Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Universal Basic Income? Guaranteed Job?

In the framework of a capitalist economy that is absolutely correct.

I think that associating UBI with Socialism is not accurate. Social safety nets are typically a band aid on Capitalism aimed at reducing the inherent contradictions of the system. They temporarily alleviate some of the hardships and injustices imposed on wage earners. However, they do not represent solutions to those contradictions. They can, however, be a harbinger of the change needed to inform the public and indicate a path to a more just and equitable economic system.
So, if the broader issue is whether or not people are prepared to live under Socialism, it would seem that, if they truly understand what the new economic relationships would be (and NW_P points out many aspects that are a preview or a hint of some of those relationships) and are not indoctrinated to hate anything that proposes to change the status quo (hate that has been repeatedly reinforced by government and media alike) then I would say yes, they are.
Just think of what the reaction would be if you suddenly told all of the recipients of Social Security, and other benefits, that they were being abandoned to the forces of the so-called "marketplace".
I think you might see pitchforks and torches.
Oscar Wilde wrote eloquently about this in The Soul of Man under Socialism

Here's where we tend to disagree, my friend. I see "socialism" as a philosophical overlay to the existing economic system (as opposed to practiced communism, which is a usurpation of the existing system). Communism, per se, can never work (and never has). Marx saw socialism as a transitional phase. I believe he was wrong.

I see socialism as a guiding principle - not a "band aid to capitalism" but as a fully-fledged partner. As with any successful process, there is a tension between individual and societal needs/desires. Successful government, in my view, seeks to keep these forces in balance. If the balance tips too far one way OR the other the society fails.

Indeed we do disagree, old friend, for a very simple reason: you cannot have it both ways. The basis of Socialism (as understood by Marx) was the transfer of economic and political power (via the means of production) from the capitalist to society as a whole. The opposition between Wage Labour and Capital dooms Capitalism to implode.
This dialectical and antagonistic relationship cannot be reconciled with temporary measures.
Marx saw Socialism as a historical step toward Communism.
As for Communism, it has never been implemented as understood by Marx. It never arose as a historical consequence of Socialism. So, to say it can't work is not possible, we don't know. It has yet to be tried.
Your use of the word "usurp" is incorrect. A coup may be usurpation but revolution not necessarily, given that the seizing of power does not have to be illegal. That would assume that power rightfully belongs to one specific group. This is clearly not the case.

I don't see how Marx's ideas stand up in a world where automation and AI supplies most of the labor. With a UBI, there wouldn't be anybody obligated to work or starve. People would work because they wanted more income, better food, nice cars, etc.

It kind of takes the fire out of the revolutionaries if they can just coast by on the UBI. Maybe grow a little pot, raise a few chickens and vegetables. Sounds like a peasant's ideal retirement to me. Why would he want to shake up the system?

How doctrinaire! There clearly has been no advancement of thought or integration of ideas since 1848, which is why, of course, the world is populated with naturally formed communist societies that were the inevitable result that Marx surmised. Oh, wait...

There were concepts that Marx was absolutely correct about - especially "alienated labor" - but his prognostication was, shall we say, a wee bit off.

I would agree with the sentiment expressed that "This dialectical and antagonistic relationship cannot be reconciled with temporary measures." (emphasis added) I am not, therefore, asserting them. I am instead suggesting permanent changes, akin to the Sozialgesetzbuch in Germany. Social Security and Medicare were not conceived of as "temporary measures". Indeed, Social Security in the United States has lasted longer than the Soviet Union did. That's an important point, so I emphasized it.

I do not believe the "means of production" should reside primarily in government hands. I believe in private ownership, so I am no communist. Nor do I believe the welfare of society should be in the hands of the private sector (so I am no neocon). They have separate roles in our society and spheres of influence that should be properly demarcated. Marx did indeed see "Socialism as a historical step toward Communism." And that is where he was so fundamentally wrong. Others have properly recognized that alienation of labor does not inevitably lead to the proletariat revolution, which is why all communist proponents have sought to impose it by force. Marx himself was a lousy Marxist and did not actually believe his own press. Communism has never existed as Marx envisioned it because the premise was faulty. He opined that it would arise by natural progression, and, as I said, he was completely wrong. He assumed that society would not evolve to address the conditions that he properly identified. When he realized that, rather than modifying his views (as a genuine scientist would have), he agitated to create his proletariat revolution. Lenin and Mao and every other "communist" leader has followed this course, rather than his theory.

Many of Marx's insights have been adopted by mainstream economists. Labor is now recognized as a fundamental component of "capitalism" and the idea of "labor power" is fully integrated into academic economic thoughts and theories. Unions are one manifestation of this integration as is "The Department of Labor." We monitor Labor statistics and it affects perception of the economy. These are all good things. Society has evolved, economic thought has evolved and we are all better for it.

They are not enamored with the culture itself. They are enamored with the visible outside trappings of it.
Not the same thing at all.
For a comparison, think about all the happy, talented and successful "Blue Eyed Soul" performers out there...Van Morrison, Stevie Winwood, to just name two.
They don't live like Detroit-based Motown performers of the old days, they don't talk like them and they don't partake of even so much as the same diet or religious leanings.
They just enjoy singing and playing the same kind of music.

I daresay that the Japanese fascination with American culture is nothing more than basic cultural appropriation.
It is not a bad thing at all but I don't expect Japanese Leon Russell fans (there are quite a few!) to feel the same feelings I feel when he plays the "Ballad of Mad Dogs and Englishmen".



But I know they are eager to put "Lady Blue" on when they feel romantic the same way some of us put Barry White on the stereo.

I'm afraid, Jeff, that it goes way beyond the music.

How confused, dear boy. Not to mention you seem to confound the role of Socialism in the development of the economies of the world with some non-formed idea of how Capitalism is going to help labor. No, keeping tabs on the exploitation of labor is not the answer.

While interesting, it is, of course, nonsense. Or can you point out where that has actually happened? Where Capitalism has become Socialism? Is there an exemplar of said theory other than in the world of magical thinking?
The fundamental question is: who is to control the means of production? And how does the conflict between concentration of wealth, an indispensable tenet of Capitalism, and the equitable distribution of said wealth occur?
The conflict between private ownership and economic oppression is evident everywhere. I'm sure you can find it in your own life as well.
Given the reality of the world, might it be possible that you are wrong and Marx was right? Just a thought

BTW - if Marx's time is the problem you might want to read Why Marx was Right from 2011.

Nope, not at all ( heads aside). I.e., Marx was, simply put, fundamentally wrong. I cannot help but notice how my central points were just completely avoided rather than responded to. The problem, my friend, is that you live in a mind-space that is either-or. The world, of course, does not operate such. Oh, as exemplars? How about every developed economy in the world? Mixed economy Just a thought.

No points to reply to, dear boy, just opinions which strain credulity. And based on air. No facts, mere speculation and magical thinking.

Mixed economy? Have you actually read this? I guess not. Does not answer the questions I asked. But I figured that.
Living in Da Nile must be fun.


There ya go. Just like home