Basic income

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Might come off as a wee bit too reformist, or god forbid, social democratic, but comrades in the EU might be interested in this initiative:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/eu20130404#When:19:33:52Z

It seems like a a bit of a stepping stone for getting people to start thinking more philosophically about socialism (very left libertarian in its own way), and fixing exploitation (especially that stemming from primitive accumulation) to an extent.

SIgn it if you want:
http://basicincome2013.eu/

[Die Neue Zeit]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Universal basic income fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment

Why would someone prefer to work if they receive a basic income anyway? I thought the whole point of Socialism was to abolish this idea of wage-labour, not entrench it.


2) Desire to work and avoid the stigma of not doing something

Again, the same issue. Under what conditions of capitalism would a worker not feel alienated, but feel a desire to perform wage-labour?

3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation

Granted, although this would be somewhat offset by the existence of the basic income itself, but yeah, downward pressure on wages shows the limitations and dangers of engaging in currency-related politicking.


4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)

Not so, if the basic income is drawn from a social pot with no loss to existing non-monetised forms of welfare.


5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)

This is fair, though ultimately it is presumably a measure that would only work in a society that was becoming more equal, in terms of social and economic power; a situation that by necessity means a loss of power for the ruling class, and advances in power for the working class. Under capitalism, if a few lumpen-proletarians leech off the back of a re-distributive measure that shifts economic and social power towards the working class, then so be it. That isn't our problem under the capitalist system, we shouldn't try and manage its ill effects.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Was it Hayek or von Mises who were in favour of a basic income scheme? It was either one of them or some of their disciples. It's not entirely unpopular with some of those capitalist types, as it would create a more "level initial playing field" to create a "fairer" and more "efficient" market.

Since a basic income system can take shape in various ways-- sometimes it might be preferential to an existing welfare system (particularly if such is very poor); at the same time, if it would entail less support for those with the most need, it might be worse.

Overall I'm not very positively inclined to basic income schemes, however...

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Was it Hayek or von Mises who were in favour of a basic income scheme?

Heh, leftists had it first...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would someone prefer to work if they receive a basic income anyway? I thought the whole point of Socialism was to abolish this idea of wage-labour, not entrench it.

Again, the same issue. Under what conditions of capitalism would a worker not feel alienated, but feel a desire to perform wage-labour?

Even under production-for-use-not-profit relations, production for use still needs to occur. Without all the right set of conditions, universal basic income would result in shortages in production for use.

Besides, even the OP suggested that the proposal might be social-democratic, so basic income under for-profit relations is very problematic.


Granted, although this would be somewhat offset by the existence of the basic income itself, but yeah, downward pressure on wages shows the limitations and dangers of engaging in currency-related politicking.

Note to you and the OP: This is why I prefer a job guarantee program, an employer-of-last-resort program. Such program, if fully implemented, would result in upward pressure on wages back in relation to productivity increases.


Not so, if the basic income is drawn from a social pot with no loss to existing non-monetised forms of welfare.

The priority here should be the maintenance or expansion of the "social wage" coupled with ending structural and cyclical unemployment via the ELR, whether "this side" or "that side" of a revolutionary period. Then might a basic income scheme be introduced that doesn't compromise all the above.


Heh, leftists had it first...

Actually, it was a guy named Louis Blanc. He entered into a coalition with French liberals.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Even under production-for-use-not-profit relations, production for use still needs to occur. Without all the right set of conditions, universal basic income would result in shortages in production for use.

You are still compelling people to work to survive; wage-labour. That is nothing to do with Socialism.


Besides, even the OP suggested that the proposal might be social-democratic, so basic income under for-profit relations is very problematic.

Of course.




Note to you and the OP: This is why I prefer a job guarantee program, an employer-of-last-resort program. Such program, if fully implemented, would result in upward pressure on wages back in relation to productivity increases.

It would create a mammoth budget deficit, though. A case of 'same day, different shit'. The time for old-school Keynesianism, or post-Keynesianism as you seem to be advocating, has been and gone.


The priority here should be the maintenance or expansion of the "social wage" coupled with ending structural and cyclical unemployment via the ELR, whether "this side" or "that side" of a revolutionary period. Then might a basic income scheme be introduced that doesn't compromise all the above.

You can't end cyclical unemployment under capitalism, and you can only eradicate structural unemployment in some areas, for a temporary time period under capitalism. So i'm not sure why you're advocating this as a policy for 'this side' of a revolutionary period. Well, I am - your policies are designed to manage capitalism, but that's an elephant that's gone stale in the corner of the room, right?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are still compelling people to work to survive; wage-labour. That is nothing to do with Socialism.

That's why I said "without all the right set of conditions."


It would create a mammoth budget deficit, though. A case of 'same day, different shit'. The time for old-school Keynesianism, or post-Keynesianism as you seem to be advocating, has been and gone.

The time for "Bastard" Keynesianism has been and gone, but Post-Keynesianism hasn't even been given a shot yet. You also ignore the taxation side of the equation, which ELR proponents haven't. According to Chartalist theories of money, governments spend money first and then collect taxes (implicitly contracting the money supply).


You can't end cyclical unemployment under capitalism, and you can only eradicate structural unemployment in some areas, for a temporary time period under capitalism. So i'm not sure why you're advocating this as a policy for 'this side' of a revolutionary period. Well, I am - your policies are designed to manage capitalism, but that's an elephant that's gone stale in the corner of the room, right?

You obviously haven't heard of actual state capitalism and certain nostalgic experiences for being "guaranteed a job" (not of the Social-Democratic type). The basic premise behind all of this, even the ELR, is that people would be guaranteed a job, but not guaranteed to stay in the same job in the same workplace until retirement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Die Neue Zeit;2606345]That's why I said "without all the right set of conditions."

But even if your 'set of conditions' fix the production function so that it is efficient for use, you're still getting there through wage labour.



The time for "Bastard" Keynesianism has been and gone, but Post-Keynesianism hasn't even been given a shot yet. You also ignore the taxation side of the equation, which ELR proponents haven't. According to Chartalist theories of money, governments spend money first and then collect taxes (implicitly contracting the money supply).

Post-Keynesian is the most self-contradictory, piece of wank Social Democracy masquerading as Socialism. It focuses on taxation, on the 'employer of last resort', on jobs and incomes policies; it does nothing towards actual Socialism - it doesn't pretend to want to abolish wage labour, to abolish money, to deal with states and country borders. Having studied it intensely since last year, it's very clear to me that it's a theory of managing capital, and probably a bad one at that.



You obviously haven't heard of actual state capitalism and certain nostalgic experiences for being "guaranteed a job" (not of the Social-Democratic type). The basic premise behind all of this, even the ELR, is that people would be guaranteed a job, but not guaranteed to stay in the same job in the same workplace until retirement.

You're still not getting (or perhaps wilfully ignoring?) that the guarantee of a job in the employ of the state is not mutually exclusive to the continuation of wage labour. I mean, it would be a step forward if people were guaranteed jobs in a job rotation system, but it's not really anything like Socialism is it? And it's not really something practicable; it can't exist under capitalism because it would kill the accumulation of capital. So it isn't Socialist, and it can't exist under capitalism.

And as an aside, nostalgia for a previous political system heightened by current jobs crises is a really shitty reason for resurrecting some historic economic and political theories.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But even if your 'set of conditions' fix the production function so that it is efficient for use, you're still getting there through wage labour.

You're now talking about something further past "that side of a revolutionary period." That's a different matter.


Post-Keynesian is the most self-contradictory, piece of wank Social Democracy masquerading as Socialism. It focuses on taxation, on the 'employer of last resort', on jobs and incomes policies; it does nothing towards actual Socialism - it doesn't pretend to want to abolish wage labour, to abolish money, to deal with states and country borders. Having studied it intensely since last year, it's very clear to me that it's a theory of managing capital, and probably a bad one at that.

"Intensely"? If truly so, then good for you. If not, at least you're starting to learn.

Um, it doesn't "masquerade as Socialism" much, but on reform levels this "wank" is more radical and substantive than your usual wage and welfare struggles mantra. The school is diverse, from guys like Steve Keen who don't discuss ELR much, to right-wingers who see ELR as the replacement for unemployment benefits, to proper centrists like L. Randall Wray (ELR should have a single pay rate and not compete with the private sector for jobs), to progressives and leftists.

Taxation isn't a crucial area of the school's thinking, because it merely repeats the progressive taxation mantra. The unifying area of this school is lender-of-last-resort policy, moreso than ELR within MMT.

Abolishing wage labour "this side" of a revolutionary period is a fantasy, so it's natural that Post-Keynesians who are ELR proponents oppose basic income schemes.


You're still not getting (or perhaps wilfully ignoring?) that the guarantee of a job in the employ of the state is not mutually exclusive to the continuation of wage labour.

"That side" of a revolutionary period, of course it is not mutually exclusive. "This side," the former is actually subsumed within the latter. Again, the most radical basic income proponents argue for their scheme because it tries to break away from wage labour relations "this side," and I have argued in my five counterpoints above that this is a fantasy.


I mean, it would be a step forward if people were guaranteed jobs in a job rotation system, but it's not really anything like Socialism is it? And it's not really something practicable; it can't exist under capitalism because it would kill the accumulation of capital.

Now you're trying to put me in the "managing capital" corner again, aren't you? I've already said what I needed to say on that subject in the last paragraph of this commentary:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/demands-state-power-t165523/index.html

The accumulation of capital is simply the focus of this radical labour policy, whether it occurs to some extent or not.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Living in the States I am far less concerned about any transition to socialism and more about the very survival of the vulnerable members of the working class. If you are able bodied and out of work you are fucked. Unemployment insurance -- if you qualify -- only lasts so long. During the recession the eligibility period was stretched out to 99 months. The usual period is around 26 weeks. After you max out your benefits you are SOL.

Many workers if they are over 45 and have a health condition that could be classified as a disability pursue Social Security Disability. The average payout is around $1000 a month -- but more importantly you are eligible for medical coverage. Without a national health service that is a big deal. Needless to say the disability rolls are bulging and the right wing is making threatening noises.

Basic Income schemes have an advantage in that there is potential support coming from both the liberal left and the libertarian right. Milton Friedman proposed a version in the late 60's (the negative income tax) and the Nixon White House seriously studied it. Ironically the biggest potential opposition to it then and now comes from public sector workers. Goodbye to all that administrative overhead -- and public sector jobs.

Given a slow growth economy, globalization, relentless automation and an overwhelmingly urban population something is going to have to be done.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That isn't ironic. Friedman supported it because it would replace social benefits, and guess which sector provides them?

[Popular Front of Judea]

So when did revolutionaries become advocates of bureaucracy? If a basic income grant is sufficient to replace welfare and disability payments what's the downside?


That isn't ironic. Friedman supported it because it would replace social benefits, and guess which sector provides them?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Commodification? That those same social benefits can be further marketized by the private insurance industry?

[Popular Front of Judea]

A straight ahead cash grant means less bureaucratic overhead which in turn means less opportunity for private sector outsourcing.

Do you have any philosophical objections to the American social security system?


Commodification? That those same social benefits can be further marketized by the private insurance industry?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, that tends to be inflationary without bumping up productivity. Check this out on the long-term unemployed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/unemployment-discrimination_n_3085686.html?utm_hp_ref=business

Would it be wise to stick them with basic income forever when they can make greater contributions to society as a whole (via a well-paid job guarantee)?

[vizzek]

welfare payments will always suck anyway. there's always going to be this crap about "getting back on your feet" when being "on your feet" is even less desirable than being unemployed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You've got to be joking, right? Unemployment discrimination?

[vizzek]

What?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You've got to be joking, right? Unemployment discrimination?

What's so amusing? Go pick up some street-side candy paper you lazy bum!