The Case for a Universal Basic Income

[Prole]

First off let me begin by saying that I personally think that a universal basic income should be established along with removing the minimum wage.


This would serve to ensure that people are able to provide for themselves off the surplus of society without being forced to sell their labour in order to merely subsist. Throughout history this relationship between labourer and employer has been one of dependency, and therefore also of exploitation, however with increased automation and technological efficiency our society's collective surplus has increased, it is not unreasonable to believe that with the proper and efficient management of this surplus there would be no need for us to continue the same inefficient and archaic relationships that have dominated human relationships throughout history thus far.

Instituting a universal basic income is also a prudent step to prepare for the coming future whereby technological progress will have made human labour obsolete. Eliminating the minimum wage along with the institution of a universal basic income is also a logical step since the entire purpose of the minimum wage was an inefficient attempt to address the same issue of surplus redistribution. Once we are collectively able to provide for our bare necessities, all jobs would be undertaken either for a source of disposable income or personal enjoyment, and in either case society benefits. As apposed to our current system, employees would be more likely to be working out of their free-will, and would therefore be more productive and pleasant in general.

This democratization of the workplace through levelling the playing-field would also have the benefit of allowing for a more accurate way of determining the true value of any given job position, for instance if a company was finding it tough to fill a position they would have to either raise their compensation or make other concessions to incentivize employment. No longer would employers be able to exploit the dependency currently nurtured by the current market-system.


I would like to hear any and all thoughts on a universal basic income or similar policies and their proposed implementation.

[tuwix]

The problem with basic income is an assumption that millionaire should get the same money as unemployed or homeless. I don't think it has anything to do with social justice...

Besides it conserves a capitalism. But to survive in it, it could be acceptable. However, I think that unemployment benefit that wouldn't have time limit would be just better.

[adipocere12]

I'm not sure I get it. So you give all 300m people in the US $40k each a year. Doesn't that work out to more than the GDP if the country?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

First off let me begin by saying that I personally think that a universal basic income should be established along with removing the minimum wage.

Most people who propose a universal basic income do, and that is one of the major problems of the proposal. There is no way for a UBI in capitalism to be enough for a comfortable life - if it was, capitalism would collapse in on itself. And obviously, in socialism there is no income as there is no money etc. So what these proposals actually do is provide a trendy "leftish" cover for slashing the minimum wage, unemployment insurance etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would like to hear any and all thoughts on a universal basic income or similar policies and their proposed implementation.

Not only is the proposal completely impractical, it betrays a deep lack of understanding of how capitalism functions. It also bears no relevance or connection to a long term objective of abolishing the wage system, which is predicated on the exploitation of workers. In fact, it only strengthens that system and perpetuates our exploitation.

[The Modern Prometheus]

There was a study done in Canada where they gave everyone a living wage. They found that only new mothers and teenagers worked less as they could afford to stay home with their kids or not drop out of school to go to work.

Here is a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome) to the study

But yeah i think it just keeps Capitalism going as Capitalism without some form of charity just does not work and would fail pretty quick.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It would have to be below the mean average wage, but it would also have to be high enough for people to live on. So you already have a severe budget constraint (where for the government to have any money left over everybody would have to have an income below that of the previous average wage) and are also committed to a very high level of government expenditure to ensure that the universal basic income is high enough to achieve its aims (poverty alleviation and dignity of living standard, presumably).

One of the positives of a UBI would be a strengthening of workers' positions in collective bargaining, insofar as if people are guaranteed a UBI whether they are employed or not, then it would not be so easy to force unemployed people to sell their labour for a paltry wage if they have a UBI that allows them to live in dignity. Ergo, there would be upwards pressure on wages.

The issue, though, is that we know from having analysed historical phenomena that wage inflation is inherently unstable under capitalism. Wage inflation leads either to price inflation which negates the original rise in wages received by workers, or to a corporatist attempt by capital to persuade workers to keep their wages down. Inevitably the latter fails, and the former leads to a new, brutal accumulation phase by capital in which they use the state, their chosen tool of repression, to force down wages by statute, to force down government spending, and to hand over more and more government business to the private sector to compensate for the lost profitability of already-private enterprises that have lost profitability because of the previous wage inflation.

It's a nice idea but it is predicated on a certain assumption of human behaviour and the dynamics of capital accumulation that doesn't hold true; namely, capital will not sit idly by and watch poor people get a decent income/wage at the expense of their own ability to seek profits and accumulate capital.

[Prole]

It also bears no relevance or connection to a long term objective of abolishing the wage system

Technological advancements will destroy the wage-system naturally, regardless what form of market we are in. This UBI is merely an attempt to set the groundwork for a socialized wage system that could be tied into a percentile of GDP, etc.

The way I see it, is it's a short-term compromise that ensures when we start making major jumps in technological progress in the next two decades the average people aren't left behind. There will HAVE to be some form of redistribution in the future if we wish to remain a cohesive society in the face of mass-automation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Technological advancements will destroy the wage-system naturally, regardless what form of market we are in.

Well, no, obviously technological advances do not mechanically cause changes in the mode of production, otherwise feudalism would have mechanically disappeared with the first organised factories etc. Instead feudalism had to be destroyed by the nascent bourgeoisie. Likewise with capitalism and the proletariat.



This UBI is merely an attempt to set the groundwork for a socialized wage system that could be tied into a percentile of GDP, etc.

The way I see it, is it's a short-term compromise that ensures when we start making major jumps in technological progress in the next two decades the average people aren't left behind. There will HAVE to be some form of redistribution in the future if we wish to remain a cohesive society in the face of mass-automation.

But the problem is, there is no "we", and a cohesive society is not our goal... our goal is the socialisation of the means of production, and the violent destruction of the bourgeoisie, not waiting for some sort of technical salvation from the outside.

[Prole]

obviously technological advances do not mechanically cause changes in the mode of production, otherwise feudalism would have mechanically disappeared with the first organised factories etc. Instead feudalism had to be destroyed by the nascent bourgeoisie. Likewise with capitalism and the proletariat.

I agree with this statement because at some point we the people are going to have to demand a share of the surplus generated through the increased productivity. However I just don't see it possible in today's environment to take control of the mode of production in it's entirety within the next two decades. This is why I believe we should make a compromise of sorts through a UBI in order to at least relieve some of the burdon on the working class so they may begin to decide what future they want for themselves. Given the chance to decide for themselves, free from economic coercion I believe most people will naturally choose for a more socialized society.

A UBI, while not perfect, is in my mind simply a way of latching onto the back of this current system as it continues it's progress, and ensuring that the working-class aren't left behind. In terms of the exponential growth of technology if we don't attempt to stay relevant it won't take long before we become an easily-controlled class of the permanently poor.

I'm merely attempting to find a last ditch effort to keep all parties relevant because I simply do not see a viable global revolution that's needed to fix this system happening before nanobots are introduced in 2020s, or Artificial Intelligence in the late 2030s.

[The Feral Underclass]

Technological advancements will destroy the wage-system naturally, regardless what form of market we are in.

If that's the case, the result on the working class will be far more catastrophic than we could even imagine it. If your premise is correct, what this means in practice is that workers will simply be put out of a job. It may be abolished, but it does nothing to actually address the class dynamics of society, which is the fundamental question here.


This UBI is merely an attempt to set the groundwork for a socialized wage system that could be tied into a percentile of GDP, etc.

But the premise of your argument fails to address the fact that the wage system is fundamentally a system of exploitation. Simply socialising that system doesn't address that issue, which should be the very core of any belief to change the world.


The way I see it, is it's a short-term compromise that ensures when we start making major jumps in technological progress in the next two decades the average people aren't left behind. There will HAVE to be some form of redistribution in the future if we wish to remain a cohesive society in the face of mass-automation.

Firstly, on what basis should the working class compromise with the system of their exploitation? In other words, why should the working class not advance a total and complete annihilation of the wage system on its own terms. Secondly, technological progress in the context of a capitalist system simply means more profit for capitalists. Lastly, if this redistribution is inevitable, that doesn't mean that the working class will be any closer to liberation. It simply means capitalism has had to reform itself in order to survive, which is what it does.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I agree with this statement because at some point we the people are going to have to demand a share of the surplus generated through the increased productivity.

Here's an idea: how about we demand all of it? Right now? And no "please" at the end, either.


However I just don't see it possible in today's environment to take control of the mode of production in it's entirety within the next two decades. This is why I believe we should make a compromise of sorts through a UBI in order to at least relieve some of the burdon on the working class so they may begin to decide what future they want for themselves.

But that's the thing, every time the workers compromise, they find themselves worse off in the long run. What your proposal would actually mean is that the minimum wage and unemployment subsidies would be slashed, and the replacement would not be enough to survive on.


Given the chance to decide for themselves, free from economic coercion I believe most people will naturally choose for a more socialized society.

The proletariat is free to chose to expropriate the bourgeoisie right now. But you seem to be talking about voting etc; changes in the mode of production can't be voted in.


A UBI, while not perfect, is in my mind simply a way of latching onto the back of this current system as it continues it's progress, and ensuring that the working-class aren't left behind. In terms of the exponential growth of technology if we don't attempt to stay relevant it won't take long before we become an easily-controlled class of the permanently poor.

I'm merely attempting to find a last ditch effort to keep all parties relevant because I simply do not see a viable global revolution that's needed to fix this system happening before nanobots are introduced in 2020s, or Artificial Intelligence in the late 2030s.

That's an oddly specific timeline.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First off let me begin by saying that I personally think that a universal basic income should be established along with removing the minimum wage.

That's a non-starter. Universal basic income without labour protections fails to address:

1) Structural and cyclical unemployment
2a) Desire to work and avoid the personal stigma of not doing something
2b) Skills-based hireability of persons living solely on this
3) Inevitable downward pressure on wages as a result of implementation
4) Privatization of the social wage (welfare being substituted)
5) Class origins of political advocacy and beneficiaries (working-class vs. lumpen)
6) An argument already conceded by some is that this won't even eliminate the "precariat," even though opponents have granted the assumption that this should do so

While the poster may be new to this board, I don't see why this particular thread shouldn't be moved to OI.

[Prole]

Council On Foreign Relations Proposes That "Central Banks Should Hand Consumers Cash Directly"

The reasoning was very simple: in a country (and world) drowning with debt, there are only two options to extinguish said debt: inflate it away or default. Anything else is kicking the can while making the problem even worse. Because while the Fed has been successful at recreating the world's biggest asset bubble (in history), it has failed to stimulate broad, "benign" demand-pull inflation as the trickle down effects of its "wealth effect" have failed to materialize 6 years after the launch of the Fed's unconventional monetary policies.

In other words, a world stuck in the last phase before complete Keynesian collapse, had no choice but to gamble "all in" with the last and only bluff it had left before admitting the economic system it had labored under, one which has borrowed so extensively from the future to fund the present that there is no future left, has failed.

The only question left was when would the trial balloons for such monetary paradrops start to emerge.

We now know the answer, and it is today.

Moments ago a stunning article appearing in the "Foreign Affaird" publication of the influential and policy-setting Council of Foreign Relations, titled "Print Less but Transfer More: Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People."

In it we read the now conventional admission of failure by Keynesians, who however, unwilling to actually admit they have been wrong, urge the even more conventional solution: do more of the same that has lead to the current financial cataclysm, only in this case the authors advocate no longer pretending that the traditional monetary channels work but to, literally, paradrop money.

zerohedge[.]com/news/2014-08-26/it-begins-council-foreign-relations-proposes-central-banks-should-hand-consumers-cas


I just wanted to share this information with everyone here, but it seems that a UBI type system of directly distributing wealth is in the works already. The establishment is obviously realizing that without some major concessions the economy simply can't continue. I do believe this is the short term fix our economy needs.

However, what this means for those of us who wish to see the exploitative wage-system removed completely is another question, I still believe that given the right education, and combined with the increase in technology, people will choose to work towards ways to benefit everyone. I believe the road of progressing information-technology leads to eventual communism and this outcome is frankly inevitable provided current trends stay consistent.

Buckle up everyone, we're in for some interesting times for sure.

[rylasasin]

Basically this sounds like a rehash of that "demand the good life" (Aka "Demand the Good Laugh" aka "The worst plan to save capitalism from itself EVER") copypasta scheme that was going around on forums and shit like this one.

A small part of it was viable, but most of it sounded like a bad ponzi scheme created by people who couldn't do basic maths.

Here was the objectives list for those who never seen it. Don't bother trying to find it now, it's long gone (funny that, supposedly their site had 200000+ signatures before it bit the dust). Not even the WayBackMachine works.


CITIZEN DIVIDEND: FIX the INEFFICIENCY in our GOVERNMENT

Use existing taxes to just simply pay everyone a Citizen Dividend, instead of sending our taxes down an unresponsive government bureaucracy sinkhole.
The dividend is part of your basic rights as a citizen and is compensation for your ownership share in the planet nature gave to humanity
Use a portion of our existing tax money to pay every adult a $15,000 per year dividend which gets paid to everyone - rich and poor, employed and unemployed
Since this dividend payment begins when you graduate high school, it will provide an enormous incentive for students to get their diploma
Use a portion of our existing tax money to also pay an additional $25,000 per year dividend to every worker, or every post-secondary school student, or every person who is interested in volunteering (such as those who are unemployed) at an approved civic or charitable organization.
Adding an additional $40,000 per year in after-tax dividend income to the income you already earn will increase every worker's income to a level only the richest 6% of income earners get to enjoy today; it creates a society where every worker is wealthy and has a high enough income to live a first-class lifestyle
Require a portion of the dividend be spent on catastrophic health insurance; this provides universal coverage without the need for a so-called government takeover of health care or the implementation of a 2000-page bill
The dividend eliminates poverty, eliminates the existence of poor neighborhoods, eliminates most financial struggle, eliminates the need for welfare, reduces the growing rates of inequality, eliminates the problem of unemployment, eliminates the lack of access to health care, eliminates the lack of access to education, provides greater gender equality, gives people greater freedom in lifestyle choices, delivers a more flexible and just labor market, and makes every worker wealthy
The dividend streamlines government by eliminating the need for it to do most of what government does; it enables us to reduce the size of government to a fraction of what it is currently and at the same time solve most of society's problems


FULL AUTOMATION: FIX the INEFFICIENCY in our LABOR

Use existing technology to enable everyone to trade in the outdated, 19th century life of working a job for a modern, 21st century life of leisure which will not only improve our quality of life but also increase our overall productivity
All our productivity comes from work; but work comes in the form of jobs and it comes in the form of productive leisure activities
A job is work that nobody has any interest in doing; it is work that people do only because they need a paycheck, such as working in a warehouse, as restaurant staff, in transportation and in retail sales
A productive leisure activity is the opposite of a job - it is an activity that people naturally want to do, that people do in their free time, that people do even if they aren't getting paid for it, that people would do more of if they didn't have a job to go to, that is recreational and done primarily for pleasure. But it is also an activity that is productive. Some examples are any activity that people currently do as a hobby or volunteer for or pay to do such as writing books, making music, filming movies, raising a family, furthering basic science, building robots, programming open source software, occupying a position of power, designing stuff and developing new inventions.
We get more overall productivity from people doing leisure activities (where we get to have fun, express our creativity and apply our intellect) than from people doing jobs (which are boring, menial and best suited for machines)
In order to maximize the efficiency of our labor, machines should do all the jobs and people should do all the leisure activities
70% of all the jobs we do - yes, 70% of all the jobs we do - are make-work jobs that just waste people's lives because they are jobs that machines already have the capability of doing; 70% of all jobs can be eliminated today with existing automation technology
We should eliminate the need to do all of those jobs and work on developing new automation technology that enables us to eventually eliminate the remaining 30%
The dividend and automation enables us to make working a job optional so that we can spend our days doing things more productive and more worthy of human effort.
Living a wealthy life of leisure, where there is no difference between work and play, is far more rewarding and far more useful than living a life spent working a job.


FREE CREDIT: FIX the INEFFICIENCY in our BANKING

Use technology to eliminate interest on all loans from mortgages to credit cards which eliminates the number one expense in your life
Computers have made banks obsolete; replace the entire inefficient, archaic, multi-trillion dollar commercial banking industry with a simple computer connected to the internet that everyone can access
Since money is digital, and no longer physical like gold or silver, it means it requires no labor, no energy and no materials to produce; you can produce an unlimited amount of digital money for free
And since we can produce an unlimited amount of money for free, it is completely unnecessary for anyone to have to borrow someone else's digital money and pay that person an interest fee
When someone wants to access a line of credit, their account balance is just increased; there is nothing you need to borrow so there is no interest or fees to be paid.
Under this new system, the central bank will no longer be able to manage the rate of inflation using interest rates since nobody pays interest; instead, the loan term will be the tool the central bank uses to manage inflation.
You will most likely spend more money on interest in your life than on any other thing you buy - you will spend more on interest than on your house, your car, your education, your healthcare, your electronics, your vacations, everything
And what you get in return for buying the most expensive item of your life is absolutely nothing - it can all be done digitally, for free; it is the biggest rip-off in the history of commerce.
Eliminating interest will eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars that you currently waste on interest expenses; it will significantly reduce your cost of living and cut your monthly payment for housing in half


FULL TRANSPARENCY: FIX the INEFFICIENCY in our ACCESS to INFORMATION

The only way to have a fair and honest society is to have a fully transparent society in both the private and public sectors.
We supposedly live in the information age but our best information tools - the internet and its search engines - are very crude ways of making information useful and they have very limited access to all the information that is available
The solution is to deploy a digital platform that requires all public and private sector activity to be fully disclosed in a standardized digital format so that the information age can truly become a reality
Make all that data available on demand in real time from a central repository that everyone can access with any internet connected device at any time for no cost.
All the world's information and data is now available at your fingertips in a structured, easy-to-use directory without having to know where the information resides or worrying about whether it is stored in some proprietary format; it acts like a single database that stores everything
It makes the entire operation of society Open Source and gives everyone API access to all the world's data which they can query in real time.
Full disclosure means you have the same level of access to information that the owner of the business has or the head of a government agency has or the director of a charity has - from copies of all contracts, to salaries, to inventory, to line item detail of financials like a list of every check written and received
The digital platform will make society an open book; it will create an environment that is a more honest, accountable, friendly, cooperative, equitable, efficient, and civilized place to live, work, and play.
A platform designed in this way will enable you, for example, to simply enter in a product and then instantly get a list of every place that sells it, sorted by price, location and units in stock, with the single touch of a button
As you fill your cart with groceries, an app with this real time access to pricing can tell you that you can get the same exact items for $40 less in the grocery store down the street
If you are remodeling, you can see the price charged and the products used for every kitchen remodel in your area; click on a company and see all the jobs they did along with the prices they charged, the subcontractors they used and what those subs were paid; click on reviews and you can see verified client satisfaction; click on the owner name, click on Legal, and get a list of all the lawsuits he was involved in; click on a listed lawsuit and view the results; click on the listed documents and view any of the documents entered into the public record
As an employee, you will know exactly how much everyone earns who are employed in the same job as you which is necessary in getting a fair salary. As a business owner or an entrepreneur, you will be able to research the competition to see exactly how a company is producing a product, the details of the deals they made, the resources they invested, the exact expenses they are paying and income they are earning.
The platform will also standardize interaction within the digital domain so that routine tasks like setting appointments, making payments, purchasing, doing due diligence, researching, filling out forms, getting prices, checking availability, browsing your digital history, voting, registering, licensing, contacting - any interaction that you would be able to do in the physical world - are now digital, automated and just simple clicks of a button


FIXING these INEFFICIENCIES ENABLES EVERYONE to ACHIEVE the GOOD LIFE

The $40,000 yearly dividend added to whatever salary you earn plus the elimination of interest makes every citizen wealthy.
The full deployment of existing automation technologies enables us to replace jobs with productive leisure activities which makes the overall economy more productive and gives every citizen the freedom to spend their lives doing what they want to do instead of what they don't want to do.
Access to a digital platform that makes everything that happens in society fully transparent gives every citizen the data and information they need in real time to make the right decisions and take the right actions that ensure their best interests are always being served
Fixing society's inefficiencies will turn the world into a paradise compared to how it is today; it will enable everyone to live the good life


GETTING this PLAN IMPLEMENTED

Our plan is to get people to make a pledge, by simply providing their name and email, that they will support enacting these policies into law. Once we have gained popular support, we can get existing politicians to enact this plan or vote in new politicians who will.
In order to reach the millions of people required to have that kind of influence, this program will pay you $7,000 for each person you get to visit this website and pledge their support. And you will get paid $7,000 for every person who pledges their support after them
For every $7,000 you earn, $5,000 will also be invested in the World Liberation Fund so that this plan can get enacted throughout the world.
There is no cost to pledge your support or to become an activist and refer others.
Refer 5 people and you will earn $35,000.
If 3 of those people become activists and refer 2 people each, you will earn an additional $42,000.
If those 6 new people do the same and refer 2 themselves, you will earn an additional $84,000.
If those 12 new people do the same and refer 2 themselves, you will earn an additional $168,000.
If those 24 new people get excited about the prospect of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a world where everyone gets to live the good life and go on to refer 5 people each just like you did, you will earn an additional $840,000.
There is no limit to how much you can earn. There are about 220 million people eligible to vote. So a total of $1.5 trillion in income is available to be earned. Some activists will make millions, some will make hundreds of millions, some will even make billions of dollars.
We think the potential of earning this much money is the only way to motivate enough people to do the actual work of getting enough pledges to make these significant changes in society a reality.
However, the earnings will only get paid out if this plan is enacted and if the pledge you referred agrees to make the Liberation Investment.
The Liberation Investment is not an out-of-pocket investment, it just means they are willing to give up half of their first year's Citizen Dividend for the sake of getting this plan implemented.
The Liberation Investment, of course, is not a typical investment since it does not require any money upfront or have any risk; instead of receiving a $40,000 yearly Dividend, Liberation Investors will recieve a $20,000 Dividend the first year and $40,000 each year after that
The Liberation Investor understands the enormous work activists need to do to make these changes in society and understands that getting a $20,000 Dividend their first year and $40,000 each year after that is obviously a significant upgrade over what they are getting today which is no Dividend, so it is not really a sacrifice at all
The $20,000 Liberation Investment is what is used to pay out the commissions to activists



If you didn't click the spoiler box, you didn't miss much. Basically, it sounds like something an Anarcho Capitalist and a Venus Projecter came up with this while having a drunken fling in an alleyway. Or something you'd see on Retsupurae's "Kickstarter Nonstarters" segment.

It was stupid back then, and it's even stupider now.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

While the poster may be new to this board, I don't see why this particular thread shouldn't be moved to OI.

Because UBI has nothing to do with revolutionary politics; it is a reform designed to subvert the revolutionary apathy of the 'underclass' of industrial reserve army labourers and working poor to some implicit support of the capitalist system.

And it's such an unlikely reform (as i've discussed above, a satisfactory UBI is unaffordable to the bourgeoisie) that it's worse than mere reform, it's a utopian, social democratic pipe dream dressed up in red lipstick.

[redwolf]

If society has come far enough to need basic income, then why bother continuing with capitalism at that point?

[o well this is ok I guess]

Because UBI has nothing to do with revolutionary politics; it is a reform designed to subvert the revolutionary apathy of the 'underclass' of industrial reserve army labourers and working poor to some implicit support of the capitalist system.

And it's such an unlikely reform (as i've discussed above, a satisfactory UBI is unaffordable to the bourgeoisie) that it's worse than mere reform, it's a utopian, social democratic pipe dream dressed up in red lipstick. idk there's some old marxists (Gorz comes to mind) that really thought a UBI and other such schemes would really weaken capitalism.

I mean, you can go about saying it's unrealistic reformism at best (it probably is), but there's certainly enough leftist interest to merit it being a topic of discussion. I mean, we discuss a bunch of topics on this site that aren't gonna initiate the world revolution.

[Ledur]

Meh, basic income, under capitalism, would lead to prices' inflation of basic needs, like housing and health. Remember, even though people in developed countries are richer than they ever been, housing prices reflect that someone still needs to work for years to have their own home.

Eventually, everyone would still work their asses off, even with UBI, to have a decent living. You guys have any doubt about how capitalism can adapt to income changing?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think everything should be free and the people who disagree should be locked away in a cage and thrown into the ocean so ocean life can feed off of them and they, can finally, be of some use and do some good.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Most people who propose a universal basic income do, and that is one of the major problems of the proposal. There is no way for a UBI in capitalism to be enough for a comfortable life - if it was, capitalism would collapse in on itself. And obviously, in socialism there is no income as there is no money etc. So what these proposals actually do is provide a trendy "leftish" cover for slashing the minimum wage, unemployment insurance etc.

You're talking about anarchy, not Socialism, just wanted to point that out.

[Slavic]

You're talking about anarchy, not Socialism, just wanted to point that out.

Actually you are both talking about Communism since the end society is being discussed and not the methods, which would include socialist and anarchist methods.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Actually you are both talking about Communism since the end society is being discussed and not the methods, which would include socialist and anarchist methods.

No, I was talking about post-scarcity post-left anarchy with gift economy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Socialism" can mean either a movement or a mode of production.

The socialist movement includes anarchists, at least those that are worth anything, and Marxists.

Socialism as a mode of production is identical to communism. "Socialism = DotP" is an ML formula that no one else accepts.