Neetbux for All

Depressive, unemployable NEET here. What would I gain by favoring socialism over an UBI under capitalism? What's in it for autists like me?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhXA2zHCU
youtube.com/watch?v=30HeJvE9KCg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

But I don't want a girlfriend, nor would any girl want to associate with people like me — and I'm perfectly fine with that, I'm not a /r9k/ incel.

You fucks need to stop being sad sacks and start getting mad. Just at the right people. Your rage could be constructive but all you fucks do is just scream at the wrong people, over and over, it's fucking maddening. It's why I gave up on neets

you get paid to study, you get better wages, etc.
It's still a shitty state so you have to labor.

But you can take longer breaks from work as a NEET since your accumulated resources will last longer since you get to keep more than before.

A fully communist society would be stateless, classless, and moneyless. Employment would be guaranteed. This contrasts starkly with the capitalist economic model, wherein the working class is forced to find a job to be able to eat or put a roof over their head, even though some may be unable to sell their labor for a wage. Capitalism relies fundamentally on the exploitation of the majority, whereas socialism/communism supports relative equality.

There are still plenty of reasons like and

Why do you assume I "scream at the wrong people"…? I'm not from Holla Forums nor /r9k/. I have nothing against immigrants, gays or whatever.

I don't want to "earn a wage". I probably wouldn't even be capable of holding a 9-to-5 job for more than a month before breaking down anyway.

That's my point. Why would I embrace socialism when an UBI under capitalism would better address the issues I'm faced with?

Not OP but I was thinking I was an unemployable NEET given that I'd been barely going to school and hadn't worked in three years. The thing that sucks so much about finding work in this society is that if you don't have connections your chances of getting anywhere are slim.

I was looking for work for three years before I landed my current job and as much as I like how I can't focus on how shitty I'm feeling when I do it it's making me physically more sick.

Under a socialist society I'd think you'd have access to work are capable of and perhaps opportunity to advance into a career that matches your aptitude.

Me neither but your money and resources overall will last longer since you're using the goverment to force better payment.

Simply because you would be richer, you forced more money to flow down your way.
And if you have a disability you get legit maintained alive by the state. Welfare Queen OP, gg no re.

I don't like goverment or any fixed ideal for that matter. I would like to have complete auto sustain but all that shit costs a bunch. Eventually through.

This is pretty much already the case under capitalism right now, at the very least in European social-democracies.

You wouldn't be depressed because of an alienating, pointless, dehumanizing world. You wouldn't be unemployable because you would be able to contribute whatever you kind, even if in a Capitalist world it wouldn't be enough to hire you. You wouldn't be a NEET because you'd have the means to do shit besides live in a house, spending your life on the internet.

If all you wanted was free money, then nothing's going to be UBI. If you want a better world and life, one that's worth living and treats you as a human, not an economic statistic, than nothing beats Socialism.

An end to the alienation that's causing your depression.

I don't have an answer, but what's wrong with you? I promise no bulli. What happened that made you identify as a depressive, unemployable autist? Autist is whatever. Depressive is something, but unemployable? What happened to you mang?

I don't understand this either. What happened that rocked your world user?

If UBI gets implemented, it won't be a permanent thing- merely a way for the wealthy ruling class to keep the people complacent until they can turn us all into soylent green. And don't think that's a joke either, the "elites" have demonstrated time and time again that they're a bunch of sociopaths who will happily let people die or even kill directly in order to line their pockets

free markets exploit the disabled. its pretty simple, coming from an old 35 year old autist like me. and I've had girlfriends, my last relationship ended a week ago. it sucks but I'm hopeful.>>1874317 this sounds like it would be benefit me but I live in Amerika so, sigh…

False. Everybody is employable in some way or another, beneficial to society and themselves. Capitalism just doesnt think its profitable to do so.

Because you're screaming at yourself.

The fact that your means of living won't be pulled out from under you the moment a right-wing government enters office, which is what would happen with UBI.

youtube.com/watch?v=zYPhXA2zHCU

ubi is a small sum of money the government will give you so you don't have excuses to not put gasoline in your car and fuck off to look for work. if you think ubi will be anything other than this you're a dumbass. also there's talk of having ubi replace every other form of welfare, so enjoy your 400 bucks monthly check that allows you to buy a cardboard box a day to live in.

If you have a mental/emotional disability, you'll receive treatment and welfare. If the treatment goes well, you'll get hooked up with a nice 10-20hr/wk job through the centralized job service. If you're permanently or long-term disabled, you get to stay on welfare and continue attempting treatment.

Also, communism is a radical transformation of society. Communists will not leave people like you suffering at the margins, ignored and alone. There will be conscious outreach programs to integrate you with society and help you find friends, and society will be more conducive to such. IE there will be more local community centers, free public transport, community activities, clubs, etc.

Basically, what's in it for you? The end to your miserable way of life.

Both of these sentiments appear to be true to varying degrees about UBI.

On the one hand, it seeks to bring all current welfare systems under one monolithic agency. That has a few pros and cons built into it, though overall it is eventually expected to be more streamlined and significantly less costly to administrate over. It doesn't necessarily protect someone from right-wing governments entering office, though generally after these programs find their base (like Social Security and Medicare) they become political non-starters to go after. Again, it isn't a guarantee, but it is small progress, and generally anything that keeps people off the streets is good to some extent.

On the other hand, however, it does serve to keep those who cannot find decent work somewhat complacent. There will be less incentives for people to unionize and fight for jobs if they know they can essentially survive (if nothing else) if they just go home, lock the door, and turn the TV on. Additionally, think of the economic pressure the state can mobilize if they start threatening people's UBI. Imagine if getting your face scanned at a protest or your cellphone's IMEI picked up by a government/police operated IMSI catcher that puts you near (or hell, in communication with) protesters gets your benefits (which you need to survive) slashed.

UBI might save some from homelessness and jobs that pay so little that they aren't worth showing up for, but they may also breed a complacency that makes it even more difficult to mobilize a 99%-esque movement. It is more support for individuals in a time where they need it, yet more control for authorities by the same token.

Personally, I'm tentatively optimistic about UBI. I think opening up these systems to more people and making them more visible in the public eye will ultimately be beneficial to workers and us at the bottom-end of the class spectrum - though I'm extremely wary of how generationally exploited people will adapt to this kind of a social system.

I've always been an anxious, shut-in misfit. I've never felt like I had much of a place in the word. But again, I don't really see it as a "problem" to be solved — if anything, the prospect of becoming "normal", getting a 9-to-5 job and fitting in positively terrifies me.

It's not that I don't have skills. I mean, you're bound to learn something when you spend most of your time in front of a computer or reading books. I actually graduated cum laude from my art school even though I was barely present, believe it or not.

No, what puts me in such an uncomfortable state is the mere idea of following the same routine every day — boarding the train to work, doing something I feel no connection to all day long, boarding the train home, then going to sleep directly out of exhaustion but with the fear that I might not wake up at the right time the next morning (I have delayed sleep phase disorder). Every fucking day. I'd rather go dumpster-diving tbh.

Marx specifically talked about that sort of thing
youtube.com/watch?v=30HeJvE9KCg

this is a meme too. unemployment benefits are basically ubi lite. look up what happens in europe to people who need those benefits. first of all it's not a living wage by any means, so if you live completely by yourself you're fucked, but the government can take it off as a whim (there's cases of people having their benefit cut because they failed to answer 1 phone call). in britain the people at job centers need to be trained to determine whether someone who's treatening suicide is for real or a phony. that's hardly complacent.

Union membership rates have been in free-fall since the late '70s and it shows no sign of stopping.


I disagree, I believe more free time and increased bargaining power would reinvigorate people's willingness and ability to organize. We need to organize beyond the workplace.

If you're not happy, don't have friends, and don't get outside, it's a problem. You're not healthy.

The point of getting you free therapy and treatment is that you will no longer be scared. And the point of communism is reducing the working day as much as possible (more like 10 to 2 or 10 to 4), and improving society so it won't contribute to your misery.

The thing is, I believe I have good reasons to be scared of normalcy — I don't want it to be "cured" by chemicals or therapy.

An UBI offers me the possibility to live decently and more-or-less anxiety-free until I die. Socialism doesn't, it merely promises me shorter hours in the long run — with no guarantee that I'd ever actually live to see those.

To put it simply, you don't. However, if your anxiety really is that debilitating, communists would not be forcing you to do anything.

Capitalist UBI guarantees that you will live in a constant state of struggle and hunger, while the threat of UBI repeals or budget cuts constantly loom over you.

This is unfortunately quite true.


I think that there is a chance that this could be true. Shit isn't going to get better for most people, though I've seen people's capacity to normalize shitty situations. I hope you are right.

Capitalists don't want to pay the small amount of taxes they are asked to pay currently. Why would they ever agree to increasing those taxes in order to pay proles to sit around and do nothing?

We will find something for you to do to give your life meaning. We will send you to university and have you spend the first year or so figuring out what your'e interested in and what you're good at. Then you'll get a completely free education and training in the field that you want. If socialization is a problem, you'll be grouped with similar people with similar issues so you can relate to each other. And while that's happening we'd have psychologists studying depressive NEETdom and experimenting with re-socializing you into a community so you can become an unalienated member of society and live your life to the fullest.

Because somebody needs to buy their products and the only way to ensure that is to give the consumers an allowance.

And I think you will find that welfare measures have been persistently underfunded or cut since that very time period. Not gonna say that correlation = causation, but in the golden years of succdem welfare people were way more class conscious than today. that's why i don't buy the muh complacency bs. Working is still a stinking pile of shit even if you have a dental plan.

It makes sense from a logical perspective but there will never be enough political will to make it happen. It's one of those pesky contradictions that are inherent to capitalism I'm afraid.

brilliant business plan

Capitalist economies will collapse if they don't do it, which means…


You gotta think in Darwinian terms. The countries that implement UBI will keep going a bit longer, outliving the ones that don't. As long as some do (and some will), natural selection will mean that the form of capitalism that survives is the form that has adapted to the circumstances.

there's already occupations for people with your philisophy. it's called programming or stock trade.

I dunno man, look at people today. Complacent kinda' fits, doesn't it? States are lowering their minimum wages, like 70% of people are basically obese, drug overdoses are epidemic, governments around the world aren't addressing climate change on any scale that will prevent continued significant damage to our ecology - fuck man, how long has Flint not had clean water?

All I'm saying is, things might not go back to/ be like they were in the past, with or without UBI, people might be kinda' fucked in the modern world. Like I said before, I hope you're right about the situation, I just don't have the faith in humanity necessary to believe people will break free of the regressive ideologies and increasingly brutal ruling classes that enslave them.

Porky isn't a single unified entity. Factory Owner porky would gladly see taxes increase on water monopoly rent seeker Porky to give to consumers.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the conflicts of interest that arise between the financial sector and the industrial sector. Much of our modern morass can be summed up in "The government sides with the financial sector over productive enterprise."

user, please understand that i don't mean to be condescending when i say the following, but i want you to think really long and hard about this.
how is capitalism saved if capitalists lose money?


fine, but they didn't use to be back when they had more rights is what i'm trying to say.

you can be sure about that. for one, i'm pretty sure welfare states aren't possible anymore in most of the world.

It's not saved. The capitalists are going to be betting on their enterprises outcompeting the others so that they get back more than the share that they pay. This won't save capitalism, it will just prolong it.

There is literally no evidence to support this. Also porkies make their money through investments which means that there is little difference between a porky who owns a factory and a porky who owns a software company. They both own property and neither of them will give it up willingly nor will they consider decreasing their margins just to appease the proles. Also you are neglecting the fact that the bourgeoisie are in complete control of the political system and have been for some time now. Unions aren't a thing anymore in the west.

there's nothing to gain from prolonging capitalism if you're a capitalist and you're not making money is the point. this is the reason we don't have automation yet, the capitalists know and they don't allow it. it's also the reason neoliberism is a thing, it's a reaction to the rate of profit falling. and it did make the rate of profit go up for a while… but it went back down after a few years.


he's talking about the petty bourg i think.

In the simplest form, basically every lawsuit between different companies is the embodiment of this.
Worked example just because I like telling stories: Three airlines sued Air Southwest (The future Southwest Airlines) for planning to start flights inside Texas. At the time the airline industry was regulated to ensure all the companies could do acceptably for themselves, albeit with a bit of bureaucracy. (airlines had to apply to start/stop routes and to change ticket prices.) Air Southwest contended that since this was an interstate regulation (or something like that, it's not too important.) it didn't apply if he flew exclusively inside Texas. Big lawsuit, Texas courts side with Southwest and they get going. None of the airlines that sued (Braniff International, Trans-Texas Airways, Continental Airlines) exist anymore.

Despite a huge cluster of interests for all the Porkies involved (I mean, taxes help none of them, high oil prices would be bad, proletarian revolution might ruin their day…), they found their interests conflicted. State intervention (Well, judicial at this stage - though the 1974 airline deregulation legislation would again amount to this.) picked one Porky to come out on top.

My primary thoughts on this matter are actually on the move to the financial sector, though, rather than the smaller scale conflicts (which are usually only good for concrete example purposes, not systematic analysis). Things like the shift from technostructure to shareholder value maximisation. 15% of Britain's manufacturing base (much of this private sector) being wiped out by Thatcher, partially as high interest rates made it unprofitable for these (otherwise profitable) industries to meet costs. Concurrently the City of London get their "big bang" and North Sea Oil is barely taxed. Perhaps pushing my luck: The preference for consumption taxes over income taxes. (To the disadvantage of many sectors, but with limited impact on shareholders. All Porkies hate taxes, obviously, but one has to assume some would be richer with the extra profits that no-VAT would bring even if the top rate of income tax went up 10%)

Both of those are "productive" porky. In practice I'm talking about the difference between a porky who owns a factory and a porky who owns a mutual fund. (Which may well involve lots of little shares in factories, but then that Porky's investment is in the share - not the long term health of the factory. Indeed, he may end up asset-stripping the factory in cooperation with other mutual fund porkies.)

Porky is always a unified entity in his exploitation of others. What I mean by not unified is how different porkies have different interests on a smaller scale than this. It's on that smaller scale that one can see how these things play off against one another. There was a good theory about how American political parties represented such a split in Porky interests, actually. (I think it was that Republicans have high labour costs and democrats have high capital costs, hence why the latter appear "more left" because they're more open to increased wage demands despite being thoroughly bourg.)


Also this, though petty bourgeoisie often find themselves both in opposition to financial and productive porky. (Or slaves to one and victims of the other's monopolistic tactics.)

I actually know C# programming, but I wouldn't be able to hold a job in an IT company. Those feel soul-crushing even to relatively normal people, I wager I'd survive for approximately a week at best.

Don't blame you, I have no issue with NEETS.
So?
No one does?
None of those things are a problem, other than you seeing yourself as a misfit. All of those things seem Ike a perception/mental thing. It's not like you are set in stone to dislike yourself.

I don't hate myself. I'm just very uncomfortable with I see ahead of me.

the alienation created in a capitalist workplace doesn't transfer over to socialism. socialism does away with the concept of "work" separated from the rest of your life. your life essence is what you create or give to this world, and the lines between that and regular life blur in socialism. you won't be stuck in an office all day long working on things completely separate from you and who you are. we don't want these things either user.

You could find work that is actually tolerable and pays well as opposed to the hellish nightmare that is minimum wage work in America.

Thats the concept but taken to its end, if the tax to fund the UBI gradually became 100% then FALGSC would be achieved. But personally without controlling the MoP i dont see how the Bourg could be stopped from rolling it back.

We shouldnt strongly oppose UBI, even though it could take the wind out of our sails, but we definitely shouldnt make it our platform. OTOH if people had more free time and no worries about paying for lifes essentials, they might start getting radical.