Unconditional Basic Income and Socialism/Communism

[leftist4817218]

Hi, is it just me or does the idea of Unconditional Basic Income seem to share a lot with the ideals of communism and socialism? Basically, everyone, no matter what, gets x money a month, enough to live a decent life.

The goals/ideals are that:


Poverty would stop existing immediately.
People would not be forced to do things like study something they don't like or work in a job they don't like. This also includes that people focus on interresting projects and dedicate themselves to creative works, instead of wasting their time in a job they don't like.
Work conditions, etc. would have to improve because people wouldn't work in a job with bad conditions.
And more which you can surely imagine.


Note that I am not advocating this idea, I would simply like to see opinions and the correlation of the ideals of this idea and that of Communism/Socialism. Please do not say stuff like "but then nobody would work", as this is not a discussion whether it would work or not, or how it would be financed, etc.. And also please do not say stuff like "any form of reformism is bad", because I am not advocating this and because such stuff is already known and repeated ad infinitum. My only aim with this thread is to learn about the correlations between the goals of the idea of unconditional basic income and that of socialism and communism, and to see some opinions too.

[CPN]

I agree with you it does go with Communism but more so Socialism. See in the end we as Communism hope to end Money,State and Class. But yes I do agree put an certain amount you will take away class quiet quickly. As long as the High Class is forced to go along with this.

[Loony Le Fist]

Hi, is it just me or does the idea of Unconditional Basic Income seem to share a lot with the ideals of communism and socialism?

I think that a guaranteed basic income for every citizen would be a great consolidation of social welfare services. It would definitely makes things less complicated, as there would be no "means testing" or any such non-sense. It would also empower workers in taking things to the next stage of true revolt, since they wouldn't need to worry about losing their livelihoods.

Workplace democracy is the necessary step in regaining control and can only happen with widespread strategic defiance. Comprehensive non-compliance is only possible if people are empowered and no longer fear losing their incomes. One way for this to happen is economic collapse. Unfortunately, this can lead to the uprising of right-wing movements in the rubble. It is much more conducive to left-wing movements for there to be a positive empowerment of workers, rather than a catastrophe that forces people into the streets en masse.

But it cannot stop at mere reform. Revolution must take place in order to wrestle control from the hands of the elite. The goal of socialism is not a social democratic welfare state. It is a complete change in the ownership of the means of production and true direct democracy. And IMO that includes as an end goal the elimination of the centralized state, wage slavery, money, and corporate tyranny. Though I'm certainly not expecting to eliminate those things overnight.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why would it eliminate poverty? It would only eliminate poverty if it was set at an appropriately high level, which, according to some definitions of poverty (such as the one used in Britain, which is <60% of median GDP per capita), would be impossibly high.

Further, in a capitalist economy, if EVERYONE had a guaranteed basic income that was fairly high, all that would happen is that the prices of goods (i.e. inflation) would increase, and so the basic income wouldn't achieve its goals, whatever they may be.

Things like basic income are a pipe dream because where capitalist social relations exist in a monetary economy, it is the bourgeoisie who controls the money supply and distribution. They rarely allow inflation of wages, but where wages are exogenously (i.e. through political reform) increased, they will just increase the prices of goods to ensure they continue to make a profit, and to ensure their continued economic, political and social domination.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi, is it just me or does the idea of Unconditional Basic Income seem to share a lot with the ideals of communism and socialism? Basically, everyone, no matter what, gets x money a month, enough to live a decent life.

The best way to look at the proposals for unconditional basic income in the context of capitalism is that this represents a tremendous burden for capital and that a realization of this proposal is extremely unlikely. Of course, the capitalist class can ideologically repackage this demand and modify it so that it effectively becomes a) much humbler in terms of money allowance and 2) consequent on a persons' unemployment status. In effect, you'd get unemployment benefits under a new, shiny name. However, I don't think there's much use in either of the two outlined possibilities for the ruling class.

On the other hand, in developed socialism (implying the realized abolition of commodity production, with money as its collateral damage) I would indeed think that unconditional basic income (housing, utilities, food, education, culture) could become a real possibility and not only that, but a necessity as well. What would be unconditional about it is the fact that this would not be tied to actual performance of labor, itself probably being possible due to a radical shift in the utilization of the technological aspect of the productive apparatus (meaning less labor time necessary).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On the other hand, in developed socialism (implying the realized abolition of commodity production, with money as its collateral damage) I would indeed think that unconditional basic income (housing, utilities, food, education, culture) could become a real possibility and not only that, but a necessity as well. What would be unconditional about it is the fact that this would not be tied to actual performance of labor, itself probably being possible due to a radical shift in the utilization of the technological aspect of the productive apparatus (meaning less labor time necessary).

Further, we could advance even further and hypothesise the release of terms like 'income' and 'value' from their monetary denomination. In a post-monetary world, universal basic income could essentially be denoted as a term that is inter-changeable with free access to all goods produced, subject to scarcity.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^^It's my birthday, i'm allowed one post sounding like DNZ.

[synthesis]

I don't know if it's inherently in line with the "ideals" of communism; Milton Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html) advocated a basic income, or rather a "negative income tax," where people making below a certain amount received income rather than paying taxes. Basic income was supposed to replace the other social welfare programs (so as to eliminate the costs of bureaucracy) rather than supplement.

[Thirsty Crow]

Further, we could advance even further and hypothesise the release of terms like 'income' and 'value' from their monetary denomination. In a post-monetary world, universal basic income could essentially be denoted as a term that is inter-changeable with free access to all goods produced, subject to scarcity.
Yes, I had precisely this in mind, so thanks for "translating" it into DNZ speak since why wouldn't you engage in something extraordinary and silly since it's your bday :lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, I had precisely this in mind, so thanks for "translating" it into DNZ speak since why wouldn't you engage in something extraordinary and silly since it's your bday :lol:

Comrade, have you read Lars Lih's interpretation of Kautsky's worker-class precariat...

Ah fuck it I can't keep it up. I'd be a shit DNZ :(

[Slavic]

2012 US: 100% poverty is approx. 48.8 million
2014 US: Poverty threshold 1 Adult: $11,670

Approx 570 billion in taxes needed if all of said 100% poverty claimed as individuals.
US 2013 Budget: 3.8 trillion

Poverty up to %200 is 110 million @ %200 threshold $23,340
Would result in 2.5 trillion, about 2/3 of current US budget.

I don't think any market economy, Capitalist or Socialist, could ever realistically provide this kind of basic income with out a brutal progressive tax

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1065.php#continue


Socialist Project - home
The B u l l e t

Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 1065
January 6, 2015

Socialist Project - home
An Unconditional Citizen's Income

Ursula Huws

In these straitened times, the idea of a basic income, granted unconditionally to every citizen, from cradle to grave, feels utopian. How on earth could it be paid for, we wonder. Wouldn't everyone just stop working? Where would we be then?

I first came across it, in the optimistic late 1960s, in a form that materialized in the so-called ‘fifth demand’ of the Women's Liberation movement (formulated in 1971) that called for ‘financial and legal independence’ for all women. This had an enormous appeal: not only is it degrading for anyone to have to beg or manipulate someone else for their means of subsistence, and materially damaging to that person if the money is not forthcoming; it also destroys the character of human relationships if they are embedded in relations of dependency. Unequal power relations like those between a husband and a dependent wife, parents and dependent teenagers, able-bodied providers and their disabled dependents can lead to a festering mess of guilt, gratitude and unexpressed anger. The results can range from dishonesty and depression to emotional and physical abuse. In a money-based society, an independent source of income is a pre-condition for human dignity.

Before going any further I should declare my personal position on this question. I have written intermittently about the idea of a basic minimum income since the 1990s, and would class myself as broadly in favour of the principle, though with some important reservations. In the 1990s I wrote a report[1] on the subject for the Citizen's Income Trust (CIT), the UK affiliate of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but then backed away from it for a while, for reasons that I will spell out later (under ‘risks’). Since then I have come back to the idea and am now (albeit not as active as I should be, and with some reservations I will come on to) a trustee of CIT. But I am writing here in a personal capacity and my opinions do not necessarily reflect the CIT's position.

Keeping Body and Soul Together

What I have written below is based on the assumption that a benefit would be paid unconditionally to all citizens, regardless of age, replacing most existing welfare benefits but also the personal tax allowance (at present, the first £10,000 of income for each person is disregarded for income tax, providing a ‘benefit’ of £2,000 per person in tax not paid at 20%). Whilst each person would receive the benefit, therefore, they would also pay tax on all income. The level of the benefit, the rate of tax, and the degree to which that tax is graduated would of course be political decisions and I am not going to make detailed proposals here. But my assumption is that the level of benefit would be enough to keep body and soul together and take care of basic needs but not more.

The Advantages

- It would save the state a huge amount of money, currently spent on processing claims and policing benefit claimants and would eliminate the need for many of the present complex array of benefits (child benefit, sickness benefit, pensions, maternity benefits etc.).

- Because children would be eligible for it, as well as adults, it would be broadly redistributive toward households with children and thus help to alleviate the shockingly high levels of child poverty in this country.

- Because there is no household unit of assessment it might well encourage people to live more collectively, sharing resources with friends and extended families, which would also have environmental benefits and take some pressure off the housing market.

- It would enhance inter-generational solidarity.

- It would make it possible for people to change their working hours flexibly and combine more than one job much more easily than at present.

- Life would become much smoother and simpler for freelancers.

- It would make it much easier to manage illnesses and disabilities and juggle caring responsibilities with work.

- It would also make it much easier to move in and out of education.

- The judgement about what is, or is not ‘work’ would no longer be made by a bureaucratic authority but by the individual. If you want to live on very little and devote your life to art, music, prayer, blogging, archaeology, chasing an elusive scientific concept, conserving rare plants or charitable work, that would be your choice. This is not just good for those individuals but spiritually enriching for society as a whole.

- The labour market would become a little less one-sided. Employers might have to offer a bit more pay to entice people into unattractive jobs. Though, on the other hand, they might find people queuing up to fill the ones that offer high levels of personal satisfaction and reward.

The Risks

- Giving everybody money plays along with the grain of an increasingly market-based economy. The risk is that individual purchases made in the market will drive out collectively-provided services. Recommodification might obliterate decommodification.

- Globalization raises serious questions about what constitutes citizenship. It is perhaps no accident, at least in Europe, that the countries with the most generous welfare states also tend to have the most tightly-controlled borders (think of Denmark). Combining a basic citizen's income policy with non-racist immigration policies presents some serious challenges.

Conclusion

Although, in my opinion, it would bring huge benefits, an unconditional citizen's income is not a magic solution to all political, social and economic problems. I believe that it could be one ingredient in the development of a kind of welfare state that is deserving of the name. However it is only one ingredient among several. In particular, it would have to be combined with:

- an increased minimum wage;

- increased investment in universally available public services that are free to the user, including health, childcare, education and social care;

- a recognition that the housing market is so distorted that continuing extra help will be required to house the poorest people in many parts of the country;

- a reformed tax system. •

Ursula Huws is Director of Analytica Social and Economic Research; Editor, Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation; Professor of Labour and Globalisation, University of Hertfordshire, and maintains a blog at ursulahuws.wordpress.com where this article first appeared.

Endnotes:

1. Ursula Huws (1997) Flexibility and Security: Towards a new European balance, London: Citizen's Income Trust.

« PreviousHomeToday

Next »
Comments

Be the first to post a comment:

Display Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comment:

What is this text?: Prove you're not a robot :
« Previous~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( The B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• ISSN 1923-7871 •Next »
Share: Delicious Digg Facebook Google bookmark MySpace Reddit StumbleUpon Twitter UnionBook RSS
^ Back to Top ^

[Subversive]

To be honest, it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism/Communism.
The correlations you might form are only superficial and would immediately fall apart under even the most basic of scrutiny.

In a Capitalist society, this is still Capitalism and therefore Socialism/Communism is still completely opposed to it. It's merely a Capitalist economic reform to make the working class people a little more content with their oppression. It would resolve absolutely nothing. People would also just take advantage of it too easily.
You suggest you don't want to hear how it wouldn't work, but that's a pretty big deal here. You want a fair evaluation, do you not?

Under Socialism, it would only become an unnecessary pretense. This class of non-workers would become the new exploiting class of society by exploiting profits from the workers. It would result in some crazy pseudo-Socialism. I don't know if there is a real word for that kind of society or not, simply because it doesn't even work in theory and most people will just disregard it altogether.
What would be the point?

Again, there is no correlation here. Socialism doesn't intend for every individual to have income whether they work or not. It only intends for people to be paid fairly and not be exploited by others.
This system of yours would create exploitation by a non-working class. Therefore, naturally, everyone would stop working to end the exploitation and society itself would quickly be destroyed by the labor-shutdown.

[ckaihatsu]

To be honest, it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism/Communism.
The correlations you might form are only superficial and would immediately fall apart under even the most basic of scrutiny.

In a Capitalist society, this is still Capitalism and therefore Socialism/Communism is still completely opposed to it. It's merely a Capitalist economic reform to make the working class people a little more content with their oppression. It would resolve absolutely nothing. People would also just take advantage of it too easily.
You suggest you don't want to hear how it wouldn't work, but that's a pretty big deal here. You want a fair evaluation, do you not?

Under Socialism, it would only become an unnecessary pretense. This class of non-workers would become the new exploiting class of society by exploiting profits from the workers. It would result in some crazy pseudo-Socialism. I don't know if there is a real word for that kind of society or not, simply because it doesn't even work in theory and most people will just disregard it altogether.
What would be the point?

Again, there is no correlation here. Socialism doesn't intend for every individual to have income whether they work or not. It only intends for people to be paid fairly and not be exploited by others.
This system of yours would create exploitation by a non-working class. Therefore, naturally, everyone would stop working to end the exploitation and society itself would quickly be destroyed by the labor-shutdown.


I hear you, and this line you're arguing would be the *pessimistic* / reactionary-resulting side of whatever the emergent political inertia happened to be.

(You're describing a metastasizing 'lumpenproletariat', which is a valid point, since such could become an economically *fascist* force, as you're indicating.)

On the other hand, more optimistically, I raised the following point at another thread recently:





[A] fairly recent post had mentioned the dotp and its control of the wages economy in the transitional period. I recalled at a later point this whole 'unconditional basic income' thing -- wouldn't this be all that's required, as a radical reformist / revolutionary step, to insure the provision of humane goods and services as the core functioning of the dotp economy -- ? (Or would there really have to be more of a scrutinizing, hands-on administrative component, as is conventionally conceived -- ?)


With this I mean to point out a similarity / overlap / convergence of the *reform* of unconditional-basic-income, with the *revolutionary* step of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the socialism-transitional phase.

Actual conditions, as usual, would make all the difference as to whether political conditions turned out to look more like what *you're* describing, or whether it would look more like what *I'm* describing.

[ckaihatsu]

Low-income people demand doubling welfare grants at opening of MN legislature

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/OpenDay.jpg

By Mick Kelly

St. Paul, MN – The chant “What do we want? Raise the grants! When do we want it? Now!” boomed throughout the Minnesota State Capitol building, Jan. 6, as low-income people marched in demanding that the legislature double welfare grants and pass a law that will provide immediate assistance to all in need. The protest, organized by the Welfare Rights Committee, coincided with opening day of the 2015 legislative session.

With the wind chill well below zero, the protest began on the steps of the State Office Building, where Ebony Harris told the crowd, “We are here today as we are here every year to let these legislators know that poor people in this state will not be forgotten. We are here to demand that they raise the grants now and give aid to all in need.”

It has been 29 years since Minnesota last raised the welfare payments. “There are people literally dying at the hands of the politicians in this building here! And the inaction is on both sides of the aisle. No one party is causing the suffering of people in this state; it’s both parties,” said Harris.

Demonstrators then marched into narrow hallways of the Capitol building, which is undergoing renovation, and filled the corridor where the Minnesota House session was just starting. Angella Kahn led the crowd in the call and response chant, shouting, “Double the grants!” with the crowd thundering back, “Past due!”

Protesters then marched to Senate chambers and kept up the loud chanting. They then went on to the offices of politicians, where ‘past due’ notices were delivered. The past due notices stated protesters’ demands to double the grants, stop the time limit on welfare and to give aid to all in need.

Legislation will be introduced in upcoming weeks to double the welfare grants.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Subversive]

With this I mean to point out a similarity / overlap / convergence of the *reform* of unconditional-basic-income, with the *revolutionary* step of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the socialism-transitional phase.

Actual conditions, as usual, would make all the difference as to whether political conditions turned out to look more like what *you're* describing, or whether it would look more like what *I'm* describing.
The problematic nature of this is in the fact that it is "unconditional".

I am personally of the opinion that an 'established basic-income' be the very first thing created after revolution, but this cannot be an "unconditional" basic income or else the entire system WILL collapse. There is no doubt about this.

The reasoning is simple - it is by the very nature of it being unconditional that prevents this income from being altered. People will see it as a right, rather than a privilege. There are no limitations on work (and therefore no one works), and there are no stipulations for how its value might change over time (because it is unconditional, people will only allow it to increase even if resources become more limited).

Not to mention it's simply bad practice to promise society what you can't really afford. Again, this goes back to the fact that most people would choose not to work in order to avoid exploitation. With almost no one working, how can society afford to insure everyone a basic income? Again, the system falls apart immediately.

How could such a society encourage people to work when they are exploited for doing so and are equally rewarded for not doing so? It is impossible. A DOTP that establishes such a system is a DOTP that is not yet socially conscious.

Any form of a basic-income needs rules. It needs limitations. A worker must work to be paid; and he must be paid fairly.
Any other form of payment but a fair one and it is not truly a Socialism, but merely the illusion of one.

[ckaihatsu]

The problematic nature of this is in the fact that it is "unconditional".


Okay, based on this, then, I'll acknowledge that, at face-value, it's more of a *reform*, than a 'radical-reform' (nationalization / socialization), or a *revolutionary* transformation.





I am personally of the opinion that an 'established basic-income' be the very first thing created after revolution, but this cannot be an "unconditional" basic income or else the entire system WILL collapse. There is no doubt about this.

The reasoning is simple - it is by the very nature of it being unconditional that prevents this income from being altered. People will see it as a right, rather than a privilege. There are no limitations on work (and therefore no one works), and there are no stipulations for how its value might change over time (because it is unconditional, people will only allow it to increase even if resources become more limited).

Not to mention it's simply bad practice to promise society what you can't really afford. Again, this goes back to the fact that most people would choose not to work in order to avoid exploitation. With almost no one working, how can society afford to insure everyone a basic income? Again, the system falls apart immediately.


Which system, though -- ?

If it's the *capitalist* system that 'falls apart immediately', then that would be a *good* thing, and such a mass avoidance of exploitation could very well be a general impetus to mass political consciousness and revolutionary organizing.





How could such a society encourage people to work when they are exploited for doing so and are equally rewarded for not doing so? It is impossible. A DOTP that establishes such a system is a DOTP that is not yet socially conscious.

Any form of a basic-income needs rules. It needs limitations. A worker must work to be paid; and he must be paid fairly.
Any other form of payment but a fair one and it is not truly a Socialism, but merely the illusion of one.


Another consideration, though, is about *how much* economic / material activity a dotp / post-capitalist society would need. There's much said here at RevLeft about automation, and, if realized, such would *obviate* the need for much work, to simply maintain today's average standard of living for everyone, barring no one.

So, realistically, people *could* be rewarded for not-working because of the currently untapped abundance of production that is either wasted or unfulfilled, with market-based capacities. Such a situation could very well be a good 'test run' of what a communist-type 'gift economy' would be capable of, since initially, with this scenario, only those who really *want* to work would be doing so.

[Subversive]

Which system, though -- ?

If it's the *capitalist* system that 'falls apart immediately', then that would be a *good* thing, and such a mass avoidance of exploitation could very well be a general impetus to mass political consciousness and revolutionary organizing.
I was speaking of Socialism (or a psuedo-Socialism, as I called it). It would collapse due to simply not having enough resources to provide for the basic-income, since that same policy caused everyone not to work. Or simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted. Though more likely it would be that the law is immediately removed the moment everyone realizes that it doesn't work (if it isn't already too late).

A Capitalist society would never allow this 'unconditional basic income' to reach levels high enough that the pay would be satisfactory enough to wish not to work. Those in power would never allow it because they are in power only because they exploit those people. To raise it any higher would mean their collapse and they would never do this.
The only reason I'd suggest this could occur at lower amounts is because it would make workers more contented about having to work (and therefore be exploited), which in turn would delay revolution indefinitely. It would work against our goals.
And an economic collapse would not be ripe for revolution either, even if it theoretically did happen. This would be because revolution requires the oppressed to feel oppressed by those in power. But an economic collapse causes those in power to lose their power, resulting in only a rebuilding. For a Socialist revolution, specifically, the proletariat must become class-conscious. And they cannot possibly do so without the oppressive forces (Capitalists) exploiting them. In a time of economic collapse, the Capitalists' exploitation is not visible to the workers, due to other problems clouding the issue, and therefore they cannot become class-conscious at that time. Again it would delay a Socialist revolution.

No matter the circumstances, this policy would not work in long-term for anyone.



Another consideration, though, is about *how much* economic / material activity a dotp / post-capitalist society would need. There's much said here at RevLeft about automation, and, if realized, such would *obviate* the need for much work, to simply maintain today's average standard of living for everyone, barring no one.

So, realistically, people *could* be rewarded for not-working because of the currently untapped abundance of production that is either wasted or unfulfilled, with market-based capacities. Such a situation could very well be a good 'test run' of what a communist-type 'gift economy' would be capable of, since initially, with this scenario, only those who really *want* to work would be doing so.
I assume you're now speaking of a society with over-abundance.
In such a case, there would be no "test runs" of a "gift economy". There would be a natural state transitioned into by society in a time of over-abundance and automation.

If there are enough resources for everyone, and little work to do, then everyone already has what they need to survive. There would not need to be any laws to create an ' unconditional basic income'. It would simply be a natural progression of that society to supply what was over-abundant. Likewise with work being a primary life goal rather than a need. If automation takes over that much, than manual labor is simply phased out. It is not a law or rule which creates such an act, but a slow transition.

During a transitional phase into over-abundance (true Communism) it would be especially important NOT to attempt this policy "unconditionally", as it might result in resorting back to a state of society without over-abundance, as it may use up the abundant resources too quickly. It would then no longer be "unconditional" like was promised. That would merely be a political blunder. This includes the concept of "test runs". They would all fail due to the flawed ideology of this concept, supplying to people what is not necessarily available. Either this or it's a meaningless law for something that already existed prior to its writing.
Only in a natural transition into a state of over-abundance and automation can such a concept even remotely exist. But no laws or precepts regarding it would be necessary as it could just be assumed from such a plentiful society.

Though, there is not much point in speaking of such things. There is no instance where such a policy is a good idea. In most instances it would be very bad. In others it would just be meaningless. And we're now going off-topic about Utopian pipe dreams. Even speaking of an over-abundant/automated society, as Marx referenced, is rather pointless when we currently still face the problem of Capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

I was speaking of Socialism (or a psuedo-Socialism, as I called it). It would collapse due to simply not having enough resources to provide for the basic-income, since that same policy caused everyone not to work.


I'm finding this to be rather coarse / crude, though, because we *know* that humanity has already developed sufficiently productive means to provide for the well-being of all 7 billion people on earth.

You're looking at a post-capitalist social order in a very *economistic* way, which is problematic.

It's better to use a 'gift-economy' premise so that those who *want* to work will be providing for themselves and everyone else on means of mass production that are fully liberated from commodity-production.





Or simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted. Though more likely it would be that the law is immediately removed the moment everyone realizes that it doesn't work (if it isn't already too late).


I'm not *arguing* for a post-capitalist paradigm of work-avoidance, but, again, we have to get past purely-economistic conceptions of that society's composition -- you're making the *lumpenproletariat* out to be a looming threat, even after the end of commodity-labor, when industrial productivities would be even-more / *highly* leveraged and for social benefit only.





A Capitalist society would never allow this 'unconditional basic income' to reach levels high enough that the pay would be satisfactory enough to wish not to work. Those in power would never allow it because they are in power only because they exploit those people. To raise it any higher would mean their collapse and they would never do this.
The only reason I'd suggest this could occur at lower amounts is because it would make workers more contented about having to work (and therefore be exploited), which in turn would delay revolution indefinitely. It would work against our goals.


Okay.





And an economic collapse would not be ripe for revolution either, even if it theoretically did happen. This would be because revolution requires the oppressed to feel oppressed by those in power. But an economic collapse causes those in power to lose their power, resulting in only a rebuilding. For a Socialist revolution, specifically, the proletariat must become class-conscious. And they cannot possibly do so without the oppressive forces (Capitalists) exploiting them. In a time of economic collapse, the Capitalists' exploitation is not visible to the workers, due to other problems clouding the issue, and therefore they cannot become class-conscious at that time. Again it would delay a Socialist revolution.


I can't agree here, again because of your economistic-sided perspective -- I'll note that the stock market crash of 1929 was a time of great crisis for capital, and the subsequent Great Depression was a politically eye-opening experience for many, to put it lightly. This particularly low-point in economic conditions threatened the capitalist class with widespread labor militancy and a whole era of reformism had to be enacted in order to forestall outright revolution throughout the whole country (U.S.).





No matter the circumstances, this policy would not work in long-term for anyone.




I assume you're now speaking of a society with over-abundance.
In such a case, there would be no "test runs" of a "gift economy". There would be a natural state transitioned into by society in a time of over-abundance and automation.

If there are enough resources for everyone, and little work to do, then everyone already has what they need to survive. There would not need to be any laws to create an ' unconditional basic income'. It would simply be a natural progression of that society to supply what was over-abundant. Likewise with work being a primary life goal rather than a need. If automation takes over that much, than manual labor is simply phased out. It is not a law or rule which creates such an act, but a slow transition.


Okay, agreed.





During a transitional phase into over-abundance (true Communism) it would be especially important NOT to attempt this policy "unconditionally", as it might result in resorting back to a state of society without over-abundance, as it may use up the abundant resources too quickly. It would then no longer be "unconditional" like was promised. That would merely be a political blunder. This includes the concept of "test runs". They would all fail due to the flawed ideology of this concept, supplying to people what is not necessarily available. Either this or it's a meaningless law for something that already existed prior to its writing.
Only in a natural transition into a state of over-abundance and automation can such a concept even remotely exist. But no laws or precepts regarding it would be necessary as it could just be assumed from such a plentiful society.


Yes.





Though, there is not much point in speaking of such things. There is no instance where such a policy is a good idea. In most instances it would be very bad. In others it would just be meaningless. And we're now going off-topic about Utopian pipe dreams. Even speaking of an over-abundant/automated society, as Marx referenced, is rather pointless when we currently still face the problem of Capitalism.

[Subversive]

I'm finding this to be rather coarse / crude, though, because we *know* that humanity has already developed sufficiently productive means to provide for the well-being of all 7 billion people on earth.
I would disagree. There are currently not enough of the right commodities to provide for the needs of everyone on Earth.
Do you really think there are enough homes for all 7 billion of those people? There is certainly more than enough livable land for everyone on Earth, plus some, but there are certainly not homes on that land or even roads/routes to get there. And without roads and homes, that land is not a commodity.
And without enough living-space-commodity, we cannot currently provide for everyone on Earth.

And if we want to look at this from a social standpoint, you have to adjust for the fact that a significant percentage of people on Earth are currently living in dilapidated housing or shacks, none of which are worthy of being called a 'home'.

And that's just discussing somewhere to live. This isn't to speak of the logistics necessary to get food (which spoiled) and water to everyone on Earth. Things which currently have no logistic route for them.

Perhaps what you're saying is that we currently have enough resources and labor-force to get these things accomplished, but by that you're speaking of a theoretical and not necessary of a factual basis. I'd probably agree, to some extent, but my main point being that these things are not currently available and that an effort would need to be made to create them.



You're looking at a post-capitalist social order in a very *economistic* way, which is problematic.
I am looking at it from a Marxist perspective. I see nothing problematic about this.



It's better to use a 'gift-economy' premise so that those who *want* to work will be providing for themselves and everyone else on means of mass production that are fully liberated from commodity-production.
I would have to disagree. It is never better to use a "gift-economy" premise because this is a Utopian fantasy and not a realistic scenario.

And even if you want to speak of purely theoretical scenarios, you still have to account for the fact that if society already had enough to ensure everyone has what they needed and no one needed to work, and it was not a Capitalism, then why would you even need a law or precept that states everyone gets an unconditional basic income? An income of any kind implies money. But what purpose does money have in a gift economy? They contradict each other and it's nothing but a Capitalist wrapping around a theoretical Utopian dream. To me that seems impossible to imagine without something going severely wrong quickly due to the ideological contradictions in this system.



I'm not *arguing* for a post-capitalist paradigm of work-avoidance, but, again, we have to get past purely-economistic conceptions of that society's composition -- you're making the *lumpenproletariat* out to be a looming threat, even after the end of commodity-labor, when industrial productivities would be even-more / *highly* leveraged and for social benefit only.
It's not so much that I think they'd be a threat to such a society but that I think the people of this society would see them as a threat.

Let's just consider a theoretical situation of your scenario for a moment.
Let's say society has indefinite resources, and completely automated labor.
No one has to work, and everyone has everything they need and want, indefinitely. Some choose to work, some don't.
To not work, these people need to occupy themselves. Let's say they join the futuristic social-networking virtual-world society. They literally live inside of a virtual world, all the time. That is their existence. Meanwhile their physical bodies are fed by IVs, and the servers/computers they use eat up resources.
This is a large phenomena, vast amounts of people participate in this virtual-existence.

Do you not believe that the workers of the world, and those who do spend their lives in the machine, would look fondly on those who do this? This is not the traditional concept of a class division, but it is definitely a class-division.
I am arguing from a purely social (and theoretical) position now.
Eventually a social catalyst would disrupt society to the point that this behavior is no longer tolerated. Even having an indefinite number of resources the proletariat would understand that this behavior is cumbersome to society, to all humanity. That it takes from society while giving absolutely no back, not for need, but only for absolute exploitation.

How would the proletariat react to anything that is purely exploitative in behavior? From a historical position, they will react by abolishing that behavior.
This form of society would not last. It's a literal Utopia turned into a Dystopian nightmare due to social relationships. It would only result in collapse - even with all the resources one could possibly ever imagine. And be aware, in this dystopian premise, people would find a new use for those indefinite resources... The outlook is bleak.



I can't agree here, again because of your economistic-sided perspective -- I'll note that the stock market crash of 1929 was a time of great crisis for capital, and the subsequent Great Depression was a politically eye-opening experience for many, to put it lightly. This particularly low-point in economic conditions threatened the capitalist class with widespread labor militancy and a whole era of reformism had to be enacted in order to forestall outright revolution throughout the whole country (U.S.).
I don't know why you think I'm speaking entirely economically.
In any case, I think you're over-playing US history. While, obviously, an economic crash would lead to instability of the Capitalist power (since money is power), there was no class which was conscious enough of their environment to do anything about it. This is why mere social reforms worked rather than the necessity of an armed civil war.
Even non-Socialist revolutionaries gained no grounds during this period, simply because there was nothing for them to gain.

Surely a new government can rise out of a completely collapsed economy, but this new government will never be much different than the old one. The people as a whole will want to rebuild. They will not want a revolutionary way of thinking. The reactionaries will always win out in such a situation simply because the people will fear change in those circumstances. They will want the old-ways back. They will see their new position as grim and holding a grim future, so naturally they will seek the past as a means of contentment.

[contracycle]

I would have to disagree. It is never better to use a "gift-economy" premise because this is a Utopian fantasy and not a realistic scenario.

Seeing as gift economies have existed historically, I think you need to justify that claim.



Let's just consider a theoretical situation of your scenario for a moment.
Let's say society has indefinite resources, and completely automated labor.
No one has to work, and everyone has everything they need and want, indefinitely. Some choose to work, some don't.
To not work, these people need to occupy themselves. Let's say they join the futuristic social-networking virtual-world society. They literally live inside of a virtual world, all the time. That is their existence.

This is certainly a "possible future". It's even been mentioned as a potential solution to the Fermi Paradox. Personally, I don't really think it will happen; we're physical beings, we find movement in the real world satisfying. And seeing as, unlike under capitalism, we have little or no need to escape the grinding conditions of production to which we are subjected, and so this sort of thing becomes less attractive.

Also, there could be a lot achieved by relating behaviour in this simulated world to stuff that happens in the real world. Some piece of productive machinery could be represented symbolically as a game, and the actions of players playing that game purely for enjoyment translated back into control of the machine. The problem then becomes one of designing an interface so the non-work behaviour produces useful social outputs.


Meanwhile their physical bodies are fed by IVs, and the servers/computers they use eat up resources.
This is a large phenomena, vast amounts of people participate in this virtual-existence

Do you not believe that the workers of the world, and those who do spend their lives in the machine, would look fondly on those who do this? This is not the traditional concept of a class division, but it is definitely a class-division.
I am arguing from a purely social (and theoretical) position now.

I think you underestimate how much energy is sloshing around the solar system. It takes less than one second of the sun's output to accelerate an object massing one ton to 99% of the speed of light. I think that for all practical purposes, collecting even a small fraction of the sun's output will provide us with so much energy that its potential applications are far beyond the current horizons of our imagination. In this kind of scenario, supporting even a sizable non-productive population isn't going to be hard at all.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think it would just be a major buying off of the working class and would just reinforce the capitalist class. Does it have anything to do with communism? It has as much to do with communism as food stamps. Realistically looking at the situation we would only be able to get a gauranteed basic income if we had a very strong working class movement. That means political parties that can get these things passed, strong unions, mass movements, etc, that can force concessions from the capitalists. Right now we can't even get a gauranteed $15 minimum for people who do work, let alone for people who don't. So to put it in perspective, its a demand that's going to have a long way to go.

The only time I could think that the capitalist class would even think about these concessions if there was a economic crash like the Depression and this would only be to pacify the population and uphold the shitty consumerist culture we have. Like 9/11 all over again, its okay everybody just go back to shopping, everything is going to be fine. Of course the capitalists would continue to make profits off of the basic income you're given but it would drive them to search for ever cheaper labor globally and therefore more competition amongst imperialist countries for people to produce the things we want. Its a very privileged position to be in on the global stage, that's for sure with so much of our goods being produced by workers in squalid conditions in foreign countries.

And of course, it being a reform in capitalism, it would be taken away and weakened over the years as the capitalist gathers up strength and argues the working class needs to be more disciplined(aka devalued).

[Subversive]

Seeing as gift economies have existed historically, I think you need to justify that claim.
Feel free to provide some examples. I think you may be a little too lenient on what applies as a "gift economy".
I only assume you mean to say that some societies in history have demonstrated gift-economy-like examples but never factually utilized a true gift-economy. Especially since a gift-economy implies over-abundance, a state that humanity has never reached.



This is certainly a "possible future". It's even been mentioned as a potential solution to the Fermi Paradox. Personally, I don't really think it will happen; we're physical beings, we find movement in the real world satisfying. And seeing as, unlike under capitalism, we have little or no need to escape the grinding conditions of production to which we are subjected, and so this sort of thing becomes less attractive.
I'm sorry, but I try not to conjecture about science fiction or implausible futures.
I speak of only what I know. And nothing I know suggests humanity is capable of a Utopian paradise, like described. And I'm personally not optimistic enough to be a Utopian. I leave that dream for the children.



Also, there could be a lot achieved by relating behaviour in this simulated world to stuff that happens in the real world. Some piece of productive machinery could be represented symbolically as a game, and the actions of players playing that game purely for enjoyment translated back into control of the machine. The problem then becomes one of designing an interface so the non-work behaviour produces useful social outputs.
It is actually simpler and easier to just program the robots to do the work, without the need for the user input. There is no such thing as work created from non-work. That is impossible. A gimmick like you're referring to is nothing more than an artificial limitation on the robots which actually do the work. The non-work input isn't necessary to do the work, it's just a mechanism to give the players/users some sense of accomplishment when, in fact, they actually do nothing with their lives.

Work can be fun for the individual. It can even be turned into a game in some cases, but that still requires work to be done. The work itself is not changing, it is only the workers perspective which changes.
And in fact, in a true society with over-abundance and automation, as Marx briefly described Communism would be, people will indeed work for pleasure and as a goal in life. They will not hate their jobs because they will have absolutely no need to work jobs they hate. They will choose careers that are fun to them, ones they enjoy. Work will become fun in such a society.



I think you underestimate how much energy is sloshing around the solar system. It takes less than one second of the sun's output to accelerate an object massing one ton to 99% of the speed of light. I think that for all practical purposes, collecting even a small fraction of the sun's output will provide us with so much energy that its potential applications are far beyond the current horizons of our imagination. In this kind of scenario, supporting even a sizable non-productive population isn't going to be hard at all.
Again, science fiction.
You're speaking of technology that is far beyond what we can currently imagine being feasible. We do not know if it will ever be possible to manipulate energy like that. We don't know if it will ever be possible to convert energy into limited resources to make them renewable.
We do know that these things are impossible as of now and into the foreseeable future. So this is not much more than speculation based in science-fiction fantasies.
Perhaps such things are possible into the un-foreseeable future. But as of now it is just unrealistic conjecture.

[contracycle]

Feel free to provide some examples. I think you may be a little too lenient on what applies as a "gift economy".
I only assume you mean to say that some societies in history have demonstrated gift-economy-like examples but never factually utilized a true gift-economy. Especially since a gift-economy implies over-abundance, a state that humanity has never reached.

No, real gift economies have definitely existed; it is from them that the term has been adopted, the classic example being the Trobriand Islanders. These people would paddle large distances just to give a gift away for nothing (or so it seems, superficially), which according to modern capitalist economics makes no sense whatever.

If you're really interested, you could do worse than Timothy Earle's Bronze Age Economics: The Beginnings Of Political Economies. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bronze-Age-Economics-Beginnings-Political/dp/0813338778)



I'm sorry, but I try not to conjecture about science fiction or implausible futures.
I speak of only what I know. And nothing I know suggests humanity is capable of a Utopian paradise, like described. And I'm personally not optimistic enough to be a Utopian. I leave that dream for the children.

Science fiction has a pretty good record of predicting the future. Real science fiction serves as a platform for discussing the implications of technology on human beings and our society, which is exactly what we are discussing here.



It is actually simpler and easier to just program the robots to do the work, without the need for the user input.

It isn't actually. It's appallingly difficult to teach machines how to interact with the material world. Introducing human control allows judgement to be applied; the only alternative would be serious hard AI, which, frankly, frightens the hell out of me.


There is no such thing as work created from non-work.

I don't think that's really true. When lion cubs play-fight, are they not also learning useful skills? It is not at all impossible to leverage "fun" into "work"; it's just a matter of translation, and that;s what computing allows us to do.




Again, science fiction.

Grounded speculation based on a materialist analysis of how reality works. That's really what science fiction is.



You're speaking of technology that is far beyond what we can currently imagine being feasible. We do not know if it will ever be possible to manipulate energy like that. We don't know if it will ever be possible to convert energy into limited resources to make them renewable.

Oh no; it is certainly within what we can IMAGINE, just not within what we can actually do.

And we do definitely know that energy can be converted into resources: plants have been doing it for half a billion of years.



We do know that these things are impossible as of now and into the foreseeable future. So this is not much more than speculation based in science-fiction fantasies.
Perhaps such things are possible into the un-foreseeable future. But as of now it is just unrealistic conjecture.

Strictly speaking, I agree with you about the "forseeable" future. But by speculating about a future in which everyone immerses themselves in virtual simulations, you invited exactly this sort of discussion. I mean, this was even a theme in Star Trek: TNG.

Plus, renowned physicist Michio Kaku has speculated that humans could achieve Type I on the Kardashev Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) within the next 100-200 years. The "unimaginable" might be right around the corner.

[ckaihatsu]

I would disagree. There are currently not enough of the right commodities to provide for the needs of everyone on Earth.
Do you really think there are enough homes for all 7 billion of those people? There is certainly more than enough livable land for everyone on Earth, plus some, but there are certainly not homes on that land or even roads/routes to get there. And without roads and homes, that land is not a commodity.
And without enough living-space-commodity, we cannot currently provide for everyone on Earth.

And if we want to look at this from a social standpoint, you have to adjust for the fact that a significant percentage of people on Earth are currently living in dilapidated housing or shacks, none of which are worthy of being called a 'home'.

And that's just discussing somewhere to live. This isn't to speak of the logistics necessary to get food (which spoiled) and water to everyone on Earth. Things which currently have no logistic route for them.




Perhaps what you're saying is that we currently have enough resources and labor-force to get these things accomplished, but by that you're speaking of a theoretical and not necessary of a factual basis. I'd probably agree, to some extent, but my main point being that these things are not currently available and that an effort would need to be made to create them.


Yes, hence the objective need for proletarian revolution.





I was speaking of Socialism (or a psuedo-Socialism, as I called it). It would collapse due to simply not having enough resources to provide for the basic-income, since that same policy caused everyone not to work.





You're looking at a post-capitalist social order in a very *economistic* way, which is problematic.





I am looking at it from a Marxist perspective. I see nothing problematic about this.


You're not understanding -- you're using 'basic income' at the basic unit / benchmark for a viable socialism, when this is simply an *economic* measurement, and not a humane / humanistic one.

You're asserting a very broad material *conclusion* ('not having enough resources' [for everyone]), based only on your economic estimation of this 'unconditional basic income' policy scenario. It's a simplistic and spurious conclusion because you're conceiving subsidized demand (through an unconditional basic income) as being somehow *destructive* -- something that simply gobbles-up and *removes* resources from the sum total, and that's all.

I'll remind that much of the U.S. economy is based on government subsidization, such as with the military and financial industries, and this economic regime of subsidies *does* have somthing of a cascading effect into the larger economy, to certain limits.

So, likewise, subsidies aimed at the *consumer* can't be dismissed outright because it would be *more* plausible to say that such would be a *stimulus* to increased economic velocity and potentially even economic growth.

In a *post*-capitalist context a social paradigm of lessened work effort could very well be offset by the increased use of automation, and machinery, to fill any gaps where humane need was still left unaddressed.





I would have to disagree. It is never better to use a "gift-economy" premise because this is a Utopian fantasy and not a realistic scenario.


It's actually a *technical designation* -- whether one considers it a 'utopian fantasy' or a 'realistic scenario' is left to subjective political estimations, but we *can* still talk about a 'gift economy' in the abstract, according to its structure.

(A gift economy is where all productive assets and resources have been collectivized, and where sheerly voluntaristic efforts are put forth to produce for the common good, to achieve a general abundance, for humane needs.)





And even if you want to speak of purely theoretical scenarios, you still have to account for the fact that if society already had enough to ensure everyone has what they needed and no one needed to work, and it was not a Capitalism, then why would you even need a law or precept that states everyone gets an unconditional basic income? An income of any kind implies money. But what purpose does money have in a gift economy? They contradict each other and it's nothing but a Capitalist wrapping around a theoretical Utopian dream. To me that seems impossible to imagine without something going severely wrong quickly due to the ideological contradictions in this system.


Okay, certainly. We can simply specify whether we're talking within the context of capitalism, or a post-capitalism, at any given moment.


---





I was speaking of Socialism (or a psuedo-Socialism, as I called it). It would collapse due to simply not having enough resources to provide for the basic-income, since that same policy caused everyone not to work. Or simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted. Though more likely it would be that the law is immediately removed the moment everyone realizes that it doesn't work (if it isn't already too late).





I'm not *arguing* for a post-capitalist paradigm of work-avoidance, but, again, we have to get past purely-economistic conceptions of that society's composition -- you're making the *lumpenproletariat* out to be a looming threat, even after the end of commodity-labor, when industrial productivities would be even-more / *highly* leveraged and for social benefit only.





It's not so much that I think they'd be a threat to such a society but that I think the people of this society would see them as a threat.


You're continuing to mix timeframes here -- a social order of 'socialism' would mean that wage labor is no longer commodified. A measure of 'unconditional basic income' *would* be compatible and possible for a socialist-type society, but its feasibility and actuality would greatly depend on actual conditions.

About this assertion of yours:





[Socialism] would collapse [...] since that same policy [of unconditional basic income] caused everyone not to work. Or simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted.


This assertion can only be interpreted in one of two ways:

[1] You're expressing a certain *anxiety* with the potential for those who are actively working to be or feel 'taken advantage of' by those who are *not* working because of their receipt of unconditional basic income. This is why I brought up the term 'lumpenproletariat', because it would apply here to this category of people who would be relatively privileged in not having to work for a wage, while others *are* working for a wage and being exploited at it.

However, this can't apply to *socialism*, since the means of mass production (production goods) would no longer be in private hands, so the exploitation of labor would be done away with, by definition. If people worked they would be directly benefitting themselves and other people with their labor, and if people *didn't* work it wouldn't be *deleterious* to anyone since no one would be *dependent* on anyone else directly -- a person could always look to social production and/or natural resources for what one needs.

[2] You're being dismissive of socialism outright by arguing that a lack of ongoing, active labor on virtually everyone's part would cause a 'collapse' of social value-supply in such a society, dooming it. This is simply an adversarial argument *against* socialism, one that I recently addressed at another thread:





The adversarial arguments used most often against the revolutionary case tend to project the following implicit assumptions:

- That all social value is reducible to realtime, one-to-one forms of 'service' labor, as what a *butler* would do. This kind of economic assumption is leveraged to produce the anxiety in others that if even just a *few* people wind up being 'slackers', relative to everyone else, then the entire 'social net' would face a crisis of value, and of value-supply.

What's conveniently *ignored* in this mindset / worldview is that many of our daily conveniences derive from *machinery* and *objects*, the labor for which was performed long ago, while each item used is merely a duplicate along with millions of others, thanks to the use of industrial mass-production techniques. So in this way social value is in *inverse* to the effort performed, since the labor provided for the production of each (duplicate) item is in actuality a *fraction* of its resulting usefulness to the end user. (Consider a mass-produced chair, for example.)

- Another assumption is that all 'services' / value to society can be reduced to rudimentary, butler-like kinds of *activity* -- that all societal transactions are made up of this genre of 'personal-service' kind of work, so that anyone who *doesn't* do this kind of work is then not-contributing value to the larger society.

What's disregarded from this assumption is that 'services' encompasses increasingly-complex types of work, especially those kinds that require extended learning, training, and/or expertise. Perhaps those who are simply 'receiving' rudimentary-type services, as for the execution of their daily routines, are then 'freed' to devote more of their waking hours to more-complex activities that produce different *kinds* of social value. (Anyone in an area of cultural production would fit appropriately here.)

Given a materially-leveraged mass production of basic items and automated services in abundance for everyone, the term 'parasite' could no longer conceivably apply to *anyone*, because, in that context, the existence of even a *large* number / proportion of people just living and not doing anything particularly socially valuable would not even *affect* the availability of options or potentialities for life-directions for everyone else, due to the overwhelming abundance of everything considered 'socially necessary'. (It would only be if someone was wantonly, willfully *destructive*, or if society, for whatever situational reality, decided that more-inclusive efforts were needed, that people could conceivably be socially sanctioned in regards to their activity, or lack thereof.)

I've come to the determination that a post-capitalist social order *would* need the utility and flexibility of a money-like vehicle, but such could *not*, by definition, facilitate commodity-production:





[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.





(See my blog entry.)





[Socialism] would collapse [...] since that same policy [of unconditional basic income] caused everyone not to work. Or simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted.


Regarding this part:





[Socialism] would collapse [...] simply due to the fact that the workers were being exploited and they reacted.


Here, if I'm interpreting it accurately, you're invoking the 'authoritarian, totalitarian' vision of a Stalinist-type bureaucratic collectivism, and positing that laborers would be 'exploited' by an out-of-control, repressive bureaucratic regime. You're saying that socialism is inescapably doomed to collapse because it will *always*, *necessarily* be of the Stalinist variant.





Let's just consider a theoretical situation of your scenario for a moment.
Let's say society has indefinite resources, and completely automated labor.
No one has to work, and everyone has everything they need and want, indefinitely. Some choose to work, some don't.
To not work, these people need to occupy themselves. Let's say they join the futuristic social-networking virtual-world society. They literally live inside of a virtual world, all the time. That is their existence. Meanwhile their physical bodies are fed by IVs, and the servers/computers they use eat up resources.
This is a large phenomena, vast amounts of people participate in this virtual-existence.

Do you not believe that the workers of the world, and those who do [not] spend their lives in the machine, would look fondly on those who do this?


If, as you're establishing, no one would *have* to work, and everyone automatically has what they need for the basics of humane living, then, in that case, the exploitation of labor is *impossible*, since a person's not-working would *not jeopardize* their own well-being, and it would have *no impact* on the material well-being of others.

Those who choose *to* work in such a scenario would basically, necessarily be 'hobbyists', since their contribution -- or non-contribution -- to the greater social production would be *unnecessary* for the reproduction of labor (going-forward, for new generations).

Those who choose to work would not be *obliged* to in the least, as for their own well-being and/or people who would otherwise depend on them and their work-efforts (their children).





This is not the traditional concept of a class division, but it is definitely a class-division.


No, it's not, because there is no artificial scarcity.





I am arguing from a purely social (and theoretical) position now.
Eventually a social catalyst would disrupt society to the point that this behavior is no longer tolerated. Even having an indefinite number of resources the proletariat would understand that this behavior is cumbersome to society, to all humanity. That it takes from society while giving absolutely no back, not for need, but only for absolute exploitation.


Without artificial scarcity there is no basis for private 'ownership' of the means of mass production, and no class-division.

With no classes there is no proletariat class.

If society has indefinite / infinitely expansive resources then, by definition, the *removal* and *consumption* of *any amount* from this pool of infinite resources will not deplete it in the least.

More realistically, though, as long as the pool of humane-type resources (and production) can be *sustained*, with little or negligible human effort needed, then there is no longer artificial scarcity, and no basis for the class division.

There would be no 'proletariat' to be 'exploited', so consumption of *any* scale could not be 'cumbersome' to anyone.





How would the proletariat react to anything that is purely exploitative in behavior? From a historical position, they will react by abolishing that behavior.
This form of society would not last. It's a literal Utopia turned into a Dystopian nightmare due to social relationships. It would only result in collapse - even with all the resources one could possibly ever imagine. And be aware, in this dystopian premise, people would find a new use for those indefinite resources... The outlook is bleak.


---





I can't agree here, again because of your economistic-sided perspective -- I'll note that the stock market crash of 1929 was a time of great crisis for capital, and the subsequent Great Depression was a politically eye-opening experience for many, to put it lightly. This particularly low-point in economic conditions threatened the capitalist class with widespread labor militancy and a whole era of reformism had to be enacted in order to forestall outright revolution throughout the whole country (U.S.).





I don't know why you think I'm speaking entirely economically.
In any case, I think you're over-playing US history. While, obviously, an economic crash would lead to instability of the Capitalist power (since money is power), there was no class which was conscious enough of their environment to do anything about it.


There were militant, and even physical, labor battles with the authorities during this period. I'd say that they were 'conscious'.





This is why mere social reforms worked rather than the necessity of an armed civil war.


This statement makes no sense, since social reforms and labor militancy are both *conscious* social actions, unlike basic organism-type actions like eating and sleeping.





Even non-Socialist revolutionaries gained no grounds during this period, simply because there was nothing for them to gain.


One didn't have to be a fully fledged socialist during the '30s to be politically conscious and even involved in revolutionary-type political activities.





Surely a new government can rise out of a completely collapsed economy, but this new government will never be much different than the old one. The people as a whole will want to rebuild. They will not want a revolutionary way of thinking. The reactionaries will always win out in such a situation simply because the people will fear change in those circumstances. They will want the old-ways back. They will see their new position as grim and holding a grim future, so naturally they will seek the past as a means of contentment.


I think you're being too prescriptive here -- slow, weak economic conditions are merely an *opportunity* for people to see and experience social conditions differently, and possibly to draw class-based conclusions, with revolutionary implications.

[ckaihatsu]

[C]ollecting even a small fraction of the sun's output will provide us with so much energy that its potential applications are far beyond the current horizons of our imagination.


I've got dibs on driving the planet earth like a car throughout outer space.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE=Subversive;2814324]Feel free to provide some examples. I think you may be a little too lenient on what applies as a "gift economy".

Have you ever heard of a "pot luck" party where everybody brings a dish? The original basis for the phrase is, I think, from the northwest pacific native american "potlach" which was a gathering of people who all brought some food or where one family provided the food, for free....a gift economy.

[RedMaterialist]

I've got dibs on driving the planet earth like a car throughout outer space.

It won't do you any good. As your car/planet approaches the speed of light its mass quickly becomes infinite.

[ckaihatsu]

It won't do you any good. As your car/planet approaches the speed of light its mass quickly becomes infinite.


But I wasn't gonna drive it *that* fast, *honest*...!


= D

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi, is it just me or does the idea of Unconditional Basic Income seem to share a lot with the ideals of communism and socialism? Basically, everyone, no matter what, gets x money a month, enough to live a decent life.
It does share that aspect of subsistence ("income"). But apart from that, it is radically different from what communists argue for.

The latter, in short, involves a complete elimination of commodity production (in effect, no more money, no more market exchange as the primary medium for production) and the state; it involves people taking control over our lives.

[Subversive]

You continue to assume I'm looking at this from a purely economic standpoint even when I'm not, so here I will look at it only from an economic standpoint to juxtapose my posts and demonstrate your errors.


we *can* still talk about a 'gift economy' in the abstract, according to its structure.

(A gift economy is where all productive assets and resources have been collectivized, and where sheerly voluntaristic efforts are put forth to produce for the common good, to achieve a general abundance, for humane needs.)
Regardless, a gift-economy must necessarily have resources >= demand. The moment that it does not, the entire economy fails. A failed economy means the collapse of the system. A collapse of the system means no more gift-economy.

And, once again, in such a case where a gift-economy exists, then it can be assumed that everyone already receives a 'basic income', as in to say, they already receive as many resources as they demand. Therefore, such a law is meaningless until resources < demand, in which case the entire economy collapses.




You're continuing to mix timeframes here -- a social order of 'socialism' would mean that wage labor is no longer commodified. A measure of 'unconditional basic income' *would* be compatible and possible for a socialist-type society, but its feasibility and actuality would greatly depend on actual conditions.
I was given two premises:
1. A Capitalist society.
2. A Socialist 'gift economy' society of over-abundance and significant automation.

Therefore, the 'unconditional basic income' is only possible in the Capitalist society, due to the fact that the Capitalist-law-makers would never allow demand to be greater than resources.

The Socialist gift economy would, once again, already have the basic income, of which is only "unconditional" in the fact that the society that promised it would exist. That society would collapse if there was ever an error.

I already addressed the issue of a 'normal' socialist society without a 'gift economy', and I saw no contentions there. Economically speaking, the society would likely fall apart, or be damaged, by the people willing to exploit the policy. The 'unconditional' nature of the policy does not allow for it's removal or denial based on the need for work. Such a society is not economically safe even if they do have a safe amount of resources at the time the policy is enacted. A major drought, famine, devastation, or other calamity could cause the society to collapse due to unpredictable high fluctuation in demand.



This assertion can only be interpreted in one of two ways:

[1] You're expressing a certain *anxiety* with the potential for those who are actively working to be or feel 'taken advantage of' by those who are *not* working because of their receipt of unconditional basic income. This is why I brought up the term 'lumpenproletariat', because it would apply here to this category of people who would be relatively privileged in not having to work for a wage, while others *are* working for a wage and being exploited at it.

However, this can't apply to *socialism*, since the means of mass production (production goods) would no longer be in private hands, so the exploitation of labor would be done away with, by definition. If people worked they would be directly benefitting themselves and other people with their labor, and if people *didn't* work it wouldn't be *deleterious* to anyone since no one would be *dependent* on anyone else directly -- a person could always look to social production and/or natural resources for what one needs.
This is not economically sound or logical.

You're saying that workers, who are the only means to contribute commodities to society, would not be exploited by the non-workers who are taking commodities out of society without doing work for them.

This is in direct contradiction. A non-worker is taking commodities from somewhere, and this would be from the worker. They don't just magically appear on people's doorsteps. That is long past the Utopian pipe-dream I was referring to and is an obvious fiction.
Just as Capitalists exploit profits from the commodities of a worker, while doing no work, the non-workers in this case are essentially the Capitalists. They extract profits from a working-class while providing no work of their own.

This is why I called this scenario a "pseudo-Socialism". It is not a true Socialism because exploitation has not been removed, it was merely traded or rearranged.



[2] You're being dismissive of socialism outright by arguing that a lack of ongoing, active labor on virtually everyone's part would cause a 'collapse' of social value-supply in such a society, dooming it. This is simply an adversarial argument *against* socialism, one that I recently addressed at another thread
I can't possibly be arguing this because never once have we spoke of a realistic form of Socialism.



Here, if I'm interpreting it accurately, you're invoking the 'authoritarian, totalitarian' vision of a Stalinist-type bureaucratic collectivism, and positing that laborers would be 'exploited' by an out-of-control, repressive bureaucratic regime. You're saying that socialism is inescapably doomed to collapse because it will *always*, *necessarily* be of the Stalinist variant.
No? You stripped all context out of that quote.
I was merely referring to the Pseudo-Socialist state that you had created and I had debunked earlier, like I did again above. That time I was referencing a social aspect. One of those things you apparently think I never referenced.

Again, from an economic standpoint: This Pseudo-Socialist state would inevitably fail simply due to the fact that they are promising what society cannot afford, due to fluctuating demand and no definite incoming supply.
Only by luck would they be able to maintain such a scenario, economically speaking. But there are other factors at work here.

It has nothing to do with Socialism in general. Again, we have not spoken about that. It was not one of the premises.



If, as you're establishing, no one would *have* to work, and everyone automatically has what they need for the basics of humane living, then, in that case, the exploitation of labor is *impossible*, since a person's not-working would *not jeopardize* their own well-being, and it would have *no impact* on the material well-being of others.
Again, I already addressed this referencing the social and political aspects of why this type of society would not maintain.

But economically speaking, what is the difference between this true Communist society that has enough commodities for everyone's basic needs, and work-automation, and a society with a "unconditional basic income"? In general, a "basic income" would be implied by the freely available commodities.

Again, the basic income implies money, but moreso than that, it also implies a governing State creating and enforcing this law and equating all people's needs, rather than allowing the people themselves to determine it.

So I make this distinction myself, considering that a distinction was made and I don't know of any other implications that might be made.



Those who choose *to* work in such a scenario would basically, necessarily be 'hobbyists', since their contribution -- or non-contribution -- to the greater social production would be *unnecessary* for the reproduction of labor (going-forward, for new generations).

Those who choose to work would not be *obliged* to in the least, as for their own well-being and/or people who would otherwise depend on them and their work-efforts (their children).
True, but there still being the problem of the "unconditional" element of this economy.
If circumstances were to change, let's say a phenomena that destroys automation, the society itself collapses again due to the "unconditional" nature of the policy.

And again, what good is an income in a society with such massive amounts of commodities? Are they being rationed? If they are being rationed, on what grounds are they being rationed? Why is it necessary to ration them? And why an "income" to ration them rather than limitations on the goods which are not plentiful?

Again, this scenario seems contradictory to itself.



No, it's not, because there is no artificial scarcity. [... etc.]
You're not really playing along with your own scenarios very well. You gave the scenarios, I merely gave you the conclusions of those scenarios. You now change all of the scenarios after I've already given them a conclusion.
You can't really do that. I am merely addressing the nonsensical scenarios as I can. As I have stated numerous times now, they don't actually make much sense. They contradict themselves.



There were militant, and even physical, labor battles with the authorities during this period. I'd say that they were 'conscious'.
Then you do not understand or agree with Marx's definition of class-consciousness. A few men, in the larger scope of things, believing they are being exploited is not class consciousness.



One didn't have to be a fully fledged socialist during the '30s to be politically conscious and even involved in revolutionary-type political activities.
And where did that get them?



I think you're being too prescriptive here -- slow, weak economic conditions are merely an *opportunity* for people to see and experience social conditions differently, and possibly to draw class-based conclusions, with revolutionary implications.


Have you ever heard of a "pot luck" party where everybody brings a dish? The original basis for the phrase is, I think, from the northwest pacific native american "potlach" which was a gathering of people who all brought some food or where one family provided the food, for free....a gift economy.
Some of you are providing examples for these so-called real-world "gift economies", but all I'm seeing are example of gift exchanges in certain cultures. These are obviously not the same thing.
You might as well use Christmas as an example. It's just as valid. No one has to give gifts on Christmas, but a lot of people still give them anyway. However, obviously the economic system of the US utilizes the dollar, not gifts. It's not a gift economy. Nor are the Trobriand islanders, nor the Northwestern native americans.

If you care to disagree, then please provide some explanation for why you'd qualify it as an actual "gift economy" and not simply just a cultural practice of gift-giving, like Christmas.

[contracycle]

I already addressed the issue of a 'normal' socialist society without a 'gift economy', and I saw no contentions there. Economically speaking, the society would likely fall apart, or be damaged, by the people willing to exploit the policy. The 'unconditional' nature of the policy does not allow for it's removal or denial based on the need for work. Such a society is not economically safe even if they do have a safe amount of resources at the time the policy is enacted. A major drought, famine, devastation, or other calamity could cause the society to collapse due to unpredictable high fluctuation in demand.

Ah no; that's not at all a safe assumption. Because you seem to be assuming that such a society is unconscious; that it cannot react to changing circumstances deliberately and intelligently.

As was discussed recently on another thread, even - EVEN - capitalist societies can, under press of circumstances, suspend commodity production in favour of rationing. Societies can and do adapt their operations if the need is sufficiently compelling.

A notional post capitalist society should be quite capable of realising that disaster has struck, that compromises, sacrifices, need to be made; that for the duration of the emergency, "take what you want" has to be suspended in favour of "take what you need and no more". I will even allow that it is POSSIBLE that a disaster may be so severe, and subsistence so severely compromised, that the society collapses due to external pressure and ultimately turns into something else. This is POSSIBLE. But your contention that it is INEVITABLE does not stand.



Some of you are providing examples for these so-called real-world "gift economies", but all I'm seeing are example of gift exchanges in certain cultures. These are obviously not the same thing.
You might as well use Christmas as an example. It's just as valid. No one has to give gifts on Christmas, but a lot of people still give them anyway. However, obviously the economic system of the US utilizes the dollar, not gifts. It's not a gift economy. Nor are the Trobriand islanders, nor the Northwestern native americans.


Well, I'm not quite sure how you can make that case precisely, because the Trobriand islanders are THE archetypal gift economy. And we have good archaeological reasons to think that a gift economy existed in late neolithic northern Europe; in fact, bizarre and indeed even irrelevant as this sounds, the whole trope of "magic swords" probably originates from this north European gift economy. If you really want to know, I can try to expand, although, you know, I Am Not A Lawyer etc.

Increasingly, though, I more or less agree with you this is a bad term to use to try to describe a notional post-capitalist society. Instead I would suggest something like "gesture economy", with the understanding that this isn't actually an economy at all.

In this respect, it is exactly like Christmas, or perhaps a better example, Valentines Day. Because on the assumption that subsistence is guaranteed, any gift I give to you is of very little significance. Its not going to feed you, or clothe you, or house you, because all of those things have been taken care of by the provision of subsistence. So the best I can do, by spending an hour of work, is save you an hour of work for something optional and essentially trivial. What this voluntary effort on my behalf gets me is control over the particular form that gift takes.

This is, in other words, exactly like picking flowers for your girlfriend. The gift is in any meaningful sense trivial, but the personal and emotional significance of the thing is precisely that I was I was willing to spend my time and effort doing something trivial, just to win your favour. And if I can also capture in this gift some element of personal insight, interconnectedness, familiarity, intimacy - well then all to the good.

On the other hand, you can also reject this gift, and the intimacy it might imply, with no risk and no loss to yourself. I'm not bribing you, or buying your affection, or renting your tolerance of my presence - because your subsistence is guaranteed, you don't need me or my gestures, you can tell me to fuck off and die and lose nothing.

The point is that in a context where material needs are met, where the only limit to "stuff" is either desire or technically unnecessary effort, there is no real economy, there are only personal relationships, gestures of familiarity, friendship, and interest.

[ckaihatsu]

You continue to assume I'm looking at this from a purely economic standpoint even when I'm not, so here I will look at it only from an economic standpoint to juxtapose my posts and demonstrate your errors.





[W]e *can* still talk about a 'gift economy' in the abstract, according to its structure.

(A gift economy is where all productive assets and resources have been collectivized, and where sheerly voluntaristic efforts are put forth to produce for the common good, to achieve a general abundance, for humane needs.)





Regardless, a gift-economy must necessarily have resources >= demand. The moment that it does not, the entire economy fails. A failed economy means the collapse of the system. A collapse of the system means no more gift-economy.

And, once again, in such a case where a gift-economy exists, then it can be assumed that everyone already receives a 'basic income', as in to say, they already receive as many resources as they demand. Therefore, such a law is meaningless until resources < demand, in which case the entire economy collapses.


I'll ask you to consider that, in such a gift-economy context, not all 'demands' should be treated as *equivalent* in importance / priority, just as different kinds of *labor* (will) vary in hazard and difficulty, then as now.

(Food, for example, should probably be given priority, for production, over more-specialized items.)




[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://s6.postimg.org/q2scney29/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/full/)


Also:




tinyurl.com/additive-prioritizations


'additive prioritizations'


Better, I think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on Product 'X' or Event 'Y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:





consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


I'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:

[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.

So, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'Event Y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'Person Z for Event Y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.





I was given two premises:
1. A Capitalist society.
2. A Socialist 'gift economy' society of over-abundance and significant automation.

Therefore, the 'unconditional basic income' is only possible in the Capitalist society, due to the fact that the Capitalist-law-makers would never allow demand to be greater than resources.

The Socialist gift economy would, once again, already have the basic income, of which is only "unconditional" in the fact that the society that promised it would exist. That society would collapse if there was ever an error.


Agreed.





I already addressed the issue of a 'normal' socialist society without a 'gift economy', and I saw no contentions there. Economically speaking, the society would likely fall apart, or be damaged, by the people willing to exploit the policy. The 'unconditional' nature of the policy does not allow for it's removal or denial based on the need for work. Such a society is not economically safe even if they do have a safe amount of resources at the time the policy is enacted. A major drought, famine, devastation, or other calamity could cause the society to collapse due to unpredictable high fluctuation in demand.


Okay, basically, yes, but I'll again raise the point of an advanced-technology, automatically-resource-sustaining socialist society.

You're continuing to insist on the criticality of components like 'economics' and 'work', when we already live in a world where many don't have to depend on human labor for the transmission of our messages, or on household work for the supply of water to where we live.

Sure, a major natural disaster could always potentially throw much of regular everyday life into disarray, *or*, given the right social organization, new practices for humanity might make natural disasters a thing of the past by controlling those parts of nature in certain ways.


---





This assertion can only be interpreted in one of two ways:

[1] You're expressing a certain *anxiety* with the potential for those who are actively working to be or feel 'taken advantage of' by those who are *not* working because of their receipt of unconditional basic income. This is why I brought up the term 'lumpenproletariat', because it would apply here to this category of people who would be relatively privileged in not having to work for a wage, while others *are* working for a wage and being exploited at it.

However, this can't apply to *socialism*, since the means of mass production (production goods) would no longer be in private hands, so the exploitation of labor would be done away with, by definition. If people worked they would be directly benefitting themselves and other people with their labor, and if people *didn't* work it wouldn't be *deleterious* to anyone since no one would be *dependent* on anyone else directly -- a person could always look to social production and/or natural resources for what one needs.





This is not economically sound or logical.

You're saying that workers, who are the only means to contribute commodities to society, would not be exploited by the non-workers who are taking commodities out of society without doing work for them.

This is in direct contradiction. A non-worker is taking commodities from somewhere, and this would be from the worker. They don't just magically appear on people's doorsteps. That is long past the Utopian pipe-dream I was referring to and is an obvious fiction.


I hear you, but what I'm trying to get across is that, with the end of private ownership, the definition and social significance of 'work' would fundamentally change.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that, after the revolution and the full collectivization of all (industrial) means of mass production, there remained two *distinct* types of people in the world -- those who wanted to work, and worked, and those who *didn't* want to work, and *didn't*.

Among the world's group of those who want to work and did, would *each and every* person, down to the last individual, *only* work strictly to the extent that they were providing *only* for themselves and their own, and not a single bit more -- ? What if they happened to really *enjoy* whatever it was that they chose to do, *and* it turned out that their particular kind of labor effort was clearly beneficial to society as a whole, for others -- ?

Moreover, let's say that there happened to be *enough* of these kinds of people, doing the work they liked to do on the world's collectivized implements (and also creating and/or benefitting from newly developed ones), and that this *total* of work output happened to produce *enough* material output not only for themselves, but for the rest of humanity, as well, at some modest but humane standard of living, including even the entire group of those who *didn't* want to work, and didn't.

Would this *still* be considered 'exploitation', even though what the then-workers did was entirely *optional*, voluntary, and incidentally material-surplus-producing -- ?





Just as Capitalists exploit profits from the commodities of a worker, while doing no work, the non-workers in this case are essentially the Capitalists. They extract profits from a working-class while providing no work of their own.

This is why I called this scenario a "pseudo-Socialism". It is not a true Socialism because exploitation has not been removed, it was merely traded or rearranged.


The *difference*, though, would be in how the products of work would be distributed -- under capitalism all work product is *privatized*, while under socialism, all work product becomes part of the social commons.





Again, from an economic standpoint: This Pseudo-Socialist state would inevitably fail simply due to the fact that they are promising what society cannot afford, due to fluctuating demand and no definite incoming supply.
Only by luck would they be able to maintain such a scenario, economically speaking. But there are other factors at work here.

It has nothing to do with Socialism in general. Again, we have not spoken about that. It was not one of the premises.


You're implicitly assuming that you know what material productivities would be, per unit of labor put in -- so, according to the premise, if a particularly large proportion of the population happened to eschew work, there would *still* be a portion of the population that *did* work, and it would necessarily be on implements that belonged to *no one*, since everything would be out of the hands of private ownership and would be fully collectivized.

You're breezily asserting that such a society, of this composition, would automatically 'fail', even though you don't have enough information about the material productivities of such a society.





Again, I already addressed this referencing the social and political aspects of why this type of society would not maintain.

But economically speaking, what is the difference between this true Communist society that has enough commodities for everyone's basic needs, and work-automation, and a society with a "unconditional basic income"? In general, a "basic income" would be implied by the freely available commodities.


Okay.





Again, the basic income implies money, but moreso than that, it also implies a governing State creating and enforcing this law and equating all people's needs, rather than allowing the people themselves to determine it.

So I make this distinction myself, considering that a distinction was made and I don't know of any other implications that might be made.


Okay.


---





Let's just consider a theoretical situation of your scenario for a moment.
Let's say society has indefinite resources, and completely automated labor.
No one has to work, and everyone has everything they need and want, indefinitely. Some choose to work, some don't.
To not work, these people need to occupy themselves. Let's say they join the futuristic social-networking virtual-world society. They literally live inside of a virtual world, all the time. That is their existence. Meanwhile their physical bodies are fed by IVs, and the servers/computers they use eat up resources.
This is a large phenomena, vast amounts of people participate in this virtual-existence.

Do you not believe that the workers of the world, and those who do [not] spend their lives in the machine, would look fondly on those who do this?





If, as you're establishing, no one would *have* to work, and everyone automatically has what they need for the basics of humane living, then, in that case, the exploitation of labor is *impossible*, since a person's not-working would *not jeopardize* their own well-being, and it would have *no impact* on the material well-being of others.

Those who choose *to* work in such a scenario would basically, necessarily be 'hobbyists', since their contribution -- or non-contribution -- to the greater social production would be *unnecessary* for the reproduction of labor (going-forward, for new generations).

Those who choose to work would not be *obliged* to in the least, as for their own well-being and/or people who would otherwise depend on them and their work-efforts (their children).





True, but there still being the problem of the "unconditional" element of this economy.
If circumstances were to change, let's say a phenomena that destroys automation, the society itself collapses again due to the "unconditional" nature of the policy.


You introduced a scenario of 'indefinite' (infinite) resources and completely automated labor -- meaning that human labor would not be necessary whatsoever.

Now you're *changing* the scenario to one where 'a phenomena [...] destroys automation'. This, then, is a *different* scenario, and I think that would be enough for a *reconsideration* of all existing social policies.





And again, what good is an income in a society with such massive amounts of commodities? Are they being rationed? If they are being rationed, on what grounds are they being rationed? Why is it necessary to ration them? And why an "income" to ration them rather than limitations on the goods which are not plentiful?

Again, this scenario seems contradictory to itself.


I'm not going to entertain / address a policy of 'unconditional basic income' for a scenario of post-scarcity / abundance.

I happen to *agree* that a strictly *economistic* approach -- as with 'an income [...] to ration them' -- is inappropriate, and that it would be better to look at existing *material quantities* (and productivities) as a starting point. (My own approach can be found at my blog entry.)


---





No, it's not, because there is no artificial scarcity.




Without artificial scarcity there is no basis for private 'ownership' of the means of mass production, and no class-division.

With no classes there is no proletariat class.

If society has indefinite / infinitely expansive resources then, by definition, the *removal* and *consumption* of *any amount* from this pool of infinite resources will not deplete it in the least.

More realistically, though, as long as the pool of humane-type resources (and production) can be *sustained*, with little or negligible human effort needed, then there is no longer artificial scarcity, and no basis for the class division.

There would be no 'proletariat' to be 'exploited', so consumption of *any* scale could not be 'cumbersome' to anyone.





You're not really playing along with your own scenarios very well. You gave the scenarios, I merely gave you the conclusions of those scenarios. You now change all of the scenarios after I've already given them a conclusion.
You can't really do that. I am merely addressing the nonsensical scenarios as I can. As I have stated numerous times now, they don't actually make much sense. They contradict themselves.


For the sake of clarity you may want to include a brief description of whatever scenario it is that you're talking about, in whatever statement you're making about it.





There were militant, and even physical, labor battles with the authorities during this period. I'd say that they were 'conscious'.





Then you do not understand or agree with Marx's definition of class-consciousness. A few men, in the larger scope of things, believing they are being exploited is not class consciousness.


No, I was saying that the *entire period* of the '30s labor militancy was largely class conscious.





One didn't have to be a fully fledged socialist during the '30s to be politically conscious and even involved in revolutionary-type political activities.





And where did that get them?


I'll allow you to give your own statement on this.





I think you're being too prescriptive here -- slow, weak economic conditions are merely an *opportunity* for people to see and experience social conditions differently, and possibly to draw class-based conclusions, with revolutionary implications.





Have you ever heard of a "pot luck" party where everybody brings a dish? The original basis for the phrase is, I think, from the northwest pacific native american "potlach" which was a gathering of people who all brought some food or where one family provided the food, for free....a gift economy.





Some of you are providing examples for these so-called real-world "gift economies", but all I'm seeing are example of gift exchanges in certain cultures. These are obviously not the same thing.
You might as well use Christmas as an example. It's just as valid. No one has to give gifts on Christmas, but a lot of people still give them anyway. However, obviously the economic system of the US utilizes the dollar, not gifts. It's not a gift economy. Nor are the Trobriand islanders, nor the Northwestern native americans.

If you care to disagree, then please provide some explanation for why you'd qualify it as an actual "gift economy" and not simply just a cultural practice of gift-giving, like Christmas.

[Subversive]

I really don't think our scenarios are matching up.
I still don't understand how we're talking about a society of over-abundance, automation, and possessing a "gift economy" that still somehow needs or wants an "income", especially an "unconditional" one.
Once again I'll point out that this scenario is self-contradictory and I have no means to fairly evaluate a scenario that contradicts itself. So I think that is why there is confusion in scenarios.

In any case, my point was simply that making anything like this "unconditional" would be an irrational and unnecessary response of society. The fact of 'unconditionally' supplying resources to people, especially as an "income" rather than as straight commodities, in any form of society would cause issues wherein that society faced any problems regarding it's supply of resources. The main issue is that the derivative concept of this policy is that society can successfully predict the future in terms of resource-management. How can it know it can maintain an 'unconditional' income, despite all variables, 10, 50, 100, or even 1000 years from now? It can't truly provide this unconditionally. There are always variables that they cannot predict. And in such a case, they are being unreasonable to call it unconditional, unless this policy is limited to a certain known timeframe. And if that is the case, then it is not truly "unconditional" then, is it?

We can dream up any amount of societies where infinite resources actually exist, but to our knowledge such a thing is not possible and there is not much point in talking about it, nor would there be any use for an income in such an era of humanity wherein there is more than enough of everything for everyone.

So I think I will decline to continue the conversation. It seems I have mostly just been repeating myself and I'm not seeing clarification on any specific scenario.

So, thank you for the discussion everyone.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/finland-experiments-universal-basic-income.html


Finland experiments with universal basic income scheme

Luke Graham | @LukeWGraham

Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 | 8:16 AM ET

Finland now trying out universal basic income Finland now trying out universal basic income

Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 | 12:42 PM ET | 00:41

Finland's experimental scheme to provide its citizens with a basic income, regardless of employment, launched earlier this week.

The two-year pilot scheme will provide 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens, aged between 25 and 58, with a monthly basic income of 560 euros ($581.48) that will replace their other social benefits.
These citizens will continue to receive the basic income even if they find work.

Kela, the organization which runs Finland's social security systems and is running the pilot scheme, hopes the basic income experiment will boost employment, because the current system can potentially discourage the unemployed to find work as their earnings reduce the benefits they may receive.
"For someone receiving a basic income, there are no repercussions if they work a few days or a couple of weeks," said Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela's Legal Affairs Unit, in a press release.
"Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and self-employment are worthwhile no matter what."

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2015/11/25/103197090-GettyImages-142014996.530x298.jpg?v=1448466031
Nadia Isakova | Getty Images

Kela intends to test various basic income models and hopes to expand the sample size in 2018.

The basic income policy has come into focus in the last few years. Switzerland considered introducing a basic income for its citizens last year, but the plan was rejected by the public in a referendum.

Other countries considering the idea include Scotland, which plans to test the scheme in Fife and Glasgow later this year.

Proponents of universal basic income argue it can be more efficient, fairer and will better protect people as the economy evolves.

"A universal basic income would provide a much more secure income base in an age of deepening economic and social insecurity and unpredictable work patterns," economists Howard Reed and Stewart Lansley said in a report on basic income published in May last year.

"It would offer much greater financial independence and freedom of choice for individuals between work and leisure, education and caring while recognizing the huge value of unpaid and voluntary work."

Others criticize the idea as expensive and unworkable. In September, the U.K. government rejected plans for a basic income scheme.
"While at first glance a universal basic income might appear desirable, any practical implementation will invariably be unaffordable. Because it doesn't take into account individual needs properly, it will markedly increase inequality," Conservative politician Damian Hinds said during the debate, The Independent reported.

Follow CNBC International on Twitter and Facebook.


Luke Graham
Blog Writer, CNBC.com