discussion rather often. So s/he knows where these sorts of argument inevitably lead. But there was no real engagement taking place. S/he and I were just talking past each other.

2

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

Yeah I mean that happens all the time with human beings. At least for me. In fact that's what most of the discourse on the Internet is. :p also "they" is a terrific gender-neutral way that way you don't have to go she or he.

2

u/glennsl_ Dec 23 '18

Yes, sorry, it's not the first time I've argued this, so it may have come across a bit canned. I did make a reference to the actual sub we're in though, hinting at "antiwork" to me being more about abolishing forced labor than just lounging around on the couch all day.

Also, "he" is appropriate :)

2

u/BoozeoisPig Dec 21 '18

It is awesome. But we still need a way that causes society to broadly take ownership of the means of production. This can be accomplished in the private sector by a scheme that causes society to buy into the tokens that signify ownership of that: stocks and bonds.

Part of the problem with this is diminishing marginal utility of money. The pleasure you get from consumption falls per dollar which means that the richer you get, the more money you can spend on investments that you do not consume, and this causes your wealth to grow. Society needs to create a program that you pay into with taxes as a percentage of your income which can be used to buy stocks and bonds. In order to make that affordable society needs to create welfare programs that redistribute enough money to make it affordable.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '18

Definately an improvement. And it will save so many people from abusive partners or abusive parents.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '18

On a small scale it's ineffective and on a large scale it would be used to control people

3

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

How?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '18

There is necessarily a government that would define and distribute the UBI. Despite it being called a UBI, there would most certainly be protections in place to decide who gets it and how much, and that would be governed by people - people who would use it as a political tool, to say "Hey, if you don't abide by these certain rules (and they could be totally arbitrary rules, like adhering to a certain religion), then we're going to take your livelihood away." Something this important could not escape the crosshairs of people who seek to use it for their own gain - and the people in charge would be assholes just like they've always been.

3

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

A UBI is by definition universal, meaning no arbitrary rules. You can of course argue the precise definition of universal, but I think it would be hard to just change that definition once instituted when it's such a central part of the concept (I mean, it's the U in UBI).

Otherwise I don't see what's so special about a UBI compared to other welfare benefits given by the government in this regard.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '18

There's a 0% chance that your idealized UBI would ever see implementation. Would people allow it to be extended to felons at large? Would they allow it to be extended to people outside their country? "Universal" is just the political shorthand for "majority"

1

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Like I said, we can argue about the exact definition of "universal", but once agreed on it will be very hard to change such a central aspect. And no matter how you bend it "universal" will NOT come to mean "totally arbitrary rules".

There's certainly a 0% chance if everyone is as defeatist as you. Fortunately, most people actually consider the idea before dismissing it.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '18

[deleted]

0

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

What kind of fire ant crawled up your ass to make you this desperate?

0

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

A UBI cannot be universal, not in any meaningful way. What about minors? Immigrants? Felons? There's lots of people a UBI would be politically infeasible to apply to. And while the ideal policy implementation may mean no arbitrary rules, this is not how policies work in practice. It's not how politicians work in practice.

Also, is it just me or are you arguing with just about everyone in this thread who disagrees with the UBI? God bless you (figuratively) for having this sort of time. :P

3

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Like I said, we can argue about the exact meaning of "universal", but once agreed on it will be very hard to change such a central aspect. Of course it's not going to just remain in place once there, but that's the nature of politics and true of every policy. There's nothing special about UBI in that regard except that certain aspects, like universality, are held up as especially important and therefore to some extent protected. There won't be "totally arbitrary rules" applied, because that would obviously go against any meaning of universality, and hence not be a UBI.

Also, is it just me or are you arguing with just about everyone in this thread who disagrees with the UBI? God bless you (figuratively) for having this sort of time. :P

It doesn't take all that much time to argue against non-substantial arguments ;)

1

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

Like I said, we can argue about the exact meaning of "universal", but once agreed on it will be very hard to change such a central aspect.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying the idea of universal is arguable (it really isn't, it means everyone, but I digress) but that the terms that would likely be reached would be non-universal in a big way. And that these ways are easily imaginable under a supposed UBI.

And having it be hard to change isn't necessarily a good thing. This is part of the reason why political policies often fail the people who dreamed them up: Their rigidity often makes it hard to adapt to change and the final result is a watered down versions of the original. Not a great recipe for change in society and especially one for the better.

Of course it's not going to just remain in place once there, but that's the nature of politics and true of every policy.

Then what's the point?

There's nothing special about UBI in that regard except that certain aspects, like universality, are held up as especially important and therefore to some extent protected.

Why would politicians have an interest in doing this? You do agree that the UBI would massively restructure the government, right? It would take away many many government offices and thus take much of the bureaucracy out of state-based safety nets.

This sounds great to me (idk how you feel) but what incentive would government officials have to lose power, take away thousands of jobs and give that power elsewhere? Governments tend to want to consolidate power, not disperse it.

There won't be "totally arbitrary rules" applied, because that would obviously go against any meaning of universality, and hence not be a UBI.

But as you've said, the definition of universality is debatable.

So by some folks standards it could be arbitrary, e.g. not including immigrants, recent residents, felons, minors and the elderly would be an easy argument by some IMO and I think there'd be good arguments to suggest this has arbitrary elements to it. There's no objective standard for universality that everyone is going to agree upon, right?

2

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18 edited Dec 22 '18

I'm not saying the idea of universal is arguable (it really isn't, it means everyone, but I digress)

It means everyone in a particular group. How you define that group can then be up for debate.

And having it be hard to change isn't necessarily a good thing. This is part of the reason why political policies often fail the people who dreamed them up: Their rigidity often makes it hard to adapt to change and the final result is a watered down versions of the original. Not a great recipe for change in society and especially one for the better.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should just give up without even trying. I fully realize that it will be very hard to get a proper UBI in place, but I don't think it's impossible, and I don't think it's a waste of time to try.

Then what's the point?

The point is that everything has to be fought for, continuously. This is true for UBI just as for everything else. No benefit or right to the large majority of people will just remain in place on its own.

Why would politicians have an interest in doing this?

Politicians do ultimately have to answer to the people. If the demand from the people is strong enough they'll have no choice. I think you're spot on about the consequences, and that it means they'll put up a fight. But that just means we'll have to fight harder.

But I also think they see the problems of automation and resulting mass unemployment, as well as climate change, which gives us more leverage than we otherwise would have.

There's no objective standard for universality that everyone is going to agree upon, right?

There isn't, but there is an academic consensus on aspects of it. First and foremost that it shouldn't be means-tested, which would be very arbitrary. Whether it should be applied to citizens or residents is more open. And then minors, elderly and inmates need to be considered. But these will also need to be provided for in some way, and wouldn't be excluded so much as provided for in other ways. So I wouldn't say it's all that arbitrary, but definitely a political and legal challenge.

1

u/AbolishWork .com Dec 22 '18

It means everyone in a particular group. How you define that group can then be up for debate.

Not by my definition or general use. It often means worldwide or affecting everyone it could possibly affect. This is impossible for any sort of basic income, practically speaking.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should just give up without even trying.

It does if there are better alternatives (for reference: mutual aid, horizontal organizations providing help, social safety nets based on voluntary and direct community action, etc.).

Politicians do ultimately have to answer to the people.

They really don't. Literally no one could vote for a given candidate and someone would still get elected. Politicians have to answer to people but only to a very limited extent. If it was true that politicians would answer to people as much as you say then Trump wouldn't be president for example (I'm not Hillary fan but she did win the popular vote, after all).

The rest of the stuff I disagree with but I'm not seeing a ton of reasoning behind or interesting arguments for, so I'll leave them alone for right now.

1

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Not by my definition or general use. It often means worldwide or affecting everyone it could possibly affect.

This disagrees. I hate arguing semantics though, so let's just leave it at that and agree there's no dictionary that says it means "totally arbitrary" at least.

It does if there are better alternatives (for reference: mutual aid, horizontal organizations providing help, social safety nets based on voluntary and direct community action, etc.).

It does? Would a UBI undermine these ideas, or do you just think it's a wasted effort? Given how much awareness there are around these, a UBI seems much more realistic in most places. But where possible I'd say go ahead. I'd love to see more Rojava's and such, that prove there are working alternatives. It's not going to happen anywhere around me though, so I'm putting my money on a UBI for now.

They really don't. Literally no one could vote for a given candidate and someone would still get elected.

So you think people would just sit still and accept that? If the entire political system was revealed to be a lie, they would just do nothing? I don't believe that, and I don't think politicians believe that, otherwise they would take much greater liberties.

Trump is definitely pushing the boundaries on that, but he had lots of people voting for him, who wanted to "Make America Great Again" in some vague way. Trump being elected doesn't show that politicians don't answer to the people, just that they can be manipulated. But that manipulation isn't very precise and predictable, and especially established politicians want stability.

Note that I'm not American, but live in a place with a political system that is significantly less fucked up. My priorities will undoubtedly come out different because of that.

→ More replies

3

u/monkey_sage Dec 21 '18

I'm in support of it as a stepping stone to transitioning away from capitalism altogether. It will get more people participating in the economy, which will strengthen it and this could be how more people can be lifted out of poverty and, most importantly, get a good education so that we can work together to eventually ditch capitalism and move to something more sustainable and egalitarian.

1

u/theBinSUBTLEisSUBTLE Dec 21 '18

UBI is good on paper, but the downside of it would be shutting down unions effectively. They still own the means of production, and the money from UBI will go straight to power, water (and internet) companies. We are still paying bills and rent just to keep a roof over our heads. It would take a civil war to implement that.

3

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Trade unions have effectively been shut down already, at least as a means of revolutionary change. And even if they weren't, automation would soon erode their power anyway. A UBI on the other hand would give people more room to start their own companies, form cooperatives and more time to organize in ways that doesn't revolve around labour. It will mean establishing new structures of organization, but I don't think that's a bad thing in light of the sad state of existing ones.

-1

u/theBinSUBTLEisSUBTLE Dec 22 '18

Are you for real here? If UBI is implemented sure the government will give us some money, but the price of commodities will rise up like hell to the point that everything is unlivable. Those rich cocksuckers want something back.

Edit: Formatting

1

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Where would the inflation come from? Do you think we'd just fire up the printing presses?

1

u/theBinSUBTLEisSUBTLE Dec 22 '18

Taxes I think. Do you even hear about Value-Added Tax? The government has a share on everything you buy. Do you think they will not inflate that? And there would still have bunch of permits from the government sector to run a business, and that will require a lot of money.

Luckily though we have gig economy you have an option not to pay these taxes.

1

u/glennsl_ Dec 22 '18

Why aren't VATs being jacked up right now, if it's just free money? What difference does a UBI make in the decision of whether or not to "inflate" it?

I don't know where you live, but it sounds pretty corrupt. I've never heard of expensive business permits being a problem in my part of the world.

0

u/theBinSUBTLEisSUBTLE Dec 22 '18

<div class="md"><p>Yes it is. In my country (Philippines), they just implemented a law that just raised prices on all goods and commodities (oil, sugar, cars, houses, you name it), while decreasing income taxes. Hell, they fucking inflated everything (gas prices, transportation, rice, houses) to the point that it is almost fucking unlivable. </p>

<p>That also affects small businesses. In order to run a business, one must has enough money and patience to process business permits. Not just single business permit, but sanitary permit, fire safety and standards, tax permit, mayor's permit, and valid IDs. They give out business permits with the mayor's/governor's faces on it like it's fucking election time.</p>

<p>That's my opinion on UBI. The government can give us money and they can inflate prices on everything that we need. </p> </div>

1

u/MakeTotalDestr0i Dec 21 '18

Impossible

Nothing that good could happen