4 ms·

Lol. This sort of statement is often made by people who don't want UBI. "Its just communism/socialism/etc." No its not. Its penance for an otherwise ruthless an

Lol. This sort of statement is often made by people who don't want UBI. "Its just communism/socialism/etc." No its not. Its penance for an otherwise ruthless and unrepentant capitalism which has successfully undermined the value of human labor. While there's no denying that capitalism can be ruthless and unrepentant, and what we have for capitalism currently actually is that, calling the progress of capitalism "ruthless" and "unrepentant" is just as loaded as calling UBI communism/socialism/etc, and leads to needlessly heated debates and ideological headbutting. It fails to convince anyone of anything. Even if capitalism isn't ruthless and unrepentant, the value of human labor goes down, and isn't necessarily undermined, when capitalism seeks efficiency. There is no strict requirement that capitalism be ruthless and unrepentant—those are, in fact, human traits that are impossible to apply to the unthinking and unfeeling system that is capitalism. When capitalism replaces human labor with machines, it isn't to undermine the value of human labor, it's to be more efficient. Ultimately, the result is the same, as you describe: humans are unable to exploit their labor for even basic living. But calling out capitalism as some kind of evil hydra that explicitly sets out to destroy the lives and livelihood of the working class is unproductive. That is an unfortunate side effect of capitalism, and of capitalism gaining increased prominence during an age when human labor itself had high intrinsic value but was also relatively abundant. It is a side effect which must be addressed. I find it much more effective to couch UBI in terms of the end result of capitalism: it makes no sense for a capitalistic system to use relatively inefficient humans to do work that machines can do faster and cheaper. To ensure and give inefficient humans jobs that capitalism could otherwise find ways to do sounds more like a socialist makework ideal than UBI does. It is actually in capitalism's best interest to pay people to stay out the areas where they can not perform tasks as well as machines can. This frees up people to find other avenues of contribution, perhaps finding further efficiencies, without using up all their time and energy leveraging their faculties purely to stay alive.

MawNicker 11y ago
That capitalism is unfeeling doesn't make it unworthy of our projections. Besides those aren't human traits. They're the lack of them. Ruthlessness is the lack of compassion and the unrepentantance is... Well that's obvious. My statement was that modern capitalism is unworthy of those projections. It would be much more appropriate to say that a capitalistic system with UBI was compassionate. The inclinations of a machine can be anthropomorphized without harming anyone who understands the limits of such characterizations. It can aid understanding and is useful. This whole site is way too sensitive to flame wars. Just let it burn. Quit repressing shit. Implement collapsible comments.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>it makes no sense for a capitalistic system to use relatively inefficient humans to do work that machines can do faster and cheaper. Unless you're selling to those relatively inefficient humans because they're your customers, and they have no disposable income - something that UBI won't fix. Capitalism is like any other ideology - you can make up just-so stories about what it "should" do to be "efficient", but ultimately it's just a way of legitimising power differentials that would otherwise be considered shockingly immoral. And so is UBI. Because while it may, if we're lucky, keep people from starving, what's needed isn't just UBI but free access to continuing education at all levels, access to useful social networks, and other kinds of social capital.
- MawNicker 11y ago
  I absolutely agree with this. I see UBI as a solution to the tragedy of the commons in the Star Trek economy. Also, it communicates our collective intention not to enslave you. That is, not to subject you to one variety of shockingly immoral power differential. Once you (actually) get rid of slavery the next Big Social Problem is systematically enforced class relations. For which you have mentioned several possible solutions. The problem is that people filter so aggressively. Racism is a superficial component of this. It results from the way we measure correlates when we evaluate humans. Profiling is just too effective. Social classes emerge naturally from anything we can't obscure. If you had money in childhood for instance, you're much more likely to be educated and useful. There are various ways we encode the amount of money we had in childhood. Like straight teeth. Should we prefer to hire people with straight teeth? We need to overcome these artificial boundaries. They are shockingly immoral.
norea-armozel 11y ago
"When capitalism replaces human labor with machines, it isn't to undermine the value of human labor, it's to be more efficient" But for whom is it more efficient? The capital owners or the non-capital owners? What happens when the non-capital owners are of no use to the capital owners? That's the problem with trying to excuse the abuses that are permitted within capitalism. Rather than addressing that abuse in an effective way, all I see UBI doing is formalizing the concept of charity. Rather than discussing real alternatives like sharing in the actual ownership of capital, mutual aid societies, worker owned cooperatives, and the like, it seems the powers that be would rather just throw a tiny slice of the wealth to the people for the sake of retaining control over capital. So, I'm not all that friendly towards UBI advocates unless it becomes clear the laws are going to be changed in a manner that emphasizes the working class's right to ownership of capital (via some of the means I've suggested earlier).
- thwarted 11y ago
  But for whom is it more efficient? The capital owners or the non-capital owners? What happens when the non-capital owners are of no use to the capital owners? That's the problem with trying to excuse the abuses that are permitted within capitalism. How is capitalism exploiting workers that it doesn't employ? The history of capitalism is littered with abuses and exploitation of the working class, but that has nothing to do with UBI, and it isn't the case that UBI is some kind of make-up for capitalism's past abuses. The goal is to fix the system to avoid the abuses going forward. We can lament the past all we want, but only by acknowledging and understanding the past can we strive to fix it by making changes that will reap rewards in the present and the future; lamenting what is already done is a distraction, short of having a time machine. Rather than addressing that abuse in an effective way, all I see UBI doing is formalizing the concept of charity. Rather than discussing real alternatives like sharing in the actual ownership of capital, mutual aid societies, worker owned cooperatives, and the like, it seems the powers that be would rather just throw a tiny slice of the wealth to the people for the sake of retaining control over capital. Providing a basic, consistent income to everyone isn't sharing in the fruits of capitalism, the ownership of capital? The owners of capital get to reap it's benefits. If everyone reaps its benefits, then is not everyone an owner? Distribution of the fruits of capitalism, equally to all, is effectively the same thing as communal ownership of capital. Considering UBI to be a form of charity seems to be asking for a requirement that recipients (ie, everyone) somehow "give back" to the system, contribute in some way — that would be the only way to make it not be a form of charity. But this is short-sighted. In the classical capitalistic setup, the owners, by definition, are the only ones who can reap the fruits of capitalism, merely by being the owners, with no requirement that they contribute back to the system. Gain without contribution, no matter who is doing the gaining, sounds like charity. The point of UBI is to allow everyone to reap the fruits, which effectively makes everyone indistinguishable from owners.

MawNicker 11y ago

That capitalism is unfeeling doesn't make it unworthy of our projections. Besides those aren't human traits. They're the lack of them. Ruthlessness is the lack of compassion and the unrepentantance is... Well that's obvious. My statement was that modern capitalism is unworthy of those projections. It would be much more appropriate to say that a capitalistic system with UBI was compassionate. The inclinations of a machine can be anthropomorphized without harming anyone who understands the limits of such characterizations. It can aid understanding and is useful. This whole site is way too sensitive to flame wars. Just let it burn. Quit repressing shit. Implement collapsible comments.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>it makes no sense for a capitalistic system to use relatively inefficient humans to do work that machines can do faster and cheaper. Unless you're selling to those relatively inefficient humans because they're your customers, and they have no disposable income - something that UBI won't fix. Capitalism is like any other ideology - you can make up just-so stories about what it "should" do to be "efficient", but ultimately it's just a way of legitimising power differentials that would otherwise be considered shockingly immoral. And so is UBI. Because while it may, if we're lucky, keep people from starving, what's needed isn't just UBI but free access to continuing education at all levels, access to useful social networks, and other kinds of social capital.

MawNicker 11y ago
I absolutely agree with this. I see UBI as a solution to the tragedy of the commons in the Star Trek economy. Also, it communicates our collective intention not to enslave you. That is, not to subject you to one variety of shockingly immoral power differential. Once you (actually) get rid of slavery the next Big Social Problem is systematically enforced class relations. For which you have mentioned several possible solutions. The problem is that people filter so aggressively. Racism is a superficial component of this. It results from the way we measure correlates when we evaluate humans. Profiling is just too effective. Social classes emerge naturally from anything we can't obscure. If you had money in childhood for instance, you're much more likely to be educated and useful. There are various ways we encode the amount of money we had in childhood. Like straight teeth. Should we prefer to hire people with straight teeth? We need to overcome these artificial boundaries. They are shockingly immoral.

norea-armozel 11y ago

"When capitalism replaces human labor with machines, it isn't to undermine the value of human labor, it's to be more efficient" But for whom is it more efficient? The capital owners or the non-capital owners? What happens when the non-capital owners are of no use to the capital owners? That's the problem with trying to excuse the abuses that are permitted within capitalism. Rather than addressing that abuse in an effective way, all I see UBI doing is formalizing the concept of charity. Rather than discussing real alternatives like sharing in the actual ownership of capital, mutual aid societies, worker owned cooperatives, and the like, it seems the powers that be would rather just throw a tiny slice of the wealth to the people for the sake of retaining control over capital. So, I'm not all that friendly towards UBI advocates unless it becomes clear the laws are going to be changed in a manner that emphasizes the working class's right to ownership of capital (via some of the means I've suggested earlier).

thwarted 11y ago
But for whom is it more efficient? The capital owners or the non-capital owners? What happens when the non-capital owners are of no use to the capital owners? That's the problem with trying to excuse the abuses that are permitted within capitalism. How is capitalism exploiting workers that it doesn't employ? The history of capitalism is littered with abuses and exploitation of the working class, but that has nothing to do with UBI, and it isn't the case that UBI is some kind of make-up for capitalism's past abuses. The goal is to fix the system to avoid the abuses going forward. We can lament the past all we want, but only by acknowledging and understanding the past can we strive to fix it by making changes that will reap rewards in the present and the future; lamenting what is already done is a distraction, short of having a time machine. Rather than addressing that abuse in an effective way, all I see UBI doing is formalizing the concept of charity. Rather than discussing real alternatives like sharing in the actual ownership of capital, mutual aid societies, worker owned cooperatives, and the like, it seems the powers that be would rather just throw a tiny slice of the wealth to the people for the sake of retaining control over capital. Providing a basic, consistent income to everyone isn't sharing in the fruits of capitalism, the ownership of capital? The owners of capital get to reap it's benefits. If everyone reaps its benefits, then is not everyone an owner? Distribution of the fruits of capitalism, equally to all, is effectively the same thing as communal ownership of capital. Considering UBI to be a form of charity seems to be asking for a requirement that recipients (ie, everyone) somehow "give back" to the system, contribute in some way — that would be the only way to make it not be a form of charity. But this is short-sighted. In the classical capitalistic setup, the owners, by definition, are the only ones who can reap the fruits of capitalism, merely by being the owners, with no requirement that they contribute back to the system. Gain without contribution, no matter who is doing the gaining, sounds like charity. The point of UBI is to allow everyone to reap the fruits, which effectively makes everyone indistinguishable from owners.