4 ms·

I was wondering how long it would be before UBI started to be attacked by the far left, considering it will cement capitalism the basis for the economy and make

I was wondering how long it would be before UBI started to be attacked by the far left, considering it will cement capitalism the basis for the economy and make all forms of socialism obsolete.

ahoy 10y ago
That doesn't seem to be the issue that this article raises. >a closer look at how UBI is expected to work reveals that it is intended to provide political cover for the elimination of social programs and the privatization of social services. Seems like the issue is that UBI, as it's being discussed now, will look more like "entitlement reform" than a net benefit for poor people.
- mason240 10y ago
  > intended to provide political cover for the elimination of social programs Yeah, because that's the whole point of UBI. It removes all the middlemen, all the politicians/ideologues using those programs to buy votes, the welfare cliffs, and replaces it with something that just helps people. Like with any change though, the ones who benifit from the current system (and I'm not referring to the actual beneficiaries) are going to be opposed to it. It's really going to to come down to whether you care more about implementing your ideology or actually helping poor people (and everyone else).
Kenji 10y ago
UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism, so saying it makes 'all forms of socialism obsolete' is a very strange thing to say.
- nanny 10y ago
  >UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism How would UBI transfer the means of production from capitalists to the workers? Don't confuse socialism with a welfare state.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    What's the difference between social ownership/control of the means of production and very very high taxation that unconditionally funnels money from the (rich) owners of the means of production to the public?
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    >UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism, so saying it makes 'all forms of socialism obsolete' is a very strange thing to say. I couldn't agree more. What I see here is an attempt to not so subtly sneak egalitarianism into the right and create confusion. The question that must always be asked when such initiatives are proposed is, who will pay for it? Often this question reveals that it is always the case that you'll be forcefully acquiring from a producer and giving to a non-producer.
- mason240 10y ago
  We would still have the same capitalist economy we have right now with private property, profits, working for money and profit, private ownership of capital and the means of production, ect. It's not socialism at all, unless you are saying that every income transfer program (such as social security) is socialism (in which case you are saying that politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton are socialists).

I was wondering how long it would be before UBI started to be attacked by the far left, considering it will cement capitalism the basis for the economy and make all forms of socialism obsolete.

ahoy 10y ago

That doesn't seem to be the issue that this article raises. >a closer look at how UBI is expected to work reveals that it is intended to provide political cover for the elimination of social programs and the privatization of social services. Seems like the issue is that UBI, as it's being discussed now, will look more like "entitlement reform" than a net benefit for poor people.

mason240 10y ago
> intended to provide political cover for the elimination of social programs Yeah, because that's the whole point of UBI. It removes all the middlemen, all the politicians/ideologues using those programs to buy votes, the welfare cliffs, and replaces it with something that just helps people. Like with any change though, the ones who benifit from the current system (and I'm not referring to the actual beneficiaries) are going to be opposed to it. It's really going to to come down to whether you care more about implementing your ideology or actually helping poor people (and everyone else).

Kenji 10y ago

UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism, so saying it makes 'all forms of socialism obsolete' is a very strange thing to say.

nanny 10y ago
>UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism How would UBI transfer the means of production from capitalists to the workers? Don't confuse socialism with a welfare state.
- Kenji 10y ago
  What's the difference between social ownership/control of the means of production and very very high taxation that unconditionally funnels money from the (rich) owners of the means of production to the public?
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  >UBI is quite literally the opposite of capitalism. It is a form of socialism, so saying it makes 'all forms of socialism obsolete' is a very strange thing to say. I couldn't agree more. What I see here is an attempt to not so subtly sneak egalitarianism into the right and create confusion. The question that must always be asked when such initiatives are proposed is, who will pay for it? Often this question reveals that it is always the case that you'll be forcefully acquiring from a producer and giving to a non-producer.
mason240 10y ago
We would still have the same capitalist economy we have right now with private property, profits, working for money and profit, private ownership of capital and the means of production, ect. It's not socialism at all, unless you are saying that every income transfer program (such as social security) is socialism (in which case you are saying that politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton are socialists).