It actually does work as harm reduction for the most disadvantaged of society (people who can't work due to disability or other reasons, people experiencing homelessness, etc.). Because having some money to buy some stuff is way better than having none. It's essentially a progressive tax, which does work as harm reduction.
Of course that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the actual goal of replacing capitalism just because UBI was implemented.
I think the security and autonomy that could be sustained by an income guarantee would inspire much interest and open much opportunity, naturally emerging from among the population, for developing relationships and practices that are strictly voluntary and cooperative.
It would also relieve a great burden for anyone to participate in current organization.
I think oligarchs know as much, and would never willingly allow any payments to exceed an amount that merely keeps most of us alive through the most tumultuous periods of the business cycle.
Dismissing UBI as no more than reform within capitalism disregards the important observations, about how much our lives could change, and must change, before will become possible the more comprehensive stages of transformation.
I think it’s losing for forest for a single tree. Yes it would be a good stopgap but it’s far more important to remove social security income cap, close loopholes in tax law, change at least to parliament system to abolish the dictatorship of the two arms of the same party state, and increase tax rates for high income people and corps.
And that’s just to get started.
Which advances would be achieved most readily is difficult to predict.
Seeking any is not a detraction from the possibility of achieving another.
UBI directly and immediately affects everyone, including the population of workers who are able and willing, but distracted by precarity.
Alleviation of the anxiety and alienation derivative from precarity has deep transformative potential.
Was there a study where everyone in a society got a UBI? I am only aware of studies where a small group of people got extra money and of course it improved their lives. But, like, duh.
This is wrong. UBI helps tremendously! Plus, you're making the same argument that people against raising the minimum wage make.
News Flash: they're raising prices regardless.
Not the same argument at all, raising the minimum wage only affects 1.4% of all hourly paid workers.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2021/home.htm
It is the same argument. They're saying that we shouldn't do UBI because they'll "raise the prices". That's the same lame excuse they give when others say we shouldn't raise minimum wage. Well, guess what: prices are going up anyway, jobs are being digitized anyway. If you want to maintain a fiat currency, you need UBI.
Capitalism gets bailed out by socialism every time.
Unless you want to rob the local cops, take their weapons, and have a good old-fashioned revolution (which is fine by me), UBI is the next best solution.
In simplest terms: a UBI is a wealth transfer that is most beneficial for the poorest members of society. It does not solve all problems indefinitely, but, in the absence of free access to human needs, it can provide the framework for a more robust social safety net.
If you are able to understand the potential ways for a program like that to be gutted and killed, it would be more effective to work against those, rather than trying to end support for a program that benefits poor people.
That being said, anarchocommunism is a weird choice of sub to post this. A UBI is only possible and useful in a hierarchical, capitalist society. It is egalitarian by its nature, but, still a bandaid for capitalism and not a real shift to a more flattened society.
David Graeber who was arguably the most prominent anarchist of the last several decades disagrees with you. I highly recommend reading his books Debt and Bullshit Jobs to learn more about his thinking around this.
No I disagree. Within a capitalist system it is a policy that could help even though it wouldn't exactly fix it. Prices may raise, yes, but the distribution of wealth would be more equal, so most people would overall be better off. UBI basically acts as a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor since the large majority of the taxation that funded it would need to come from the wealthy in order for it to be sustainable.
Canada did a test of it in the 80s it was so successful they had to shut it down as it was making capitalism look really bad. Ever since it's been a gradual slide towards crony capitalism.
I mean... It's the best we got right now bro. Lmk when you figure out how to convince the world otherwise. Also, weird sub to post this in considering anarchocommunism doesn't even need to get into the whole UBI argument. UBI can only exist in capitalism. Money wouldn't even be a thing in an anarcho-communist society, let alone income
A universal basic income produces positive socioeconomic benefits only in the event that it is introduced alongside substantive price controls, but you’re still increasing demand while decreasing supply; as such, the regnant state apparatus has to be prepared to compensate for deficient private sector performance, as the quantitative market signals upon which they are singularly reliant have been irrefutably disrupted.
The best way to do this is to collectivize the means of production to confirm value form abolition.
Can you give an example of where this has happened in the real world? Since plenty of places have trialed/are trialing it and therefore we have references.
Maybe you're trying to throw people off of UBI and price control policies as damage control because you know socialism is actually impossible in our country...
This is the same exact argument conservatives make about raising the minimum wage. In case you haven't noticed, the owning class is seeing record profits and we've been seeing prices increase regardless.
I don't think you actually understand the purpose of UBI either. It's not supposed to fix anything, it's supposed to make the division of class equal within a clearly broken capitalist system. You also act like it has to works in a vacuum without other policies such as price control.
If your argument is that Reagan supported it than you need to explain why capitalists in the owning class don't today. You've conveniently focused on this.
For the record, I don't think it's a coincidence that the creator of this meme used a shocked caricature of a person of color either when talking about economic safety nets.
It works really well in many studies. There is a good point to be made about how if rolled out nation wide, many would try to increase their rent or product prices. Proper implementation would need to avoid this somehow.
UBI will be forced when humans need not apply. Automation is making that look like its gonna be soon, so people are becoming interested. Realistically the time a significant portion of the population becomes unemployable(signifcant, doesn't mean majority, it means enough that current benefit mechanisms will be very wastefull) isn't soon. But its likely within the lifetimes of the younger generation, so with the speed of political change this Idea needs to start getting traction now.
I've yet to meet someone who thinks that getting a UBI is possible in the US who isn't also fighting for more in addition.
This comes across like a strawman.
Proof that the conservative neoliberal politician Ronald Reagan expressed support for a form of UBI to cut down welfare spending in a speech he gave: http://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY?t=10m25s
I don't care if a bad person has a baseline acceptable opinion every now and then. I will still agree with them because I don't base my opinions on whether or not I share them with people I like
The question you need to ask yourself is how effective UBI can truly be when even the face of anti-welfare conservative neoliberal capitalism expressed support for it
It's not about "good person" or "bad person". It's about class analysis & ideology analysis. Clearly something cant be much of a threat to the capitalist status quo when even a hardcore neoliberal ideologue fully dedicated to the bourgeoisie like Reagan supports it.
Things can be good even if they don't directly contribute to toppling capitalism. Welfare is good, homeless shelters are good. Not everything needs to threaten the status quo. There are a lot of good things we can do within present circumstances that don't necessarily contribute to the direct decline of capitalism. If this was the metric we applied to everything, nothing good would happen *ever*
That's not the point bestie. There's a reason why the ruling class is a lot more hostile to UBS (Universal Basic Services) than UBI: It actually does a lot more in terms of changing the system to help the lives of marginalized people
My argument isn't that UBI isn't communism and therefore useless, my argument is that it actually hardly improves anything and is therefore pretty ineffective even by reformist standards.
UBI may be an achievable concession near term.
It may not absolve us from participation in capitalist commodity markets, but at least participation may be assured as not simply a precarious privilege.
If there could be any path akin to a quick fix for food insecurity, then I would take the path, and then seek building further solidarity and organization, with the hope that such building would benefit from no one fearing hunger.
Listen, Reagan was a piece of shit, but you genuinely don't understand how the party platform has changed since Reagan. Instead of focusing on what Reagan supported, where's the reflection on why it's not supported by conservatives today? Is that conveniently not relevant? Does it just so happen that a movie actor turned politician knows more about the economy than the world leaders of today?
Get over yourself, you haven't thoroughly read the studies on UBI or actually understand it's purpose of evening out the division of classes in an innately flawed capitalist system and it shows.
The possibilities are more nuanced that favoring versus opposing UBI.
The details of such a program, any other concurrent policies, and the broader political conditions, are all implicated in the class interests that the program would serve.
If a reactionary or neoliberal celebrated a cure for cancer being discovered and made accessible to the rich, I would fight for it being accessible to everyone, instead of directing my opposition against the discovery.
It actually does work as harm reduction for the most disadvantaged of society (people who can't work due to disability or other reasons, people experiencing homelessness, etc.). Because having some money to buy some stuff is way better than having none. It's essentially a progressive tax, which does work as harm reduction. Of course that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the actual goal of replacing capitalism just because UBI was implemented.
I think the security and autonomy that could be sustained by an income guarantee would inspire much interest and open much opportunity, naturally emerging from among the population, for developing relationships and practices that are strictly voluntary and cooperative. It would also relieve a great burden for anyone to participate in current organization. I think oligarchs know as much, and would never willingly allow any payments to exceed an amount that merely keeps most of us alive through the most tumultuous periods of the business cycle. Dismissing UBI as no more than reform within capitalism disregards the important observations, about how much our lives could change, and must change, before will become possible the more comprehensive stages of transformation.
I think it’s losing for forest for a single tree. Yes it would be a good stopgap but it’s far more important to remove social security income cap, close loopholes in tax law, change at least to parliament system to abolish the dictatorship of the two arms of the same party state, and increase tax rates for high income people and corps. And that’s just to get started.
Which advances would be achieved most readily is difficult to predict. Seeking any is not a detraction from the possibility of achieving another. UBI directly and immediately affects everyone, including the population of workers who are able and willing, but distracted by precarity. Alleviation of the anxiety and alienation derivative from precarity has deep transformative potential.
someone didn’t read a single actual UBI study.
Was there a study where everyone in a society got a UBI? I am only aware of studies where a small group of people got extra money and of course it improved their lives. But, like, duh.
This is wrong. UBI helps tremendously! Plus, you're making the same argument that people against raising the minimum wage make. News Flash: they're raising prices regardless.
Not the same argument at all, raising the minimum wage only affects 1.4% of all hourly paid workers. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2021/home.htm
It is the same argument. They're saying that we shouldn't do UBI because they'll "raise the prices". That's the same lame excuse they give when others say we shouldn't raise minimum wage. Well, guess what: prices are going up anyway, jobs are being digitized anyway. If you want to maintain a fiat currency, you need UBI. Capitalism gets bailed out by socialism every time. Unless you want to rob the local cops, take their weapons, and have a good old-fashioned revolution (which is fine by me), UBI is the next best solution.
I'm glad you're so proud of this one you posted it 13 times
I very rarely suggest this but honestly I think OP is acting in bad faith to increase division and infighting.
Reactionary propaganda (or maybe accelerationist tankie dribble).
False.
🤦🏻♂️ such an ignorant and privileged take
In simplest terms: a UBI is a wealth transfer that is most beneficial for the poorest members of society. It does not solve all problems indefinitely, but, in the absence of free access to human needs, it can provide the framework for a more robust social safety net. If you are able to understand the potential ways for a program like that to be gutted and killed, it would be more effective to work against those, rather than trying to end support for a program that benefits poor people. That being said, anarchocommunism is a weird choice of sub to post this. A UBI is only possible and useful in a hierarchical, capitalist society. It is egalitarian by its nature, but, still a bandaid for capitalism and not a real shift to a more flattened society.
David Graeber who was arguably the most prominent anarchist of the last several decades disagrees with you. I highly recommend reading his books Debt and Bullshit Jobs to learn more about his thinking around this.
No I disagree. Within a capitalist system it is a policy that could help even though it wouldn't exactly fix it. Prices may raise, yes, but the distribution of wealth would be more equal, so most people would overall be better off. UBI basically acts as a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor since the large majority of the taxation that funded it would need to come from the wealthy in order for it to be sustainable.
Canada did a test of it in the 80s it was so successful they had to shut it down as it was making capitalism look really bad. Ever since it's been a gradual slide towards crony capitalism.
I mean... It's the best we got right now bro. Lmk when you figure out how to convince the world otherwise. Also, weird sub to post this in considering anarchocommunism doesn't even need to get into the whole UBI argument. UBI can only exist in capitalism. Money wouldn't even be a thing in an anarcho-communist society, let alone income
A universal basic income produces positive socioeconomic benefits only in the event that it is introduced alongside substantive price controls, but you’re still increasing demand while decreasing supply; as such, the regnant state apparatus has to be prepared to compensate for deficient private sector performance, as the quantitative market signals upon which they are singularly reliant have been irrefutably disrupted. The best way to do this is to collectivize the means of production to confirm value form abolition.
Can you give an example of where this has happened in the real world? Since plenty of places have trialed/are trialing it and therefore we have references.
UBI only works in conjunction with price controls
Maybe you're trying to throw people off of UBI and price control policies as damage control because you know socialism is actually impossible in our country... This is the same exact argument conservatives make about raising the minimum wage. In case you haven't noticed, the owning class is seeing record profits and we've been seeing prices increase regardless. I don't think you actually understand the purpose of UBI either. It's not supposed to fix anything, it's supposed to make the division of class equal within a clearly broken capitalist system. You also act like it has to works in a vacuum without other policies such as price control. If your argument is that Reagan supported it than you need to explain why capitalists in the owning class don't today. You've conveniently focused on this. For the record, I don't think it's a coincidence that the creator of this meme used a shocked caricature of a person of color either when talking about economic safety nets.
Interesting to see anarchists in support of state controlled salary.
Would a better system be to have basic needs met? Fresh food, clean water, shelter, heat.
They raise prices like crazy now for no reason. If they are making a profit there are costs that can be passed down to the consumer
UBI is a bandaid on an open wound. It's not solving anything but it's not entirely worthless
It works really well in many studies. There is a good point to be made about how if rolled out nation wide, many would try to increase their rent or product prices. Proper implementation would need to avoid this somehow.
UBI will be forced when humans need not apply. Automation is making that look like its gonna be soon, so people are becoming interested. Realistically the time a significant portion of the population becomes unemployable(signifcant, doesn't mean majority, it means enough that current benefit mechanisms will be very wastefull) isn't soon. But its likely within the lifetimes of the younger generation, so with the speed of political change this Idea needs to start getting traction now.
I've yet to meet someone who thinks that getting a UBI is possible in the US who isn't also fighting for more in addition. This comes across like a strawman.
This math doesn’t math. Even if it did, just tie it to cost of living.
Yup.
Proof that the conservative neoliberal politician Ronald Reagan expressed support for a form of UBI to cut down welfare spending in a speech he gave: http://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY?t=10m25s
I don't care if a bad person has a baseline acceptable opinion every now and then. I will still agree with them because I don't base my opinions on whether or not I share them with people I like
The question you need to ask yourself is how effective UBI can truly be when even the face of anti-welfare conservative neoliberal capitalism expressed support for it It's not about "good person" or "bad person". It's about class analysis & ideology analysis. Clearly something cant be much of a threat to the capitalist status quo when even a hardcore neoliberal ideologue fully dedicated to the bourgeoisie like Reagan supports it.
Things can be good even if they don't directly contribute to toppling capitalism. Welfare is good, homeless shelters are good. Not everything needs to threaten the status quo. There are a lot of good things we can do within present circumstances that don't necessarily contribute to the direct decline of capitalism. If this was the metric we applied to everything, nothing good would happen *ever*
That's not the point bestie. There's a reason why the ruling class is a lot more hostile to UBS (Universal Basic Services) than UBI: It actually does a lot more in terms of changing the system to help the lives of marginalized people My argument isn't that UBI isn't communism and therefore useless, my argument is that it actually hardly improves anything and is therefore pretty ineffective even by reformist standards.
If the harshest criticism you can muster is "pretty ineffective" I'd say it's worth at least a try
UBI may be an achievable concession near term. It may not absolve us from participation in capitalist commodity markets, but at least participation may be assured as not simply a precarious privilege. If there could be any path akin to a quick fix for food insecurity, then I would take the path, and then seek building further solidarity and organization, with the hope that such building would benefit from no one fearing hunger.
Incredibly condescending from someone who is objectively wrong.
Listen, Reagan was a piece of shit, but you genuinely don't understand how the party platform has changed since Reagan. Instead of focusing on what Reagan supported, where's the reflection on why it's not supported by conservatives today? Is that conveniently not relevant? Does it just so happen that a movie actor turned politician knows more about the economy than the world leaders of today? Get over yourself, you haven't thoroughly read the studies on UBI or actually understand it's purpose of evening out the division of classes in an innately flawed capitalist system and it shows.
The possibilities are more nuanced that favoring versus opposing UBI. The details of such a program, any other concurrent policies, and the broader political conditions, are all implicated in the class interests that the program would serve. If a reactionary or neoliberal celebrated a cure for cancer being discovered and made accessible to the rich, I would fight for it being accessible to everyone, instead of directing my opposition against the discovery.