Marxist critique of basic income

Comrades, can you post some good marxist critique of universal basic incone ? Specially interested in analysis of 'inevitable' inflation as a consequence of basic income.
Also, anarchist critiques which are going further than 'muhhh state' are also welcome.

Other urls found in this thread:

Refers to a couple of other good pieces as well. If you haven't read Kalecki's essay on full-employment you should. It's short but it's great.

The basic argument goes like this: basic income does nothing to solve the underlying contradictions of capitalism that causes a society to seek something like basic income. Basic income will not fix wealth inequality, it might ease it a bit but not fix it. This is simply because the capitalists will continue to own the means of production. They will grow their wealth even more as the population has more money to buy their commodities.

UBI would also entail the privatization of most socialized utilities, specifically health care and education.


How so?

UBI would cost A LOT of government money. They'd have to privatize services. The logic behind it is, if everyone is given free money they can afford private health insurance and private education.

There's a reason why Hayek and Friedman were pro-UBI.

Not at all. It's very likely that a properly progressive tax plan would suffice to fund a comfortable UBI.

That's the reasoning behind a very specific brand of UBI that leftists oppose.

We get inflation when money isn't backed by some form of wealth.

When porky exploits works that stolen surplus value backs the dollars in circulation.

If you gave everyone money but didn't force them to produce more commodities for the market you will get inflation.

When people talk about UBI they never talk about where this all these commodities will come from. They could come from porkys stolen surplus value, but probably won't.

A small scale sample is when unions demand better wages. The union will want the wages to come out of profits, so that a price hike is avoided.

But usually getting a wage increase is so hard porky usually just raises prices to maintain profit margins.

This is one reason why people hate unions, they see them as responsible for high prices. If you've ever hired a plumber you'll see it for yourself.

Also welfare programs are based on need. They serve you regardless of your ability to pay or work. But once every can supposedly afford all their needs it's certain people that fall throughout the cracks won't be helped

What makes you think we're getting a "leftist UBI"? If anything we will get the one that neoliberal technocrats and Silicon Valley like.

The point of UBI is to perfect the neoliberal society, to turn everybody into an entrepreneur free to "invest" in themselves however they want by personally selecting services on a totally free market. So everything is privatized, and you become totally "liberated" as a consumer and entrepreneur.
And why do neoliberals have a problem with the poor in the first place? They are not active within the market because they have no capital, so they cannot be regulated, as homo economicus, by the market and its logic.

I agree in that sense.

Unions need to move beyond just having better wages and focus more on taking more control/ownership over the business and it's profits. This would allow the workers to earn more money whilst guaranteeing that the business would continue to profit and capitalists don't increase the price of goods.

Basically, we need to eliminate the porky middleman step by step instead of just asking for better wages from him/her. (WHILE providing better services and goods for the consumers.)

Also, UBI basically solidifies the lumpen class and permanently tames them. (It also reduces the number of working class people who would oppose the capitalists.)

Basically, UBI is the way for porky to weasel his way away from revolution. He can control society, whilst the lumpens, now the majority of the population, will just consume what he produces with the exploitation of remaining workers and robots. All semblance of democracy would disappear, and society will degenerate into Roman Empire style imperialism before collapsing from a variety of factors.

Either capitalism would last forever or gets replaced by a new, perhaps even worse system.

Basically, UBI is possibly the worst thing to implement ever. (Unless, you're talking about a yeoman farmer society like early America and having it be funded by LVT. Which is exactly what Thomas Paine was referring to.)

There's quite a bit of support for UBI from the right nowadays, and the reason is that they want to replace all welfare benefits and social services with UBI. The idea is that if everyone gets UBI, they have no reason to demand anything else because they'll supposedly always have at least some money. There's also the argument that it would be used to discourage any further demands from the working class, because people would be less willing to care about a minimum wage when there's already UBI to fall back into, even though they only have to gain from a higher minimum wage. Basically UBI can remove the enthusiasm among the workers for a minimum wage by already guaranteeing a minimum income, in a way that would discourage, in the long term, additional struggles to improve living standards. Basically it could have the effect of pacifying the working class, without actually giving them anything extra because the UBI would just replace already existing benefits.

This is the further addition to the 70s and 80s project of preventing strikes and protests by making work more flexible and individualized while promoting happy consumerism. In the 60s workers' resistance caused real problems in some countries, so they "liberated" these workers from alienating repetitive factory work in a way that made capitalists even happier.

There are two common rules that professional politicians follow:
1. Something is popular. Take the name of that thing, do something else under its banner.
2. Something is unpopular. Continue doing it and change the name.

What does it mean for Universal Basic Income? Plenty of people who are not professional politicians talk in favor of UBI, conceiving it in a way that a person receiving that can cover basic living expenses with it. Danger! This guarantee is not explicit in the name UBI, you may think it is, B is for basic, but any slimy lawyer can tell you that basic doesn't necessarily imply that. So, if any lump-sum payment at a level that isn't linked with a particular basket of goods and services can be a basic income, are you still enthusiastic about it? Likewise the word universal is more ambiguous than you think, especially in the hands of professional bullshitters.

"B-b-but I thought everybody meant universal basic like-" NO. Master the art of the Slime and read carefully what the UBI "friends" from the other side of the political spectrum write.

And suppose, for the sake of argument, that we ever climb over that wall of bullshit, UBI still has fundamental inflationary problems. How do you know that landlords won't hoover up a major part of it? What to do then, increase the UBI so they hoover up more, so increase it further, so they hoover up more, again? Any program like that needs to be coupled with price controls. (The price controls don't have to rigidly fix every price directly and unconditionally. The permit to increase prices can be traded in a way similar to pollution-permits, while the cost of the basket remains fixed.)

You're absolutely correct about definitions. It's therefore up to us to state our definition of UBI loud and clear. Just because it could be co-opted doesn't mean we shouldn't place any hope in it.

problem with UBI is you`re eventually going to run out of other peoples money (yes this is actually the situation where it applies)

Theres many ways that can happen.
All it takes is giant depression/economic disaster/war.

1) It's basically "shut up" money, so people wouldn't guillotine porky. It's all to keep power, even if they have to pay 99% in taxes for that.
2) You still keep financial systems, instead of just giving products that people need to survive - no inflation threat then.
3) You don't require recipients to work - it's not a Full Employment Policy - you will have lazy bums.
4) That money can come from borrowing - so what that people get the money, they get debt too. If it's printed - inflation will eat it right away, with people savings.

And other people have other definitions. You need a different term, an abbreviation that when you spell it out unambiguously says that it at least covers your physical existence. So, the other side can't weasel out of it and say:

And I have never seen anybody advocate implementing a Lerner-style MAP (Market Anti-inflation Plan) as part of the UBI package.

Band Aid solution. Workers will still not be in control of the means of production.

Although the alleviation may free up time for the founding of co-ops

Although at the same time the alleviation could reduce class consciousness

Although it also may free up time for education and fuel class consciousness.

Its a tough one

more third world sustenance converted into breadcrumbs for the labour aristocracy

So you 'socialists' oppose a measure that would makes workers lives better cause its not Full Communism™? I suggest you're being dishonest. I think you know UBI is a good idea and indeed the only thing feasible to deal with the wave of automation. So I think there are other more ideological reasons you oppose it.

That's exactly where it will come from. There and savings from other bennies and administration. I costed it roughly for the UK. To give every adult £700/month you need to find 150bn in new taxes or saving.

Rent control.

so you'd rather see every worker in the west first reduced to the level of an asian slave labourer? Go fuck yourself.

Being mostly financed by already-existing money (through, say, progressive taxation), why would an UBI cause inflation?

Porky can easily make UBI worthless through inflation, rent, interest and insurance hikes.

The same exact thing happened with the minimum wage. If you're really serious about this you need to advocate for UBI to be written into the constitution like the 5th amendment.

It's gotta be absolutely impossible to fuck with for it to have any chance to work

Required reading

It's opposed because it would only facilitate further rentier ism, among other things. It does nothing to emancipate the proletariat, and when the ubi becomes their only source of income will just enslave them to whoever provides it. Among numerous other reasons.

Read zizek

That makes as much sense as conservatives saying welfare "enslave" people to the State.

Social Security is not equivalent to welfare.

There's nothing to oppose, user. Any actually existing UBI can be nothing but an empty shell. It can't, no matter if we oppose it or not.

Who is dogmatic now?

Communist revolution is the only thing feasible to put an end to capitalism's plagues.

Where exactly do you think the money for ubi if going to come from? The government? After all the effort that's been put into the austerity scam? Porky nearly had a stroke when the sandman advocated capitalism friendly Scandinavian "socialism". If ubi comes it's going to be in the form of company scrip, with workers going from wage slavery to actual slavery.

Use your fucking brain.

Capitalist states do not pass measure s "that would makes workers lives better". They never have, and they never will.

The only measures that may look that way were compromises conceded by Porky under pressure of an actual proletarian struggle, with the sole objective of disarming the proletariat before it can, not obtain from the state, but pass itself, in an authoritarian way, the only actual socialist measures: the revolutionary ones.

That's simply not true. Post-war social security in Europe, for example, did much to significantly decrease absolute poverty. That's one of the reason we don't have shantytowns here anymore.

You know, you can be an anti-capitalist and still have nuance.

From that perspective, any demand is useless on the basis that the government might not be okay with it. If we don't fight for it, there certainly won't be any UBI — that's for sure.

tl;dr The only way to obtain an UBI beneficial to workers would be a class movement strong enough to give us Full Communism™ anyway.

The only measures that may look that way were compromises conceded by Porky under pressure of an actual proletarian struggle, with the sole objective of disarming the proletariat before it can, not obtain from the state, but pass itself, in an authoritarian way, the only actual socialist measures: the revolutionary ones.

What country are you from?

How'd you mean?

The world is not ready for communism unless you're suggesting 'socialism in one country' which I'd be all for.

And you are right. That doesn't mean the government didn't end up enacting policies that made workers' lives better, which you claimed earlier. And just like those policies, UBI would require proletarian struggle to be a possibility.



Then I guess there is a 50% chances you can read this:

A way to avoid a revolution when it seemed possible.

A way to avoid a revolution when it seemed possible.

A way to avoid a revolution when it seemed possible.

All ways to avoid making workers' lives as better as they could have been at the time.

Interesting read. However, it doesn't really prove my point wrong: sure, there still exist shantytowns to this day, but they are a marginal phenomenon that can't be compared to what had existed earlier.

I doubt so. Globalisation has kept going its way since WW2, and a whole lot of workers have been integrated in the capitalist mode of production. So if you could somehow consider the situation of the first world's proletariat, or even of a specific country's proletariat at the time, nowadays this makes no sense anymore: you have to consider the global proletariat.

And anyway, as I said, all of these "improvements" were made at the expense of the better improvements that seemed possible at the time.

It will simply be a measure to keep capitalism going.

How do you come to this conclusion? UBI is easy. It could be implemented overnight if the will was there. No need for societal change or a period of socialist revolution.

So are you people honestly saying if your country offered you a referendum on UBI tomorrow you would vote no? You people are sick in the head.

I was just about to say this. I would argue that it's a concession by capitalism when it can no longer use social norms to bully people into compliance. All it will do is plant capitalism deeper.

You're not thinking it through user, it's an ethical dilemma. If we vote for it, we are hypocrites for perpetuating a system that we openly believe is the source of societal ills. If we vote against it, we are causing more suffering for a significant number of people to further a political agenda, which is Mautist tankie logic. Only winning move is not to play and work with whatever the result is.

I see what you're saying but I think there's more to it than that for most of those who strongly oppose it ITT. There's nothing to say you can't want communism in the long run and take what small victory you can in the meantime. Besides, if Marx was right then communism is inevitable anyway no?

Socialists compromised in the 30s and we got nearly a century more of capitalist domination.

You can't compromise with capitalism.

he didn't mean it in the determinist sense

So you now advocate making life worse for the working class in the hope that they get pissed and revolution with you?

That's accelerationists for you. They somehow believe that worse conditions for the working class necessarily means they'll turn towards socialism. "Let proles wallow in the mud, surely that will bring about revolution!"

On the other hand, an UBI is actually more likely to make people increasingly class conscious by re-configuring how actors enter into relationships within the labour market in a way that highlights the asymmetry of power at play.

Nice false dichotomy. I guess you're right though. It definitely is an improvement that social security let's our old people only have to work part time at Wal Mart until they die instead of full time. Gg

UBI is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
When unemployment is high enough it should be the natural progression to move towards Socialism, and then Communism.
UBI is designed to keep a bastardized system running for as long as possible.

Are you brain dead or did you somehow completely miss the whole twentieth century and the unprecedented increase in prosperity the working class enjoyed? All it did was strengthen the illusion that capitalism was functional, and now we live in a wasteland of capital. All ubi does is guarantee consumers for the bourgeoise. Putting capital on life support helps no one but the ultra wealthy.

Jesus Christ, spare us the incompetence of reformists!

You do not understand. We can't make life worse. We can't make life better either. We do not have a say in the matter because live in a dictatorship of capital. And the capital will not let anything threaten its profits unless we force it to – that is: if we replace the capital dictatorship by a proletarian one. But if we do that, we wouldn't limit ourselves to a UBI. The bourgeoisie knows that, which is why, every time we seem to be able to win a complete victory, it tries to undermine us with what may look like a small victory, but is in fact a setback.

That's why we don't oppose the UBI by itself, but the idea that the UBI should be a goal for our struggles.

The more we hold it off, the harder it will be until it may very well be impossible.

Not literally.

UBI is impossible - at least, without credible threat.

Now, if USSR was around, you might've gotten UBI - but would've lost it once USSR wasn't anymore. Or if population itself was armed and organized - it might've pulled off UBI.

This is why there is no need to fear UBI: it's not going to happen until Revolution will be breathing down Capitalist neck. And they will be unable to pull it off, it's that late down the line - nobody will believe them.

No, you have to seize the means of production before automation.

If you don't then the UBI is the perfect plan of porky for proletarian pacification. Everyone gets lumpenized while robots take over the economy. That includes the army. Then the bourgeois regime only has to engage in exterminism as it doesn't need the meatbag workers anymore.

That's why you need to seize the means of production first, and if you do, we won't need UBI anyway, because then we can reach "according to needs" (according to ability won't exist with full automation).

UBI is a trick to extend porky while he replaces the proletariat by automating his means of production. Then we're redundant, and it's curtains. This is why reformism is garbage. This is why we need revolution NOW.

Perhaps you missed the past 30 years where everyone but the 1% has seen their living standard plunge as multinationals rape their nation for resources then move somewhere cheaper once they've shot their load. If you had ANY semblance of a plan now would be the time to strike. But you don't. You people here are more interested in the intricacies of theory and ideological purity to think in any pragmatic way. So instead you attack something that would help the workers for not being radical enough.

This is why Holla Forums wins.

So you are brain damaged, okay.

You would have been right even five years ago. But the new wave of populist nationalism is taking the game away from the entrenched political class and their terrified. Unless the manistream parties evolve and offer something drastically different, they're going to be wiped off the political landscape. UBI is just one of the policy ideas considered unthinkable 10 years ago that I expect vote-chasers to endorse over the next decade.

Why can left/pol/ not accept criticism? Seriously you all consider youreslf intelligent, worldly and solid debaters but you're all fucking children.

Going back to what you said,

The alternative is suffering for the working class. Why do you endorse this?

The alternative is revolution.

Because the working class will become compliant with the capitalist

Remind us again when or where did this happen, Holla Forumsyp

Both of your shitty options lead to suffering for the working class you dumb idiot

But the revolution must be global amirite? Yeah. Good luck finding common ground with the 2bn muslims who are now one of the largest groups on the planet.

Explain to me how UBI hurts the working class. If I'm being paid £800 a month to sit on my ass I'm sure as hell not going to bust a gut for minimum wage in some shitty menial job. If porky wants his shelves stacked he can pay me better for it or hire a robo-mexican.

You get paid 800porkypoints a month in ubi. Your rent is now 800 pp a month. Because you have ubi you now do not receive any food or heating or education assistance. Now you either have to take whatever job you can get or starve. Enjoy your ubi, prole.

And that's besides doing nothing to alleviate the primary contradictions of capitalism, etc.

As has been explained your dumb ass numerous times in this thread.

Genuinely curious here… Why would rent suddenly rise?

inb4 things that never happened, i know people reasoning like that.


And before somebody memes me, yes I am suggesting rent control to be brought in at the same time as UBI.

To add to this, f you want basic income to succeeed, you would also need to control the prices and rents, or else you would engage in an unending inflation race (I doubt any State could win this game.).

But controling the prices and rent would be attacking the profits, which would be Casus belli for Porky. So in the end you have to fight capitalism anyway…

Right, with a certain endpoint in mind, as opposed to fighting for some nebulous, often internally contradictory utopian fantasy. UBI is attainable. Communism is not nor will it ever be, nor is it desirable.

I don't know about where you live, but in the majority of America rent control is nonexistent. Renters rights are practically nonexistent as well, so if you enjoy the prospect of suddenly finding yourself homeless because you're threatening to cut into your landlord's profits, then go for it.

You're right, it isn't impossible to institute rent control, but for numerous reasons it would be difficult to implement. Not the least of which is due to the rate of profit to fall, many small landlords tend to conglomerate into singular large landlords, providing them with an outsized economic influence and resources, which you would be contributing to by virtue of leasing any of their property since in most places as well refusing to pay your landlord for any reason is illegal.

Even if you were able to have rent controls implemented in some areas, that won't impede landlords from others, and eventually their expansion would necessitate undermining those protections.

So you have an enemy whose power only grows while yours remains static, if not diminishing.

You're retarded.

That would be a problem indeed. Aren't there mechanisms capable of dealing with that issue?

UK. Same here. But UBI doesn't exist yet either. They'd be brought in together with the rent control explicitly designed to stop landlords hiking up prices. If I was actually in a position of power I'd be building a shit-ton of houses as the housing shortage in teh UK is beyond a joke. More houses may allow people to get a mortgage.

And how would you have us make people go on strike? We do not lack a plan; we lack an organisation to enforce it. And why? Because people are mislead by people like you into believing in reformism and reformist organisations.

We do not attack UBI. We do not have the power to attack UBI, and you don't have the power to defend it either. You, me, "the people", have no say in the matter. If a thing called "UBI" ever come into existence it won't be your call or the people's call: it will be the bourgeoisie's call. On the bourgeoisie's terms (obviously not beneficial to the workers). Because it is the bourgeoisie that holds all the power in the capitalist society. There is no way around that fact.

So no, we do not attack the UBI, because we know we do not have such power. What we attack is you, you who fall for the illusion that you can somehow defend "your" UBI, a UBI beneficial to the workers, and contribute to make it a reality; you who spread this illusion among the workers; you who are thus an obstacle to the rise of class consciousness and the growth of actual proletarian organisations; you who will not make the workers' lives better, but worse, by delaying the revolution.

At last you unfold yourself!

I'm more Holla Forums than a 'dirty reformist' but I accept you lot are right about some things. I disagree that communism is the answer. Communism is unworkable without an authoritarian body governing things. I'm all for shit like reducing the working week through tech and not forcing people to choose between slave labour or starvation. But I disagree with yous on 'worker owned memes of production' as I think this too would be unworkable.

So must be the production of your t-shirt, your car and your computer – that is, if you wanna be able to afford them.

One of the very points of communism is that it is stateless.

As opposed to the "workability" of private ownership of the means of production?

Yeah? And how are you planning on getting these rent controls passed? Or preventing other sorts of rentierism? You haven't explained how your ubi is going to help the workers when the overarching structure is still in place exploiting them, or even where this ubi money is going to be coming from.

This is why I say it won't work.

The system that has facilitated mass global industrialisation? Not ideal but it does the job.

Nice deflection. But anyway, there are cars and clothes made in teh UK right now. They're not unafforable. Til a few months ago 90% of PCBs in the world were made in the UK by a British company. They seemed affordable enough. I thought that as a socialist you'd understand that 'affordability' is a lie. They want to move to Asia cause they can cut their costs by a large chunk. Funny that these products remain the same price…

Oh good, it's another "I don't know what communism is but let me tell you why it will never work" newfag.

And where do you think these long working weeks and this forced choice come from?

Are you sure it isn't a strawman or dinner other pol buzzword you meme loving fuck?

Some other buzzword*

I imagine porky will make it so we spend 100% of our basic income on the least amount of products for the maximum profit, which will mean we won't do well.

And I think what you described is porky at his normal. Other schemes will be far worse imagine

fully automated luxury communism is the only situation where UBI is going to be any good.

Realistically? Democratically. Campaign on the very platform of UBI and rent control, take it to a national referendum if parliament won't play ball.

I don't know what you mean by other forms of renterism.

How extra money helps workers? I have to explain this to you? Fine then. I will.

If I'm getting £800 a month, and this is enough to live on then I won't take a shitty job at minimum wage. If the employer wants this shitty work done he must pay me better. The other side is that UBI would allow people to cut back their hours, so one 40 hour a week role could become 2 20 hour per week roles.

I've costed it roughly before. UBI in the UK of £700/month, for every adult, would cost 400bn a year. We currently spend like 200bn a year plus on welfare. Current welfare would be scrappedn and repalced with UBI. So this leaves 200bn or so. I am assuming we've paid down the national debt, so this is another 50bn a year (that we currently pay in debt interest). This leaves a shortfall of 150bn. This would be made up in increase in top level tax and corporation tax. UBI would also increase consumer spending (more disposable income). In the UK, VAT is 20%. So of the 400bn a year given out in UBI, expect 50-80bn back in VAT. Now we're looking at a cost of about 30bn to find from top level tax. Hardly impossible if I can do this on pen and paper.

Co communism isn't a 'moneyless, classless, stateless' society? My bad then.

No I say what I mean. You my friend seem incapable of doing so. This doens't surprise me given so many here are literal children.

Also, good answer.

I was unclear. I didn't mean to insist on affordability, nor did I mean to make a deflection. I wanted to make you realise that capitalism is international already. You do not share the same culture, language or religion than most people in the world, but that doesn't keep you from buying their products and selling them yours: capitalism is completely integrated, it is global. So the global character of the
revolution is not some kind of utopian fancy of ours; it is a consequence of the actual, global character of capitalism itself.

It is.

Right and the 'stateless' bit is why I think it won't work. But that's another thread.

I know that it is international. To me, 'globalism' is the push for CLOSER integration. I see the EU as a model for globalism, as do the EU themselves, if they'll never word it as such. As I see it a part of this push is the dilution of homogenic nations and cultures into one grey global consumerist mass. This is what I oppose.

The same goes for your opposition to "globalism" as for your support to UBI: it's an illusion. You do not have a say in the matter.

You really need to realise that the whole "democracy" is a complete mystification.

Illusion huh? So I just imagined jobs being shipped out or the UN push for fugees in the west?

Hence, Trump and Brexit? I agree that the system is stacked against the common man but this can be overcome.

Given your disdain for democracy, how do you plan on communisming?

No, the illusion lies in your belief that you "opposition" can have any effect on these.

No it can't. The states we live in, no matter what fancy names they call themselves, are, by all intent and purpose, dictatorships of the capital.

I have no disdain for democracy; I just know it cannot exist in capitalism.

With another dictatorship: a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I notice you ignore the point about to very recent elections that went against the will of the global elite. Maybe the game isn't as stitched up as you think.

I've yet to read a convincing argument against UBI that goes beyond 'it's hard to do'. Which isn't an argument given you all endorse communism, which is even harder to do.

It's because the policy that will result of these elections will not go against the will of capitalists.

Communism is not'' harder to do than UBI.

That isn't an answer. "We'll vote on it" doesn't explain how you're going to get this passed in the face of the very real business opposition to it, even if we limit the discussion to landlords alone. You might as well say you'll wave your magic wand.

You still haven't explained how this is going to actually help workers. I guess policy is real easy when you can just wish away mitigating circumstances, but simply giving people more money isn't going to fix the problems that required this increase of income in the first place.

I don't know what the circumstances are in the UK, but I imagine it's followed the same neoliberal policies of wage stagnation and credit loading. Sure the increased income will ease the burden, but the idea that people will suddenly be able to just quit their jobs is fantastic at best. Especially these low wage, menial jobs like McDonald's, etc, which we are seeing increasingly automated. If anything the ubi will act like the advent of the two income hinge did and justify a further freezing of wages because now they can justify it with the added income from the ubi.

Combine that with other things people have said itt, like increased interest rates, increased prices, and so on, and you've done nothing to explain how the ubi will translate into a sustained improvement for workers when the entire point of capitalism is to drain then of as much wealth as possible as quickly as possible.

Neither does your next section explain where the money will be coming from, especially with your fantasy of not having a national debt. You seem to assume too that corporations and the wealthy will be content to let you tax them. We already know that they have the resources to use our create every kind of loophole to escape paying any sort of tax at all, whether it's putting their wealth in the Bahamas, it all the rest of the crooked schemes that translate their incredible wealth into they're accounting poverty, especially since you posit that ubi will translate into both higher corporate taxes as well as higher wages.

Getting rid of the national debt also doesn't make any sense in the context of an international economy. The UK is going to be hemorrhaging money as this income flows out into the pockets of international corporations, and without an international line of credit to fund domestic expansion domestic growth will grind to a hault.

Your entire ubi "solution" relies on magical thinking that would require capitalism to it operate in a fundamentally different way than it does in reality. You don't offer any solutions for the problems that have been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread. You just want capitalism without the reality of capitalism, which means immiseration and impoverishment for the working class.

how is Trump's election "against the will of the global elite" lol

I think he means brexit

Brexit is actually an excellent example of the mystification that is capitalist "democracy": the bilateral agreement that will soon be signed between the UK and the EU will be plain "business as usual".

Maybe you've missed the desperate scramble from one side to preserve the status quo. May knows that this will not be tolerated. But sure lad. Crack on. Keep telling yourself that nothing has changed. I'm sure you'll still be telling yourself that when the RWDS kick down your front door too.


Any time a country actually tries to buck the status quo it's severely chastised. What makes you think the UK is so special that if it did anything to disrupt the order of capital that it wouldn't face retribution


whereas >>1100470

were just the pinnacle of debate.

I explained to you what happens. The tradnionally powerful parties in the west are done. Fineto. They may maintan another cycle or two but the writing is on the wall. The only way they'll hold on to what they really really love is offering extremes in their manifestos. Like Cameron offering a referendum of Brexit. And see how that played out. If Labour or the tories don't offer UBI, UKIP or the Lib Dems will. It's now a matter of when not if.

Well I explicitly did, but I'll do so again, just for you.

UBI is designed to cover the basic costs of living. This means that people will no longer be forced to accept a shitty job with poor conditions and 40+ hours a week to make ends meet. This cost is already covered. This puts the worker in a stronger position. If he isn't happy with his work, conditions or pay he can negotiate. Starvation is no longer the alternative. IT will also allow workers to cut back their hours if they choose, creating more jobs.

Sure is., Wages today are lower than they were in 2003.

If UBI covers your rent and food, are you going to work 40 hours a week in McDonalds? Probably not. Some might choose to but again, as I say. UBI means the choice is no longer between slavery and starvation.

I don't accept this would happen.

Luxuary goods would go up. It's not like a Mars Bar is going to suddenly cost you £800.

Do you accept that for some people UBI will allow a reduction in hours? Well extrapolate from here. If people are 'good' (ie will not just go full leech, ie the presupposition for communism) then the time freed up by UBI can go to personal improvement or a worthwhile hobby. Or just legalise and tax all drugs. I'm happy either way.

I LITERALLY costed it above. The money we're talking about is 150-200bn. This would come from an increase in taxes (top level and corporation), closing loopholes.

Fantasy how? Sure it has to be paid back. This is not impossible. Just hard. Yes I'm making a few assumptins. But nowhere near as big as the assumptions that underly this entire board.

Yes I do know. A review of tax law, this time without PWC and co penning the laws would be required.

I'm not saying have zero debt always and forever. I am saying 90% GDP with 60bn a year IN DEBT INTEREST (this is more than our military budget to put this in perspective) is undesirable and unsustainable.

lel really?

Quit shirkin', git lurkin'.

I fully expect {{{them}}} to kike us hard. I accept the suffering they will impose as worthwhile. Are you saying it's not even worth trying or that only communism is worth trying for? Either way I disagree.

Repeating the same debunked shit that people have been refuting all thread long doesn't make them right retard. Maybe you can use your ubi to buy yourself a clue.

What will not be tolerated for May is to go against UK capital's interests, and she knows it.

It's amazing how so many people keep clinging on the very "democracy" that has been literally raping them for 200 years.

None of it has been refuted unless you consider 'big mean capitalists won't allow it' refutation, which I don't and present as evidence Brexit and Trump.

You clearly have nothing at this stage, which brings me back to what I said here

Want a bet? I bet you that Brexit will be of the hard variety, that is free movement stopped and out the single market. Course we don't know yet but writing off everything I've said cause of what you think will be the outcome is pretty weak, even for left/pol/.

This comment pisses me off. What specifically have you refuted. And I mean actually refuted, not just opined on.

More because of what has always been the outcome until now.

And as I've said loads of times ITT, the old order is losing its grip. You who don't see this are in denial, and missing a golden opportunity.

All you have been talking about is parties losing elections.

Stay mad faggot.

Yup. The established parties. Creating space for new parties and new ideas. Is this really so hard to understand?

Do you think what I am saying, re old parties losing their power is true or not?

Another blinding argument by left/pol/. gg.

But this is not some part of UBI in a definition shared among UBI advocates. Which is why you need a term that mentions cost-of-living adjustments and something that applies price controls to the commodity basket without micro-managing it, that is something like the Market Anti-inflation Plan by Lerner and Colander, and the package also has to include limits to how much landlords can get. The term must be an abbreviation and not something like XGHFJTYYS, but something you can say, like with COLA for cost-of-living adjustment.

I disrespectfully disagree.

Yes, they will reach agreements to do the same as before, with these agreements having new names.


So you're against UBI because nobody specified other elements that will have to go with it? Weak reasoning my man.


Of course the transition to socialism is far more complicated than your post suggests no? So in practical terms, yes. UBI is easier.

Because you say so? The tories offered the referendum cause UKIP were chasing them to the right on immigration. Expect much more of this populism. Hell, look at the upcoming Euro elections. Greet is looking good for Netherlands. Le Pen is on the same odds to win as Trump was at this stage. Austria is about to elect a fairly right wing anti-immigration party. But keep telling me its more of the same.

Oh I understand perfectly well. My mistake was to think you had at last understood what I told you time and again. I realise now you still haven't.

So please let me rephrase it for you. See, when you say:
No, I don't think this is true. Why? Because these parties never had power in the first place. There are pawns of capital, currently being replaced by other pawns of capital. You see, it is not a figure of speech when I say we are living in a dictatorship of capital. You talk about "new ideas": but running a capitalist state is not about "implementing ideas"; it is about enforcing policies according to the material necessities of capital.

You really should try and reconsider everything you think you know about "democracy".

I've not seen a single solid argument against UBI in this entire thread aside from 'they won't allow it'. Pretty funny given the entire board is centered around an idea that they really won't allow. So just to be clear, your magical thinking is A-ok but my more reasoned isn't?

If you haven't found a single solid argument against ubi in this thread then you either haven't looked or are too stupid to argue with anyway.

My money's on stupid

The difference is we do not expect them to allow communism.

We already have produced more than we need. We don't have production problems in America, we have distribution problems.

18,600,000 vacant homes in the United States. Enough for every homeless person to have six! Approximately 3.5 million people in the U.S. are homeless, many of them veterans. It is worth noting that, at the same time, there are 18.6 million vacant homes in the country.

How much food is wasted in the US?
Approximately 40 percent of food in the U.S. goes to waste. Food and Agriculture Organization.
Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tons — gets lost or wasted.

We also have 253 million cars
253 million cars and trucks on U.S. roads; average age is 11.4 years. The average age of cars on U.S. roads is 11.4 years, IHS Automotive reports. The average age of vehicles on U.S. roads has hit a plateau of about 11.4 years, according to an annual study by IHS Automotive, an auto industry research firm.

As 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States.

So we even have more cars than adults and you're telling me we couldn't afford to provide everyone with food, shelter, and transportation?

My car is thirteen years old ;~;

What do you mean by "will have to go with it"? Do you mean that they must go with it, because they automatically follow? Like in the sentence: "If Bob jumps off a cliff headfirst, his legs will also go off the cliff, since they are connected with Bob." If anybody tries to implement UBI, the additional needed rules against landlords and for inflation control will automatically happen, guaranteed? Because I don't see that.

Or do you mean it in the sense that they should go with it, since UBI will be surely a failure without that stuff (not implying that it will work with it, just that I'm sure it won't work without)? In that case, I agree with you, and I also think that is very foolish to not advocate for these elements and it is foolish to not put that in the name. Because there are vested interests out there that don't want UBI to work in the sense that you delusional bleeding-heart liberals want it to work. And they will use the opportunity, no, they are already using it, to advocate this non-working UBI. And you are supporting them, whether that is your intent or not, by spreading that fuzzy term, UBI.


In what way does it not work? I thought you all agreed it was desirable but the big mean capitalists just wouldn't allow it?

They are not mean: they simply act in their own interest.

UBI won't change any of that. All that stuff is private property of porky. If porky didn't mind letting all that surplus value rot under his ownership why would they care after UBI.

UBI won't make any of that property come into poor people's hands. All porky has to do is raise prices and he'll preserve ownership of all those empty homes.

What might work better is if you forced banks, farmers and factories to put all their inventory on the market to bring prices down.

Even then it would be temporary since theyd just stop producing.

You can have UBI with some kind price/rent control. And some control of the MoP to keep porky from throttling output to create scarcity


Only if the government was talking on new debt or printing money to fund it.

So wait, why wouldn't it work? Or is it just something you consider undesirable?

UBI can be funded through progressive taxation (among other things). It doesn't need to print new money, already-existing money can be transferred.

Besides, not every pumping of newly-printed money into the economy causes visible increase in prices.

housing might alternatively end up being provided only by corporations as "employee housing," where you'll end up effectively needing a job just to get an apartment. when you lose the job, you lose the apartment, so the UBI you have doesn't really matter

Now you're strawmanning. Seems to me that UBI is perfectly practicable. People here reject it because it would require secure borders ie. nationalism.

pls respond

From whom and by whom?

From largest corporations and richest individuals to everybody via the government.

But it is their government.

Surely you're now just being obtuse?

Let me try again.

Government of UK raises top rate tax from 40 to 50%. Corporation tax increased by 5%. Close tax loopholes and hit the Virgin Islands for the tax due on $30 trillion in hidden assets.

Government then takes this money and distributes it between every adult living in the UK.

Unless you meant {{{their}}} government?

Nice fairy tail.

Now back to reality: the government doesn't do such things. The government serves capital.

This is not a solid case against UBI. Governments have had tax rates at over 80% in the UK in living memory. So yes, they can. If you are suggesting that they won't, even in the face of popular will, then all the more reason you should support it no? Think about it. 60% of the UK wants UBI. Gov says no. this 60% are now radicalised.

I've read every post in this thread and still cannot fathom why left/pol/ is so hostile to the idea.

The only rationale I can see is that

A) UBI gives capitalism a lifeline
This however suggests the revolution is just around the corner. It's not.

B) You know it is only practical on a nation-by-nation basis and thus would require a nationalist government.

Either way you disgust me.

- Was this tax effective?
- How was the money used?
- How did the government come to create such a tax?

well yes it got us out the debt hole that ww2 left us in.

Paying debt and rebuilding London

So sure, the rebuilding after the war was what allowed them to set it this high. But I'#m not saying we need it that high. 50% would likely cover UBI. I don't buy at all this 'the government won't be allowed to do it' argument. I think it's intellectually dishonest desu.


More that 150 posts in, the intellectuals at left/pol/ still don't have any valid criticisms of UBI beyond affordability which I've tried to show isn't that drastic an issue. The best part is there are decent practical arguments against it. You just seem collectively incapable of voicing them.

Explain to me anyway how me saying UBI and rent control being on a party's manifesto is magical thinking but GLOBAL PROLE REVOLUTION NOW isn't.

So basically, your 80% tax was destined to capital.

We told you time and again: you need the threat of a revolution to get measures "that make workers'lives better".

you disgust me

fuggin capitalists, rebuilding houses and funding the NHS…

Well sticking with the UK I think it's safe to say things would need to get MCUH worse before violent revolution happens. But we do enjoy poking the establishment in the eye. If a small party who were never meant to be anywhere near government came out with a proposal of UBI, they would do very well. Call it a 'democratic revolution'.

Assuming this to be true (and it seems fair enough), why the insistence ITT on all or nothing as opposed to incremental change. Do you people ITT who reject UBI think the world is ready for communism?

Rebuilding factories yeah. Today there's nothing to rebuild (yet).

Then, as a consequence, things would need to get much worse before your beloved UBI happens.

… and then betray this proposal. Seriously, have you learned nothing in 200 years? There is no democracy. None whatsoever! If you want to make workers' lives better, you need to organise them and make them do by force. No election, no clever proposal, no "small party who were never meant to be anywhere near government" will magically make things better.

I disagree but we're talking in circles at this stage. You refuse point blank to consider any situation where democracy can bring about change, despite the examples from major votes this very year.

Who are you to say what the FN or AfD may do. Or even a newly formed Socialist Party. If you never try.

Major votes, no change. As always.

People like you have been trying reformism for centuries! Learn fucking history for God's sake.

La dictature c'est « ferme ta gueule », la démocratie c'est « cause toujours ».

So you don't consider Trump and Brexit fairly significant results? I've not doubt that {{{they}}} willtry get their claws in and dilute the platforms both won on, but if they do that the backlash will just be all the greater. I was looking at some stats from teh US election the other night. Found this one. Pretty telling.

Well we don't have workhouses in the UK anymore.

In what language must we tell you that election results are never significant?

Your faith in so-called "democracy" is really astounding. Even more astounding is how "rebellious" you probably think you are in spite of that.

What backlash? Another "major election result"? I'm sure Porky is scared to death right now.

Thanks to actual struggles. And you would have communism in UK right if it wasn't for reformists like you.

The fact that so many people manage to see "an enemy of the system" in… a fucking billionaire (!!!) never ceases to amaze me.

>p-please believe democracy is a hoax based off of unsubstantiated opinions an 8channer told you user, please ;__; muh ideology relies on it!

socdem for life

Why don't we both substantiate our claims?

I'll begin: 2005, EU treaty referendum in France.

Your turn.

So, to sum up, OP agrees that the things mentioned in this thread, tight rent and price regulations, would be necessary to get UBI to work, OP admits that nobody in the UBI camp is advocating for these things, while OP also maintains that he hasn't seen any proper argument against UBI in this thread?


Sorry, I had a brain fart. He's not OP, though he IS a fagot.

Universal basic income is a trap the same way Obamacare was; it was never meant to be a single-payer National Health Service-style system. That would have destroyed a greater part of the private insurance market and a source of revenue for finance and biotech companies, two big sectors that support the Democrats.

It is a scheme designed to fail by virtue of not producing the same amount of commodities that we would need in order to keep our "market strength," which in the capitalist system means to borrow money or sell bonds.

Porky can run the economy into the ground for all he cares. He has the actual wealth, the land the tools, the means of production. He can survive off his surplus for far longer than we can starve him out. All he has to do is juggle the numbers a bit and deficits will disappear into mediocre financial products that he can then amortize using your labor.

This is the same shit that happened in south africa and other third-world countries that tried to escape the domination of the first world; lets let the incompetent niggers run the country into the ground, then take over when they come begging for help after the economic crisis we've engineered starves them into submission.

Here, read Zizek;

This is what Zizek was saying; what happens after UBI and how will its administration be steered? You can give help to the poor and later call them shiftless welfare niggers to turn the workers who don't need it against each other, that is, themselves.

Same question for after the revolution.

Exactamundo. Decades of right wing talk radio have dirtied the term welfare in people's minds so it needs to be rebranded, so these self hating Aryan welfare queens can sleep at night.

Which is then a stepping stone to price controls and etc.

Also we need to do something about this "IRA: You da porky now!" Meme.

Face it you will never own a controlling share in a publicly listed company. Get over yourself.

I assume you mean me.

Yes I proposed them.

True but nobody has got as far as seriously putting forward a proposal for UBI yet.

These are not arguments against it. Just things that have to be kept in mind when you consider it. Certainly if I'm ever shilling for it rent control is part of the package.

Yeah the US isn't ready for UBI and you have bigger things to fight for first anyway, like complete healthcare reform.

Would left/pol/ support a UBI that incorporated rent and other price controls or are there other issues you have with it?

No because with control over the MoP porky can just throttle output. This would creat scarcity and prices would rise and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

A much better proposal would be to nationalize the FIRE economy (Finance Insurance, and Real Estate).

It wouldn't change capitalism but it's the type of reform that would dramatically bring down porkys power

I don't think basic goods would increase drastically in price. I'm talking about food, clothes. The kind of thing that they could make much more of if they were so inclined. Luxury goods would probably get more expensive but I can live without an iPhone tbh.

I think you're 'all or nothing' attitude is regressive tbh fam.

I've not seen opposition this strong to UBI anywhere else on the net, and I've been looking for a while.

Even lefty publications are cautiously optimistic.

That's what will happen given the idiots that are elected to run our govs. This is half of why it won't work.

This is the other half of why it won't work. UBI shouldn't shouldn't cost jack shit.

The idea, in a way, CAN logically work. For fucks sake all you have to realize is that money is a recognition of your labor and a claim to someone else's labor.

Medicine, education, arts, etc. Are the very sections of society where capital can be kicked out and labor recognized DIRECTLY as social without mediation of markets with no fucking problem. No inflation, no fictitious value, it's real labor and it's really necessary since people want it and need it despite themselves being unable to afford it. It doesn't natter where the money comes from so long as it recognizes real work. Housing can be public, none of these rent parasites, etc.

Universal Basic income is stupid, it either requires heavy taxation (makes capital contract and kill itself), causes inflation, or its so designed as to solve nothing and make.things even worse.

A basic necessity is housing. What's to keep landlords from rasing rent to match UBI.

Or for that matter all goods and services. You fundamentally misunderstand capital. It's not real, and it can change at porkys whim. For all the problems of the welfare state at least it grounded in materialism.

You put poor people completely at the mercy of the market and they will starve

C'est quoi le rapport ?

Like I said nationalizing the FIRE economy is a way better proposal. But since that would actually diminish porky power it's never talked about.

The FIRE economy is already half socialized. We bailed out the banks, the public gets to own losses of the banks, just none of the profits

Rent control. We've been over this.

I disagree that this would happen. Luxury goods would increase in price, normal consumer goods would just see an increase in sales volume.

How is this any different to current welfare? Another thing for me in support of UBI, is that somebody who works full time should make more than someone on benefits, regardless of disability or circumstance. UBI deals with this too.

You really, REALLY don't want to nationalise City of London style finance. As you say next,

The public debt in the UK is 1.8tn. Include city of london debt though and this figure jumps to 9tn. The financial services industry is an illusion. Derivatives, futures markets. Fucking voodoo. If you're going to nationalise things you want your nations strategic industries part nationalised.

Yes we do, North Dakota in the US set up a state owned bank and it has been tremendously successful at serving the public, all the interest it collects goes back into the state instead of some multinational private corp.

There's been tons of other state owned banks with similar success in the US.

One of the major reasons Iran has collapsed into another dictatorial shit hole is their brand of fundamentalism prohibits interest collection.

Interest is still charged to control money supply but it's all confiscated by the state, and its invested back into the public practically all their men go to college because it's free.

They've had sanctions on them for years but their economy is going, and they're military strength is still a thorn in the side of western porkys

I've been over this, you still refuse to explain how UBI won't be completely naturalized by inflation, rent and insurance rate hikes. Pro tip it will.

Even porkies know expanding the money supply without expanding available goods leads to inflation.

Just because something is one the market doesn't mean a prole can realistically own it

Setting up a new bank and appropriating a quadrillion dollars of futures and derivitives are two entirely differnet things. I'd be all for a new national investment bank, a la Corbyn but you DO NOT want the CoL. As soon as you own it, you have to play by the rules (which the current financiers avoid). A crash would be inevitable if it was properly regulated and the public debt liability would jump four-fold.

wut? Iran went shithole cause islamic fundamentalists took over. You really don't need to look any deeper. Libya's currently was interest free and Libya was the richest nation in Africa. Besides, as you acknowledge, with all Irans' problems, they're still head and shoulders above the regional average in terms of tech, research, advanced industry and the likes. Hell they have a space program.

t. economist? Cause if not you should be as you're predicting the opposite to what most economsts who coinsider UBI predict.

I don't want to drown you in links but basically nowhere is predicting that inflation will anything like offset UBI. The only real place I see this being a concern is in London (or any other city with a housing bubble). My solution here would be more social housing.

The point you seem to be missing re inflation is that this isn't meant to be new money. It would be from a balanced budget. But even when the US did QE to the tune of 3tn, there was no noticeable inflation.

There is room for debate over inflation when looking at UBI but refusing to debate it based on your opinion of what you think will happen isn't very mature.

I disagree with a lot of what I read here but am able to consider these ideas.

The best part about the ubi "solution" besides all the magical thinking required to accomplish it are all the other "solutions" required to make it work

It's almost like income isn't the root problem and instead it's the predatory effects of capitalism at play

Its almost like posters on this board aren't interested in solutions and instead are more interested in a pseudo-intelectual circle-jerk.

Do you honestly think Full Communism is more attainable than UBI? No. Good. Now the question should be 'can UBI make people's lives better?'. The answer here is Yes. So the final question is why are socialists SO opposed to a measure that can make workers lives better IN THE IMMEDIATE TERM?

But go on. What Magical thinking is required?

Even if income isn't the root of the problem, is income disparity and relative poverty not worth fighting anyway?

It's almost like this poster isn't interested in answers that conflict with his ideology and instead is more interested in being jerked off about how right he believes he is.

If these solutions result in more social housing and price controls on rent, why is this a bad thing? Why not embrace it and bring a lefty version of UBI to the table, that has all the previsions mentioned ITT and others rolled into it?

I cannot comprehend the hostility to the idea here, an idea that was received here far better just three or four months ago. Like did I miss the memo where UBI was declared anathema to lefty-ism?

lad I've responded to every post directed at me with links, evidence or when asked my opinion. You shower of bastards have just hit me with a wall of insults and spookposts.

I ask again. What magical thinking is involved in UBI.


If a ship is sinking is it worth it to start standing on the deck chairs?

This is the only solid case against UBI ITT. So how about designing in a fix? In the UK the current welfare cap is £500/week. Or $3000 a month. There are a handful of people with special needs (and I mean a handful, like under 100) who are capped at £900/week. Obviously a UBI of £2000 a month is both unworkable and undesirable (This is more than your average hairdresser, mechanic or supermarket employee makes). If we exclude the people capped at £900/week for now the question becomes 'how in the fuck do you get yourself £2000 a month in bennies'. Looking at it shows that a lot of it comes from rent. The answer here is social housing.

Fuck off.

If you want to go down with it crack on. But don't try to pull me down with you out of spite of not getting your own way right away.

Enjoy freezing to death in the frigid waters of the Atlantic.

There's no need to pull you down because you're the retard that's still trying to bail it out.

At least you'll be a star when Robert Ballard records your skull lying among all those silver spoons.

Jesus stop speaking in metaphor. Is that just a clever left/pol/ trick to avoid answering direct questions?

Let us try again.


I would love an answer. So many questions, so many memes and metaphors in response. Let's try again.

Yes, things might be fucked. But IF UBI was on the table right now, would you take it or not?

It's not on the table though is it. Are you British? I normally only see this level of obtuse whataboutery from them.

That depends, has the wizard come down from his tower and magically brought all the other major systemic and economic changes that would be necessary for this to not just be another temporary sop to the working poor? I'm going to need more information here because if dark wizards or goblins get involved it's going to serious effect my calculations. Is it going to be in straight GP? Do I have a bag of holding? How much on average does it take to pay an adventurer to remove the Lich in the neighboring dungeon that's been terrorizing my begonias? When I pay the Billy Goats Gruff, how much of my new income can I expect to go to their bridge tolls?

I am. You ever read the Guardian comments? If not you should. And I don't think I've been too whataboutism. I'm still trying to get why you all seem to oppose a system that on paper IF EXECUTED WELL could improve a lot of people's lives.

C'mon you fucking meme-lords. Spell out to me like I am three your objections to UBI. Is this really such an ask?

Kek, I read the graun comments sometimes, mostly for idpol articles to laugh at the abuse the author gets. Independent was the best like 5-8 years ago when they had disqus instead of social media integration, it was rife with people trying to out corrupt businesses and politicians.

Your question is a bit of whataboutery, the movement for it is a large chunk of socdems rather than anyone with the power to enact it and it's not on the table, it's pointless for socialists to push for it because it will only kick the conditions for upheaval down the line. So, it will improve living conditions, but only for the few countries that implement it, and if it's not tied in with inflation (they'll eventually untie it if they do) it will become the unemployment benefits of today. If it was tied in eventually it would become unsustainable or be scrapped. Either way we end up back to redistribution.

The way I'd have it it would be redistribution. For me it's not about a permanent fix but something to alleviate the major employment disruptor that has just about got up to full pelt and is heading right for us. I'd also accept some kind of Social Nationalism, but that seems even more unlikely. It's more about avoiding the worst than aiming straight for the best.

We'll probably see UBI on the table just as everything starts to collapse. If there are enough people trying to get the means of production then, don't side with the UBI crowd. As a Brit you'll know such things are a temporary appeasement and cannot be trusted in the hands of capital. It will hurt ten times more trying a revolt after UBI collapses in on itself. Don't be a boomer.

I just don't see revolution as being on the table today. I don't think you can seize means of production when their worth is purely digital. I mean how do you collectivise say an investment firm?

Well there's a lot of moving parts in your example. If an uprising occurred in Europe and the UK, these firms would go to the US and vice versa, and the socialists would likely end up playing state capitalism in no time, so you'd still need the skills required. The firms themselves may leave but some people will stay in their home countries no matter what opportunities they have abroad. With our globally entwined market and information sharing nowadays though, a crash could cause either to go through upheaval, with the internet egging on the other. The crash may leave investment firms of little concern, as the crash completely fucks up their bread and butter with everyone else feeling the heat on the periphary.

I think a key part of all this is remembering that socialism isn't a matter of preference in ideology, but that it's the only feasible alternative to capitalism provided to far, and capitalism is destined to destroy itself. They could kick the can down the road with a big war, but with an interconnected, multilingual, nuclear armed planet the mere declaration of such a thing could cause massive social unrest.

Sorry if I've missed anything, groggy today.

Taxing the rich out the ass doesn't change the fact that it costs a fuckton of money.

In the United states just something as simple as 1k per month would cost 3.82 trillion dollars a year, which would take up the entire national budget.

Where's your math? So 12k a year. And what would be the cutoff line for UBI? Below poverty line?

That's >'More than 45 million people, or 14.5 percent of all Americans, lived below the poverty'

45 million X $12K = $540 Billion.

We already spend: $598 billion on the military each year?

What does that add to the economy that increased consumer spending wouldn't?

Quote from there:
The argument is: If the amount of dollars stays the same, the value per dollar won't drop. But this doesn't follow. Different income groups do different things with their dollars. A shift in the distribution of income means the demand pattern will change. 'So what if some things I like to buy get more expensive, other stuff will become cheaper'. Yes, but what and by how much. If people will be less likely to take up shit jobs with UBI, allow me the question how much of our current consumption comes from these.

There is more to the value of currency than its quantity relative to the amount of stuff. I do not believe in the crude quantity theory of money. UBI undermines the power of money over people. UBI will be more inflationary than what relying on mainstream-economic "common sense" suggests, as the fundamental violence the system rests on is outside of scope.


Does UBI apply to immigrants?

Why wouldn't it?

Destroy Intellectual Property

UBI is unconditional. It is usually taken to mean a payment every month to every adult citizen. Some models consider a payment for children too.

Let's do a rough calculation.

The population of the US is 320 million. Of this around 75 million are aged 0-18. So that's 245 million adults in the US. Take Basic Income to be $900 month (slightly less than someone working 35 hours a week at federal minimum wage).

(245*10^6)*(900*12) = 2.646*10^12

/ 10^9

$2646 bn a year. ($2.65tn)

The US federal budget for the year 2015 was $3.68tn

So you can see UBI takes up 2/3 of the budget straight away. But UBI is usually considered an alternative to the current welfare/benefits system. So to get the true cost you can know off all current social spending the US has. One breakdown is given here.

2.45tn mandatory spending, 1.11tn discretionary spending, 229bn debt INTEREST

Of discretionary spending, the military is by far the largest, with 600bn a year in direct funding (wages, procurement, operations)

Of the mandatory spending, $1.25tn (the largest single part) goes on 'social security, unemployment and labour'. Next largest is just shy of 1tn on medicare and health. So lets assume we can drop social security that gives us 1.25tn. I notice that Vets are getting 150bn a year in benefits. We could probably chop of most of that. So cuts save 1.35tn. The cost is double that.

Where do we make up this other £1.3tn? Well from the same website I've used so far for the figures come this little gem

tax breaks came to $1.22tn. Get rid of most of these tax breaks and you can afford your very own UBI with zero magical thinking required.

Cause that would be daft. Unconditional free moneies for life simply for making it legally or illegally to a nation. Nah. It should be tied to citizenship. It also helps make the case for secured borders.

its just a way to solidify capitalist slavery
you get enough to eat, you still do things "becuse you want to" becuse you know, we all work 9-5 cause we want to not because it is neo feudalism
and its just the next step
not much to discuss
discard the idea


The consensus seems to be otherwise.

This doesn't necessarily lead to price increases. Non-luxury consumables could be produced in greater quantity but I doubt shortages or lack of demand would become an issue.

Essentially you're talking about unemployment here but that's coming either way. UBI just makes it suck less. If an employer wants a job done he will have to pay what it is worth. With UBI you're not dependent on your shitty job to feed yourself so if your boss wants it done, he will have to pay you more or find someone willing to work for shitpence (unlikely as we all now have UBI)

So what do you believe?

You say it like this is a bad thing.

You are far from proving this.

this stopped being funny months ago. Borders are the reality of the world today. Don't believe me just go try walk from worst to best Korea.

Not at all. Nothing stops their government doing UBI.

Much better we just wait til the robots take our jerbs then revolution. Cause porky sure won't use his neat new battle-bots against you.

A lot of people ITT seem to assume revolution will happen. I think we've missed that boat. Can yous think of one recent genuinely popular revolution? (Arab spring, Uclank don't count). Bonus points if it was in the first world.

Sooo, anybody in this thread got convinced by the pro-UBI "arguments" and "rebuttals" against the claims of the haterz?

Go on. One more time. Why specifically do you oppose it?

wew lad


All I've seen is 'it will prevent the revolution' or 'it's too expensive'. is that really all the intellectuals of left/pol/ can muster?

The inflation argument is pish, nations being 'a spook' is no reason to reject a policy that will improve lives.

Think about it this way. It's easy to build a popular case for UBI. It is hard to argue against in a practical sense. Most people if asked would say fuck yes. So if its true like some of you have said, that porky won't allow it, then does this not help the revolution?

You can bemoan UBI for not being communism all you like but I've not seen a single substantial argument ITT showing it is not in the interests of workers in the first world.


Translated version.

So how many of you reject it on the premises of this strawman of an article? UBI does not have to be a libertarian project.

I'd disagree with this too.

Not a direct comparison, but YouGov said a year ago that the majority of the UK 'supported ending or winding back austerity'

Why don't you want people to lead a dignified life left/pol/?

in b4 "well we'll just legislate it so these problems don't happen :^)"

Why is this not a valid claim? UBI won't happen for the next five years at least. Plenty of time to build a suitably radical platform from which to campaign for it.


This is a good thing. Why the hell even strive to full employment in the face of a growing population and automation? Why the fuck should I be a fucking doorman 8 hours a day just to receive my stipend? Even if you pay me a tenner an hour for it, no. I refuse.

Good. US pensions are linked to earnings and in the UK it's like £115/week. For most people $10kpa would be an improvement.

The rest of that article simply rejects UBI cause it isn't full socialism. That's a weak as fuck case against anything.

Literally, another rehasing of 'it's not Socialism™ so fuck it'.

look at all these non-arguments

Various battle drones will happen, are already happening, likely some prototypes that the public won't hear about in this decade already being perfected.
Making everyone have this universal welfare ensures two things:
Their income is no longer their job, which to some people at least relates to their own selves and their pride, meager as such a wageslave pride might be. Now they are back in the old time overt bread and circus delivery by the state. They will not eat if porky disapproves of their rebellion. They will have little material wealth because Universal Welfare will ensure basic living, not luxury goods which means no preparation for a breakdown of the system. None. There will be no room for stocking any supplies. Gun rights will probably devolve to pre-genocide levels.
A strong leftist is an armed leftist for many centuries this has been the case since before the advent of guns and cannons.

I make it a strong case never to argue strawman. You can't make up an argument, attribute it to me, then insult me if I don't defend it. I won't play that game;

Like many other anons in this thread have said, Porky still owns the means of production. Really think about this. Why is the means of production so essential?
Why would a STATE DELIVERED UNIVERSAL WELFARE deprive you of guns, 3D printers, or even basic computer security (here is your dell shiteron with windows 10 installed and linked to the cloud because the hard drive has no software installed except OS, don't let anyone propagate hatespeech on it or we cut it off the cloud)? Why would porky want to control you? Because that is what porky does.

Universal Welfare
Is only a strangling yank on the leash that porky already has on many proles. A good prole will yelp and wag its tail for porky. Revolutionaries will cut the leash off.

This statement of "A revolution will/won't happen" is a non sequitur. No one except porky wants a decapitation revolution.

And to remember, the state is just a system used by porky. When you centralize power you essentially hand it over to porky. What is easier to take over, a decentralized network that has many separate gates and securities, or one centralized network that gives you access to everything once you mask yourself the admin?

Don't let porky disarm you. If you allow porky to feed the masses, far less will even consider that there is something more.

You do not own the automation. You will not be kept around as useless matter. You will get recycled. This means the end of you.
Pushing for your own end is excellent, don't force millions into a no choice situation.

If porky owns it then what is the end result?

I think it could work if it was funded directly from profits through stock ownership and not through taxes.

Another outstanding contribution user.

Its almost like you don';t like the idea and want somebody else to make the case against it on your behalf.

It's almost like you don't like the idea that your sacred cow leads to more problems than it solves and just dismiss out of hand any criticism against it.

I put it to you that such people would still work. This also deals with the rest of the paragraph. I'm in the UK so we're already disarmed along with the majority of Europe, aus etc, though nice appeal to libertarian sensibilities.

My point is simply that socialism if possible is likely a long way of. Why not do things in the mean time to improve people's lives?

Too late

Too late. 45 million americans on food stamps, 7 million brits living in poverty.

So would you endorse rolling back the current welfare state? Health provision? Pension?

Well there you go!

Noting you said has anything to do with my point.

Same as now. Inevitable revolution…

Stock ownership? Like national stakeholding on for profit companies? Why do you think this would be better than tax as a means of redistribution?

You can't fix anything with capital. All wealth is created by labor. People are poor because that wealth is stolen from them by porky, not because they lack capital, which is just an arbitrary number relative to price.

UBI puts poor poor people at the complete mercy of porky with no recourse. What if UBI doesn't meet their all their needs, what is a need, there's no hard answers to these.

The same fucking thing happened with minimum . It was just chipped away at over time.

If you car about poor people so much advocate for something like making housing, clean water and air a right.

Or how about just fucking limiting people and corps to only owning the house they live in, that would help way more then UBI.

UBI is just the camels nose in the tent to the complete eradication to any material help to the poor

Except I've addresses every criticism ITT. You mean my conclusion isn't the same as yours. All you have is speculation. All I have is speculation. But in terms of your main practical arguments (too expensive, would lead to inflation), expert opinion (both left and right) is with me. The concerns for what MAY happen to the most in need in society is a valid concern. This is why you engage and make the case for a UBI that will protect the most vulnerable instead of just dismissing it outright. What you're doing is ideology.

It will lead to inflation. The FIRE economy does not respond to price signals, it is a monopoly. Rents will go up, why would landlords who won't lower their rent now to meet demand, be all of a sudden willing to rent to poor people, who would still be poor because UBI goes to everyone

Ideological doesn't mean wrong. You need to explain how magically the FIRE economy will suddenly respond to demand and needs of people instead of maximizing their profit by rasing the price on FIRE and just keeping the same customers they always did


If rent is a dollar. And a middle class person has a dollar and a poor person doesn't.

Then UBI gives everyone a dollar so middle class person has 2 dollars and poor person has one, what keeps a landlord from raising rent to 2 dollars.

The middle class person won't complain since it wouldn't change his material conditions.

There's not enough meaningful labour to go around. UBI could take the edge of this by allowing people to cut back to say 20 hours a week, creating two part time jobs where before there was one full time job.

As I said above I'd expect a few additional benefits to stick around for the most desperate. Or they could work if capable.

We need more social housing and rent control anyway. UBI wouldn't change this.

I don't follow. Depending where UBI was set, pensioners, the unemployed and the working poor could be better off. In the UK for example, the state pension is £155 a week maximum. Additional payments of up to £200 are available for those who are infirm. A UBI of £800 matches this.

Sorry for short answer, at work. Will try to expand on this shortly.

right wing death squads, a Holla Forums meme

DC is mainly black

immigrants flood the first country with UBI overwhelming it and crashing the system in a feedback loop. You gotta have some defense to keep that from happening (at least at first)

theres some weird way you can finance it with the depreciating value of modern electronics which apparently will get more powerful

creating profits for stockholders is legally mandated, the goal of production in capitalism is profit, which includes paying as little in taxes as possible. This way, there is no way around it, they can't discriminate against certain shareholders, the logic of capital itself compels them to pay and pay as much as possible in the long term.

This is an issue of demand, at least in the I was recently forced to move flat and for every property that came available there were dozens of applicants. This was private sector though I did apply for a housing association house. Waiting time with the housing association was touted as 21 days. What they don't tell you is you are only put forward for a few houses at a time. If these all come back as no or go to someone else then you must wait another month before applying. It may be slightly different if you're sleeping rough, I was crashing at a m8's house. But yeah. The issue is certainly at least in part demand.

Because they don't have to. They know that people are desperate for housing. Almost all rental housing is overpriced anyway. As I say, rent control could stop landlords jewing everyone.

If there so much fucking demand then why aren't more houses being built by new businesses entering a new market.

I come from a family that builds homes, they aren't that hard to build. Most of the work is done my immigrants with 3rd grade education, even plumbing and electrical.

There are a ton of out of work engineers and architects so don't tell me that's the fucking bottleneck either.

FIRE economy doesn't respond to price signals

UBI is as stupid as privatizing social security or Medicare. Old people fight that shit tooth and nail cause they know what's gonna happen under a voucher system,
care will cost more than the voucher

Pensioners can still rely on the welfare state. If a pensioner is hungry they can still get food stamps.

Every fucking UBI initiative calls for the abolishing of the welfare state.

Since your so stuck on UBI why not just have some kind of material benchmark that UBI must meet.

If UBI doesn't cover rent for someone then it must go up. Of course a bootlicker like you would never think of that because then porky wouldn't be able to fuck with prices and impoverish people on UBI even more

This is fully intentional.

I know it's a pretty meh site, but this is a good piece:

Who will build houses? In case you hadn't noticed, we're broke collectively. The government can't/won't build enough houses and private will only do so if there is money to be made. Most of the demand is for rental property as many over here have given up on the idea of ownership. As to how 'easy' it is to build a house, that's not the point. In the UK 75% or so of all land is owned by a few hundred people Other land is designated green belt, that is not for building. So before you can even lay the first brick you need a plot of land, planning permission and must meet numerous standards/building codes or the local council will literally come tear it down. Like this guy.

Built himself a castle without planning permission. He cannot get it retroactively approved. He must rip it all down then apply for a permit before building it again. This was on his own land.

Anyway. I proposed rent control to stop price fixing.

UBI doesn't mean you can't work. It should be tied to the average cost of living. Exceptions should be made for the most vulnerable (severely handicapped, dementia). But there may be conditions attached to these additional bennies. ie you're a pensioner living in a four bedroom house and the state is paying 100% of you're rent, you are rehoused. This would also deal with some aspects of the housing shortage.

If it could be done within the balanced budget then sure. What you can't have are different levels of UBI as this would complicate the system and necessitate a huge administrative system to manage.

I'm not playing dumb here. I honestly cannot understand your attitude towards it. It's like you're looking for reasons to reject it and when one is addressed you switch tactics. It's a lot like global warming threads on Holla Forums. Which tells me that you've already made your mind up.

When did left/pol/ go fully opposed to UBI anyway? I've made threads on the topic here before that have been split about 50/50. From what I can see I am the only person advocationg for it ITT.

You're Scotland? I might have to come give you a slap for all that cheek.

Seriously tho, buy-to-let maybe wasn't a terrible idea but the way it was implemented was pure shit. I can't wait til the housing market crashes hard. I think Brexit will do it.


I don't feel suitably BTFO yet.

Subsidizes unethical business behaviour.