What do think of democratic socialism with basic income, but still having a market?

What do think of democratic socialism with basic income, but still having a market?
(pic related wants that in germany)

Other urls found in this thread:


A market or capitalism?

Reminder that Die Linke will give everyone everything they want. Every child can have a bouncy castle and free education, mortgages and loans will be paid off, the refugee crisis will be fixed in an instant.
All you have to do is give them a majority and everything will be fine :^)


inb4 assmad leftcoms

this is where the distinction between socialism and social democracy breaks down

Pic related is from DIE LINKE (german leftist party). They say by such measures as basic income, free education, high taxes, etc. they want to overcome capitalism. The still want to allow trade with money and shit. They also want to allow investment (so yeah capitalism) but they want high investment taxes.

They ran a fairly comfy operation last time.

Seems like a bad idea.

Not even their followers think that. (unless they are extremely naive)

the SED was based

Market is a doorway to class society and must be eradicated. Market "socialists" are not comrades either.

Do still think they are worth voting for?

I think if they got a majority they would do a lot more than move around the deckchairs. They'd go full dicks out for Honecker.

This. They are already preaching capitalist restoration before the revolution has even begun.

This is literally just capitalism with some free goodies to bribe the populace. Nothing about the base functioning of capitalism is altered.

Auf, auf zum Kampf, Genossen.

How are you going to abolish markets in a nation-wide basis today if most of the commodities are not even produced within your boundaries tho

On which basis would people be able to access foreign goods, which is something major today? What type of planning could attend modern necessities?

I'm not asking these rhetorically, I'm a newfag as far as alternatives to the market go.

No. I vote for ideologically relevant parties only.

Basic income is trash, give people basic goods instead

Like foodstamps?



Internationalism. Not to be a leftcom fag but there may be a day where workers of the world actually unite.


Not to be tinfoil.hat but I assume this is inflammatory fag puppet. Nigga please.

Yes and no, foodstamps come from taxes, which requires private property to be taxed to begin with, i think it is a better idea to employ the people so that they produce the value which later on gets distributed among them, this means that if you apply for "foodstamps" you get also take part of the prodictive process


National Socialist Germany had extensive welfare and healthcare systems tbh. You basically got paid to exist.

Die Linke confirmed for liderally gidler.

Not him, but that's hardly an answer in case of taking over a Germany-sized country.

And in the meantime, shomer shabbos.

Where does money come from? Who decides how much is in circulation?

Nope, Markets don't introduce anything that Currency doesn't. If you pay separate wages for separate roles then one person is exploiting the labor of another by using their purchasing power to purchase the value of N times that laborer's wages. That is a class system, even if it is one of smaller differences such as in the USSR.



Markets not Capitalism is not a contradiction It's not FULLCOMMUNISM but neither was the PRC or USSR.

The only people who actually find it appealing to dictate who should receive what from a position of absolute authority are creeps, militarists and fascists.

There would be no need for money, money is in a ay, the representation of labour force, but we already have labour force

Dont have my stalinist and marx porky with me fam

I think not only no, but fuck no.

Just say No.

Social Democracy degenerates into regular Liberal Capitalism. Either UBI gets revoked, or corrupt, or inflation will eat it.

For starters - monopoly on foreign trade and abolition of internal markets for heavy industry.


It's shit.

Democratic """socialists""" are hardly better than socdems.

Not actually democracy, and maintaining the commodity form a shit

t. ankie

Fun fact: your propaganda brochure about Market "Socialism" has 106 pages and 66 mentions of Stalin.

And that's not what I meant.

t. leftist more like.

Basic income is Capitalism in it's death throws. It's a list ditch attempt to get a capitalist economy working with automation. No Communist should be anything less than violently opposed to it.
Once the market fails from poor financial circulation, that's when we succeed.

Commies will do everything in their power to keep porky in power until everyone concedes to follow their self-centered failed ideas. The revolution is a larpy hissy-fit.

Capitalism in death throws is called Fascism.

I think we got infiltrated.

sounds like typical liberals wanting a hybrid system that can't practically exist. The only non-exploitive market system is mutualism or market socialism. All other systems would likely devolve back into capitalism, and there's arguments to be made that even mutualism would do so, though I believe systems could be put in place to prevent that. Regardless, these people just sound like typical anti-system liberals that aren't educated on socialist theory and are lashing out in an undirected manner and are making up solutions as they go along.

Markets are inherently exploitative. Workers ownership does not stop the logic of markets, which stipulate that an enterprise must either grow or die. This necessitates constant reinvestment, taking away from what the workers would be getting.


so does planned production, gift economies and so on, or does corn magically appears after you harvest it?

If the business is collectively owned, who is taking it away? You can't exploit yourself, and if a business as a collective action decides to do shit you don't like, go somewhere else. At least under a socialist society you won't starve or lose your home if you can't find work where you live.

Capitalism can take many different paths to try to sustain itself, depending on the crisis.
In this specific instance, I am of the opinion that basic income is one of these ways.
It still allows for a capitalist market, it prevents the employees from owning the means of production, and does nothing to prevent porky from having his way.
Basic income is a red herring. It's meant to get leftists to support Capitalism.

this, it's a bandaid, nothing more, the only positive is that it could potentially allow people to open up to the idea of socialism since they would be free from direct exploitation of businesses since people wouldn't be wage-slaves, and it would force companies to actually compete for workers. However it would still be capitalism and the usual shit would continue, the wildcard is automation, AI, and general advancements in technology, there's no telling what the economy will look like in the coming decades after all that is said and done.

according to planners and gifters, the invisible hand is :v)

they are the only ones who actually belive it exists

The logic of the market is what is exploiting you. To say you can just leave is to ignore the profit that was taken from you to go into the company. The very enterprise itself is exploitative, even if run democratically.

Be wary of basic income in of itself, for it can be used to enslave the masses when labor is no longer required for production.

Also, a good idea to read: digamo.free.fr/nove91.pdf

The Economics of Feasible Socialism. Ignore the parts on exploitation tho, the author was less aware of the theory around that.

top lal


it's a stupid argument because it's getting into almost meta levels of wordplay. Saying the market is exploiting you for just existing is the "Microagression" of anti-market socialists.

I simply think there is an unhealthy obsession with Stalin.

Both Lenin and Bukharin are mentioned 14 times only. Even Engels is mentioned 57 times. Stalin is second only to Marx (who is winning by default, since Marxism).

Is it?

Capital, Vol. 3; Part III - The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall
> … The conditions of direct exploitation, and those of realising it, are not identical. They diverge not only in place and time, but also logically. The first are only limited by the productive power of society, the latter by the proportional relation of the various branches of production and the consumer power of society. But this last-named is not determined either by the absolute productive power, or by the absolute consumer power, but by the consumer power based on antagonistic conditions of distribution, which reduce the consumption of the bulk of society to a minimum varying within more or less narrow limits. It is furthermore restricted by the tendency to accumulate, the drive to expand capital and produce surplus-value on an extended scale. This is law for capitalist production, imposed by incessant revolutions in the methods of production themselves, by the depreciation of existing capital always bound up with them, by the general competitive struggle and the need to improve production and expand its scale merely as a means of self-preservation and under penalty of ruin.

And UBI is not the death throes.


yup, as, citing marx:

no reason for this to happen if porky doesn't keep half of our economy in a panamanian bank account

microaggression isn't filtered anymore?

strange, wordfilter list still shows that Holocaust is filtered

where's that list?

The USSR didn't need a market in order to develop a new class society. Unless you count what little commerce they had as a "market".

Would you mind elaborating your logic? It doesn't matter where money are, both Capitalists and banks will be trying to earn money. Therefore, money will go to Capitalist enterprise.

And Capitalist enterprises will remain "under penalty of ruin" due to "depreciation of existing capital" and "general competitive struggle and the need to improve production and expand its scale". And will, therefore, have to cut costs - i.e. exploit workers as "means of self-preservation".

Newsflash: it didn't.

indeed, so give me all of your capital now, it doesn't matter if its under my possesion apparently

which is why we stablish workers coops and credit unions, that do not seek to profit off the labourers or off capital lending

a capitalist enterprise must be owned by a capitalist, otherwise it is not a capitalist enterprise

i fail to see how this is a problem, i do not advocate for the philosophy of poverty, an increase in production with its correspondant demand and capability to be possessed is not a problem, the problem is the changes in the organic composition of capital as a result of automation, changes result of property rights. the rate of profit decreases because the organic composition of capital changes, this means there are less labourers operating equipment, which in return causes unemployment which leads to a decrease in purchasing power, which causes lower demand, which can lead to two different crises:

a) overproduction, an excess of goods with no one being capable of purchasing it

b)decrease production, which lowers demand further as there is even less supply of it

capitalists claim the first crisis doesn't exist, that this is a positive aspect of capitalism, but we understand it is not, because it leads to an inefficient allocation of goods

these goods cannot be consumed not because of a market, as the logic of a market would lead us to consumers being able to freely make possession of these overproduced goods,as we have a natural supply of, lets say, bread and a natural demand for it, hungry people, but because of a necessity of profiting from bread production. profit, in the individual sense of the commodity, is the surplus value found on every item where its price is higher than its production cost

a coop society wouldn't need to profit by increasing the value of goods over the cost of production, because, as automation increases the supply of them would increase, this higher supply means they can in return obtain other commodities, which can easily result in a total automation of the production line

a coop exchanges labour, not commodities, in order to exchange commodities you would need to apropriate them first

by exchanging labour, or rather, the labour embodied in a commodity, then it means that the more of certain commodity that you produce, the more exchange power your coop would have, the necessity to fully automate and to reduce the SNLT exist as a necessity, not to compete against other coops, but to be able to abolish work

I personally think it's the best and most realistic think we can get IRL…

I don't have enough time to write a proper answer. Will post tomorrow.

tl;dr - you are missing the competition angle.

competition in capitalists markets means that, using bourgeois intellectual property rights, one firm can get a head of the other

this cannot happen on a society with no intellectual or physical property rights

Sorry man, Djilas was right. Soviet workers might have owned the means of production, but they sure as fuck didn't manage them. The fact that the Party planners came from a working class background doesn't really make all the millions of other workers any more represented.

Sounds like they're Die Linke des Kapitals

I'm not a leftcom and I'm assmad

sounds absolutely necessary if we want to prevent civil war (in which currently the nazis might win) in a world where nearly all labor is automated.
we can't establish communism until 2020 but basic income is easy as fuck.

Deutchland needs a strong leadership, and there is absolutely no better man for the job than Schulz. Die linkie and their ilk should be shot for being dirty splinters.

Stop shilling for the weak left faggots

We are the only left that is still around and involved in lives of workers, class traitor :^)

kill yourself.

oh wait, you were trolling…

It's kicking the can down the road.

What should the basic income be, then becomes the question? Just how much are you willing and able to appropriate from the bourgeoisie to fund it?

Here's a prediction: the basic income will not keep pace with income growth at the top, and after a while, it will be negligible in value compared to the available consumer goods that only the wealthy will be able to afford.

Basic income can, however, if coupled with a heavy handed state, be a first step on the path to FALC, provided the state keeps appropriating more and more of the bourgeoisie to share out.

No reason to get angry over slight banter(where are your mass movements ultra leftists? where are your trade unions?).
On more serious note, Schulz will make Europe great again.

Would support it but it would be like a band-aid on a broken bone.

The UBI would progressively shrink as profit margins fell, just like wage labor in capital

Don't pretend that you are dumb. It is completely unnecessary, I assure you.

My point was that your mention of "panamian bank accounts" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Now, let's address your new - completely different - point that Socialism is somehow possible within market relations.

That is only possible if you have Central Planning.

The first and main problem: how can we have any commercial entities that do not seek profit within market relations?

What happens if coop goes bankrupt? I see three possibilities:
a) we euthanise workers (or let them slowly and painfully starve to death; for some reason, this seems preferable to certain - undeniably sadistic - people)
b) workers turn into Proletariat
c) someone gives money to coop


Federal Job Guarantee with high welfare/basic income for those who cannot work.

Basic income alone is compatible with neoliberalism… which is why left-libs are getting on board.