Basic Income

[Marshal of the People]

Greetings comrades, what do you guys think of basic income?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

http://www.basicincome.qut.edu.au/

Thanks.:grin:

[argeiphontes]

This might be the next big thing in saving capitalism from demand-depleted decline. At least in certain countries where labor isn't being employed like it used to because it's moved overseas, and/or as automation is used more to replace labor by technology, and/or only finance or capital-intensive industries are based (like Switzerland).

That being said, I'm not personally opposed to it. :grin:

[Marshal of the People]

I think the idea is similar to a socialist type society where everyone is given everything they need to survive (for example; housing, food, healthcare, education, etc.) but can get more money (or in a socialist society labour credits or some other form of currency) if they work.

[Marshal of the People]

This might be the next big thing in saving capitalism from demand-depleted decline. At least in certain countries where labor isn't being employed like it used to because it's moved overseas, and/or as automation is used more to replace labor by technology, and/or only finance or capital-intensive industries are based (like Switzerland).

That being said, I'm not personally opposed to it. :grin:

Why are you opposed to it (in my case I think a socialist society would be much better), but wouldn't it be better to at least make capitalism more humane while it lasts (however long that maybe).

[Q]

Basic income would effectively undermine one of the main pillars of capitalist rule, in disciplining the working class: The reserve army of labour. If everything you need to not only survive but to live is covered by a basic income, then that would transform capitalist labour relations the interests of the working class. It would empower working class people as they could stop surviving and start fighting for more. Start thinking about politics, democracy, culture, social relations and more good stuff.

So I'm all for it.

[Dagoth Ur]

Sounds like Market-Socialism except shittier because at least M-S involves building towards genuine Socialism. If you can get this far just go the rest of the way and get rid of the bourgeoisie rats altogether.

[Marshal of the People]

Sounds like Market-Socialism except shittier because at least M-S involves building towards genuine Socialism. If you can get this far just go the rest of the way and get rid of the bourgeoisie rats altogether.

It is far better than pure capitalism though, and as Q said it wouldn't be good for capitalism at all, it would undermine the whole system.

[Dagoth Ur]

No it wouldn't because you could never get the bourgeoisie to use their state to fund the lives the reserve army of labor. Maybe employed workers at best. Even if you could there would be no impetus to change things because you don't even have to work to be taken care of. I would never have a job again under such a system. Such lethargy is the death of class war (for workers) not an intensification.

Capitalism can be made better but let's not try to act like this type of nonsense would ever be put into place.

[Marshal of the People]

No it wouldn't because you could never get the bourgeoisie to use their state to fund the lives the reserve army of labor. Maybe employed workers at best. Even if you could there would be no impetus to change things because you don't even have to work to be taken care of. I would never have a job again under such a system. Such lethargy is the death of class war (for workers) not an intensification.

Capitalism can be made better but let's not try to act like this type of nonsense would ever be put into place.

You say never a lot but how do you know it could ever be put into place? People used to say man would never fly or step foot on the moon but just look what happened, I find it silly when people say things will never happen when those things could quite possibly happen even if you can't imagine it yourself.

For example people will never become dogs: Actually it is quite possible with genetic modification (though not with our levels of understanding of it and our technology).

You don't know it will never happen, don't you have at least a little hope in democracy (as imperfect and corrupt as our system maybe)?

[Dagoth Ur]

You say never a lot but how do you know it could ever be put into place?
Because only the workers could make it happen, or rather force it to happen, and if we were at that point we'd just have a revolution.


People used to say man would never fly or step foot on the moon but just look what happened, I find it silly when people say things will never happen when those things could quite possibly happen even if you can't imagine it yourself.
Well that's downright irrelevant. People also say we can't live off eating granite.


For example people will never become dogs: Actually it is quite possible with genetic modification.
lol no it isn't. We're not ever going to make dog-men and what a bastardization of nature that would be.


You don't know it will never happen, don't you have at least a little hope in democracy (as imperfect and corrupt as our system maybe)?
Um what democracy? You mean the bourgeoisie one? Why would they vote themselves out of power? It just doesn't make sense what you're saying.

[Marshal of the People]

Because only the workers could make it happen, or rather force it to happen, and if we were at that point we'd just have a revolution.

Workers could force it to happen through protests, referendums, petitions, etc.


Well that's downright irrelevant. People also say we can't live off eating granite.

No it isn't you said something plausible (even if only slightly plausible) could not happen, how do you know it can't happen? Can you see into the future or are you omnipotent and all-knowing?


lol no it isn't. We're not ever going to make dog-men and what a bastardization of nature that would be.

It is possible (you should read up about the possibilities of genetic engineering, modification and manipulation - it is very interesting), and just because we aren't going to do something doesn't mean it isn't possible


Um what democracy? You mean the bourgeoisie one? Why would they vote themselves out of power? It just doesn't make sense what you're saying.

Many things such as the minimum wage, maternity leave, unfair dismissal laws, fair working hours were brought about by democracy, I don't think the bourgoise liked those things but they didn't have a say thanks to the "bourgeoisie democracy".

[human strike]

I'm not usually one for transitional demands - or any demands - but the idea of demanding a social wage or basic income appeals to me on several levels. It's not something I think will ever happen though, but that maybe that's the point.

[Marshal of the People]

I'm not usually one for transitional demands - or any demands - but the idea of demanding a social wage or basic income appeals to me on several levels. It's not something I think will ever happen though, but that maybe that's the point.

It is possible but the question is; how possible?

[human strike]

It is possible but the question is; how possible?

I think the better question is what impact does making the demand have. We don't want a basic income - as better as that might be - we want communism.

[Marshal of the People]

I think the better question is what impact does making the demand have. We don't want a basic income - as better as that might be - we want communism.

Or socialism in my case.

[Q]

I think the better question is what impact does making the demand have. We don't want a basic income - as better as that might be - we want communism.
The impact is to politicise the working class as they fight for something concrete. The impact is to elevate our class out of a state of surviving and general political apathy. The impact is to structurally weaken the rule of capital. The impact is to strengthen our class for the fight for universal human freedom. As for the second sentence: It's simply not either-or.


Or socialism in my case.
They are the same thing. Why would you want to be stuck in a transition between capitalism and communism?

[human strike]

The impact is to politicise the working class as they fight for something concrete. The impact is to elevate our class out of a state of surviving and general political apathy. The impact is to structurally weaken the rule of capital. The impact is to strengthen our class for the fight for universal human freedom.

I'm interested specifically in what it does to how we think about and relate to work. I know Kathi Weeks talks about exactly this in her book on work but I'm only making my way through that very slowly - it's very interesting though.

[Marshal of the People]

They are the same thing. Why would you want to be stuck in a transition between capitalism and communism?

It really depends on what definition you use, the one used by socialists or the one used by communists.

[Q]

It really depends on what definition you use, the one used by socialists or the one used by communists.
So, how would you define it?

[argeiphontes]

Why are you opposed to it (in my case I think a socialist society would be much better), but wouldn't it be better to at least make capitalism more humane while it lasts (however long that maybe).

Oh, I'm not opposed to it. I was just trying to joke that I could use one now. Q's post is spot on, and as a market socialist I think there'd have to be something like this.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think there are some things to problematize here.
For one, who is excluded from the basic income? Even that basicincome.org site you linked suggests certain legal requirements - if not citizenship, some sort of legal residence. In practice, I can only see this meaning an intensification of existing exploitation of migrant labour, capital flight, etc. And would it be extended to prisoners? Those with warrants or facing charges?
In other words, it seems like a great strategy to sure up the loyalty of "bourgeois workers" in the metropole against the global working class.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wouldn't it cause inflation and negate the whole concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation)?

[Q]

Wouldn't it cause inflation and negate the whole concept (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand-pull_inflation)?
I suppose this is where "sliding scales" comes in. Belgium has something like this, where they index their wages on inflation.

[tachosomoza]

I think there are some things to problematize here.
For one, who is excluded from the basic income? Even that basicincome.org site you linked suggests certain legal requirements - if not citizenship, some sort of legal residence. In practice, I can only see this meaning an intensification of existing exploitation of migrant labour, capital flight, etc. And would it be extended to prisoners? Those with warrants or facing charges?
In other words, it seems like a great strategy to sure up the loyalty of "bourgeois workers" in the metropole against the global working class.

It definitely would be best to extend it to citizens and permanent residents first, the bourgeoisie would be excluded of course. I see no reason for those facing bourgeois justice to be excluded.

[Marshal of the People]

So, how would you define it?

I would define socialism as an economic system marked by the public ownership and control of the means of production, exchange and distribution.

[Remus Bleys]

Sounds like Market-Socialism except shittier because at least M-S involves building towards genuine Socialism. If you can get this far just go the rest of the way and get rid of the bourgeoisie rats altogether.what

[Remus Bleys]

I would define socialism as an economic system marked by the public ownership and control of the means of production, exchange and distribution.
The revolutionary program of socialism does away with ownership, with control, and with exchange.

[Marshal of the People]

The revolutionary program of socialism does away with ownership, with control, and with exchange.

Yes of course, though there are many different types of socialism, personally I just take parts from different types of socialism as well as parts from communism.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes of course, though there are many different types of socialism, personally I just take parts from different types of socialism as well as parts from communism.
I am confused.
What types of socialism are there besides communism?

[Dagoth Ur]

what

Well that is the idea anyways. I'm not convinced of its sincerity but I'm not convinced they don't mean it either.

[Marshal of the People]

I am confused.
What types of socialism are there besides communism?

State socialism, market socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism (e.g. islamic socialism, christian socialism), utopian socialism, libertarian socialism, liberal socialism, eco-socialism, neo-socialism, communism and Marxism, Anarchism is also said to be socialist.
Personally I don't agree with all these schools of thought and think some of them aren't socialist at all.

[Remus Bleys]

State socialism, market socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism (e.g. islamic socialism, christian socialism), utopian socialism, libertarian socialism, liberal socialism, eco-socialism, neo-socialism, communism and Marxism, Anarchism is also said to be socialist.
Personally I don't agree with all these schools of thought and think some of them aren't socialist at all.
State socialism seems more like state socialism as the state is a class tool, so the existence of a state implies their are classes, thus wage labor etc. How is that not capitalism?
religiuos socialism is purposefully vague.
Libertarian Socialism typically advocates for communism.
Liberal Socialism calls for a "mixed economy" and therefore state capitalism and regular capitalism.
Eco-Socialism is purposefully vague.
Neo-Socialism is purposefully vague.

Which ones do you agree with.

[Remus Bleys]

Well that is the idea anyways. I'm not convinced of its sincerity but I'm not convinced they don't mean it either.
how does it lead to real socialism(tm)

[Marshal of the People]

State socialism seems more like state socialism as the state is a class tool, so the existence of a state implies their are classes, thus wage labor etc. How is that not capitalism?
religiuos socialism is purposefully vague.
Libertarian Socialism typically advocates for communism.
Liberal Socialism calls for a "mixed economy" and therefore state capitalism and regular capitalism.
Eco-Socialism is purposefully vague.
Neo-Socialism is purposefully vague.

Which ones do you agree with.

Well I personally don't agree with any of them in whole, I think that the means of production, distribution and exchange need to be owned and controlled by the people through a fully democratic state. I think that for it to work though the state must be fully democratic and the people should have the ability to kick-out any representative who is performing poorly or not doing the peoples will, I also think that the people should have more say in the running of the society through more referendums (for example referendums would automatically be held for major decisions which affect society).

I think that all people should be given everything they need to survive (for example housing, food, healthcare, education, utilities, etc.) and that those who work should be payed the whole price of their labour (though taxes would have to be taken out for building roads, hospitals, healthcare and such...).

I don't really have time to properly explain it right now (I am suppose to be doing homework) but feel free to tear apart my idea if you wish, it isn't perfect and my views may change.

[Remus Bleys]

Well I personally don't agree with any of them in whole, I think that the means of production, distribution and exchange
You see, exchange implies capitalism.

need to be owned and controlled by the people through a fully democratic state.
You may want to check out the democratic principle by Bordiga, wherein he questions the nature of democracy.

I think that for it to work though the state must be fully democratic and the people should have the ability to kick-out any representative who is performing poorly or not doing the peoples will, I also think that the people should have more say in the running of the society through more referendums (for example referendums would automatically be held for major decisions which affect society).
This is an instance of delegation vs representation. Delegation is superior because it doesn't have arbitrary terms, and if the people who have voted for the delegate like this delegate they don't have to go through the nonsense of reelecting them. In addition, the delegate will be immediately recallable at any time, unlike the representative.


I think that all people should be given everything they need to survive (for example housing, food, healthcare, education, utilities, etc.) and that those who work should be payed the whole price of their labour (though taxes would have to be taken out for building roads, hospitals, healthcare and such...).You see why have a welfare state when communism is possible?


I don't really have time to properly explain it right now (I am suppose to be doing homework) but feel free to tear apart my idea if you wish, it isn't perfect and my views may change.
I think you are confused as to the class nature of the State. State and Revolution by Lenin is what I suggest for you to read in order to help determine it.

[Marshal of the People]

You see, exchange implies capitalism.

Definition of exchange: An act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.


You may want to check out the democratic principle by Bordiga, wherein he questions the nature of democracy.

Democracy isn't perfect but it is better than autocracy and fairer than technocracy.


This is an instance of delegation vs representation. Delegation is superior because it doesn't have arbitrary terms, and if the people who have voted for the delegate like this delegate they don't have to go through the nonsense of reelecting them. In addition, the delegate will be immediately recallable at any time, unlike the representative.
You see why have a welfare state when communism is possible?

You are right I probably should have used the word delegate instead of representative. In my system delegates are elected in a type of democratic-technocratic fashion - the best candidates are selected and the best of those are then elected, those who under-perform or do not do what the people wish are recalled/dismissed by the people and replaced with a new delegate.

I guess it kind of is like a welfare state, what is your definition of communism and what would your ideal society look like?


I think you are confused as to the class nature of the State. State and Revolution by Lenin is what I suggest for you to read in order to help determine it.

Thank you.

[Remus Bleys]

You also have this idea that we can have ideal visions. To make up a blueprint of communism is utopian, at most what I would be able to give you is just guesswork.
Communism is not a system imposed or that is willed into being, it must organically rise from the class struggle as the only viable alternative.

[Marshal of the People]

I think you are confused as to the class nature of the State. State and Revolution by Lenin is what I suggest for you to read in order to help determine it.

Personally I think the state can be used for great good as well as great evil, though it has usually been used for evil, I think the state should be a slave of the people not the other way around which has been the case for centuries.

[Remus Bleys]

Personally I think the state can be used for great good as well as great evil, though it has usually been used for evil, I think the state should be a slave of the people not the other way around which has been the case for centuries.
the state is a tool of class struggle and withers away as the class struggle does. When we have no pangs of bourgeois society we will have no state. To quote marx, "The state is the intermediary between man and human liberty."

[argeiphontes]

You also have this idea that we can have ideal visions. To make up a blueprint of communism is utopian, at most what I would be able to give you is just guesswork.
Communism is not a system imposed or that is willed into being, it must organically rise from the class struggle as the only viable alternative.

Then how do you know what qualities it will have? What if anarcho-syndicalism or market socialism arises instead?

[Marshal of the People]

Then how do you know what qualities it will have? What if anarcho-syndicalism or market socialism arises instead?

That is actually a good point.

[Remus Bleys]

Then how do you know what qualities it will have? What if anarcho-syndicalism or market socialism arises instead?
Because anarcho-syndicalism is a tactic and market socialism is a variant of capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

market socialism is a variant of capitalism.

It's not, but that's not the point. How do you know market socialism, or some completely different form of society, won't be the result though? Why does it have to be communism?

[Remus Bleys]

It's not, but that's not the point. How do you know market socialism, or some completely different form of society, won't be the result though? Why does it have to be communism?
because communism is the only rational administration of things. it is the only society that lacks the inefficiency of capitalism, that does not rely on constant expansion, that does not have a problem with overproduction, that does not need to destroy the earth, that does not need to kill countless people and that is still compatible with a post-capitalist and industrial economy.

That is why market socialism is not possible. It is still a form of capitalism. This post is basically "Market socialism is not capitalism, therefore it is a viable alternative to capitalism" when in fact Market Socialism is a variant of capitalism, and therefore is not a viable alternative to capitalism.

[Marshal of the People]

because communism is the only rational administration of things. it is the only society that lacks the inefficiency of capitalism, that does not rely on constant expansion, that does not have a problem with overproduction, that does not need to destroy the earth, that does not need to kill countless people and that is still compatible with a post-capitalist and industrial economy.

That is why market socialism is not possible. It is still a form of capitalism. This post is basically "Market socialism is not capitalism, therefore it is a viable alternative to capitalism" when in fact Market Socialism is a variant of capitalism, and therefore is not a viable alternative to capitalism.

Even if that were true (though I myself actually partly agree with that) not everyone would turn to communism, what is to stop the people from turning to fascism, market socialism or other alternatives? You can't expect everyone to know what is best for them.

[Remus Bleys]

Even if that were true (though I myself actually partly agree with that) not everyone would turn to communism, what is to stop the people from turning to fascism, market socialism or other alternatives? You can't expect everyone to know what is best for them.
communism is the end to capitalism. thus, capitalism is not abolished when people turn to fascism or market socialism or liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism or whatever the fix of the decade is.
Socialism or Barbarism.

[Dagoth Ur]

how does it lead to real socialism(tm)
By building up productive forces to the point where socialism can be enacted. Market-socialists are by definition stagists.

[Remus Bleys]

By building up productive forces to the point where socialism can be enacted. Market-socialists are by definition stagists.

Oh yeah I forgot. Stalinists genuinely believe if you have a transistion from precapitalism to capitalism and call it socialism then itt is socialism.

[Czy]

I think this is an excellent initiative and short-term demand for the revolutionary movement. It has been empirically proven (in small scale experiments) to reduce poverty, crime as well as increasing economic activity.


Wouldn't it cause inflation and negate the whole concept?

A similar model was implemented in Namibia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Namibia). It led to an increase in economic activity, poverty reduction and a 40% decrease in crime. Their inflation rate is among the lowest in Africa. However, there are a number of variables that don't make the experiment a sufficient refutation of inflation worries. For starters, the model isn't as simple as 'income for everyone'.

I personally believe the model would fall prey to inflationary pressure but surely the basic income check could be indexed to some algorithmic code that would align the check with macroeconomic policy or something similar?