3 ms·

"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 efficie

"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.

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.