Guaranteed $20K income for all Canadians endorsed by academics

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've already said before that I don't like this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/guaranteed-20k-income-for-all-canadians-endorsed-by-academics-1.2691847


More than 100 speakers and participants were on hand for the conference, which focused on the merits of a guaranteed minimum income that would either replace or exist alongside existing social programs.

Already on the Internet, I read talk of replacing unemployment and disability insurance, as well as pensions, paid maternity, and other welfare programs. The talk is more brazen now than only a few years ago.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, that's it folks! Cancel those marches and call off the revolution!
Yeah, seriously, how the fuck do they expect this to be enforced in a capitalist society (leaving aside that it doesn't resolve the fundamental issues).

I figure this is business unionism taken to its logical conclusion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Brad, I'm just waiting for the talk of "benefits" to the downward pressure on wages to become more brazen. :rolleyes:

[Loony Le Fist]

I've already said before that I don't like this:
...
Already on the Internet, I read talk of replacing unemployment and disability insurance, as well as pensions, paid maternity, and other welfare problems. The talk is more brazen now than only a few years ago.

Well if the guaranteed income is large enough it might be better than any of those other programs. I don't like the means testing anyway. It's so complicated having to fill out all those forms. It's even worse if you have medical conditions because there's even more forms. Frankly, I like the idea of just giving everyone a base income without having to drag people through some lengthy process. I would think it would expedite the delivery of benefits to those that need it most.

However, it wouldn't resolve the core issue, and may even prolong capitalist hegemony. There are definitely points to consider.



...
Yeah, seriously, how the fuck do they expect this to be enforced in a capitalist society (leaving aside that it doesn't resolve the fundamental issues).
...

Fundamentally, this is the problem with any and all proposals. We are still stuck with reforms that will simply be repealed once unrest is quelled. Revolution is, and always will be, necessary, despite my preference for the liberal welfare state (rapidly becoming non-existent in the US) to an alternative state without it.

EDIT: Just to clarify that I mean that I prefer a liberal welfare state compared to say a laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism. Socialism is what I prefer overall. In other words, I prefer something that works against stratification than nothing. All solutions that maintain capitalism and/or the associated structures are temporary by their nature.

Of course, I can't really be completely satisfied until I see the complete dissolution of all states and all corresponding unjustifiable hierarchies. I'm sure there are many out there that share this view. In engineering, one often uses an idealized version of real life systems to create models in one's mind. I think the ideal is better used to give a sense of direction rather than as a real destination. All real systems appear to have shortcomings--experience seems to indicate we can only approach ideals to within a certain tolerance.

The goal is to have a society with as few shortcomings and as many advantages for everyone as possible. In our current situation we just have to sacrifice too much of ourselves for what we get in return--as a society. Given our current state of technology there is too much of a difference between the benefits we receive from wages and what we get back, on average. I want to bring that average down to as close to zero as possible.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a legitimising tactic. The problem is that by the time it became policy, it would probably be so watered down as to not be nearly as radical as it sounds. Therein lies the problem with all of these legitimising reforms under capitalism: I wouldn't oppose the idea behind them - it would be great if we could just raise wages and spend more on social welfare etc. - but the actual content a) tends to be watered down by the time the policy is enacted into law, and b) tends to be hugely counter-productive in a capitalist society, where the pull of power is always towards the capitalist and against the worker. The greater the legitimising reform, the greater the accumulative function of reaction will be against it 'x' number of years later. So we see that the massive, decades-lasting social democracy of the post-WW2 era preceded the period of reaction that started in the late 1970s/early 1980s and continues, more or less unabated, to the present day.

tl/dr: reforms are better than no reforms but we have to understand that they only delay the inevitable continuation of capital's onslaught on the proletariat in their search for opportunities for more capital accumulation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's a legitimising tactic. The problem is that by the time it became policy, it would probably be so watered down as to not be nearly as radical as it sounds. Therein lies the problem with all of these legitimising reforms under capitalism: I wouldn't oppose the idea behind them - it would be great if we could just raise wages and spend more on social welfare etc. - but the actual content a) tends to be watered down by the time the policy is enacted into law

You're actually posting here in terms (oops, "jargon") that professional workers can relate to? Wow!

On the substance of your post: Doesn't that still sound too simplistic? Think of all the major public policy areas addressed by left-soc-dem governments in the post-WWII era, and for each area gather the most radical planks (i.e., a specific policy in Sweden that was more radical than its counterpart in France). What you get is a huge policy mosaic or melting pot that requires specific terms that are beyond sloganeering.

Anyways, Canadian lefties should be encouraged to discuss the matter here: http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/guaranteed-income

[Kingfish]

This method will no doubt be one of the last tricks the neoliberals will pull before a communist or outright fascist path is taken. Not only will it allow them to more ably scrap the welfare system but most importantly it will keep domestic consumer demand going even as worsening unemployment, inequality, wages and conditions (due simply to the progress of technology and globalization alone) stifle it.

Of course it is not a permanent solution but it could still prolong the system