4 ms·

You're making the (common) mistake of conflating socialism with a strong state. Socialism does not in any way imply a strong government (see libertarian sociali

You're making the (common) mistake of conflating socialism with a strong state. Socialism does not in any way imply a strong government (see libertarian socialism). UBI might be "socialist" in the sense that it is a redistribution of wealth, but it would still be within a capitalist system. Free markets, private property ownership, and employment would still exist. The difference now would be that working for an employer and being a wage slave would become an option, rather than something you need to do to not be in poverty. Dependence on government is not ideal, but neither is their system. Most critics of UBI fail to offer superior alternatives.

ue_ 9y ago
I also don't understand this. Where did the idea that UBI means 'Communism' come from? I am myself a Communist; the Communists and anarchists of today and since the 19th century would be thoroughly ashamed to see that a concept like UBI has been given the title 'Communism' or even 'Socialism'. Does GP know that under UBI, there is still ownership of private property, there is still primacy of wage labour (and therefore what Marx terms 'exploitation'), there is still no democratic communal control over the social means of production, there is still a class society, there is still a state. A society which has adopted UBI satisfies all the necessary requisites for a capitalist mode of production - and most importantly requires a state. So I wonder - have the Communists miscommunicated their aims and goals and theory so as to lead people to be so misinformed, or are people ignorant (I don't use this word in a disparaging way, I am ignorant about glassmaking for example) for some other reason? More importantly, have authoritarian governments of the 20th century permanently misled people to think that Communism means "strong government"? Rather than "the withering away of the state due to the changing societal base"? To understand the social anarchist or Communist position, someone popular in the left wing Youtube scene has made a well-edited and cogent leftist critique of UBI that came out yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A It is still a great shame to see comments so misinformed, such that all I must say is: read books! The anarchists, Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin, the Communists, Marx and Engels, the democratic Socialists, Oscar Wilde, George Orwell and the Georgists, including Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein. It would do one wonders to become informed on these political philosophies.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  The masses are just extraordinarily ignorant when it comes to politics, largely because the media has shoveled down this erroneous notion that Communism = Soviet style fascism, and Socialism = capitalism with a strong government and nanny state.
  - wahern 9y ago
    > Communism = Soviet style fascism Any examples, at scale, where communism didn't degenerate to authoritarianism? When you keep the centralized structure of the state, you're perpetually at risk of groups hijacking it. In liberal capitalist societies hijacking of the state is prevented (albeit imperfectly) by competing centers of power. For example, the capitalist class vs the political class. Or the jurist class vs the legislative class. Democracy alone is insufficient because once you unify these centers of power, authoritarianism is inevitable as the population as a whole is not nimble or cohesive enough to respond to usurpation of total power. The lower classes get screwed either way, but at least in a capitalist democracy they evidently (given the past 200+ years of political history) are more capable of extracting concessions through shifting alliances. Seems to me you either need to nurture this power struggle, or you need to dismantle the state altogether--anarchism. Regarding socialism, is there any correct definition? Like the term democracy, I think it's fairly fluid as practical matter. But "capitalism with a strong government and nanny state" is one, fair description. I mean, doesn't that basically describe Fabian Socialism? Indeed, hasn't almost every self-described socialist government in the world almost entirely divested itself of legal ownership of the means of production over the past 40 years? I don't think it's unfair to conceive of modern socialism as a method of wealth redistribution via taxation and regulation of the capitalist economy, though that's probably over inclusive. At some point you have to stop discussing these forms of governments as platonic ideals and focus on their actual manifestations. Their actual manifestations provide evidence about the soundness of presumptions and the viability of structural constraints.
    - flukus 9y ago
      > Any examples, at scale, where communism didn't degenerate to authoritarianism? Kerala in India, 33 million people. In any case, I think you're confusing correlation with causation. Violent revolutions usually result in authoritarian states whether they be far left, far right or anywhere in between. Nearly all communist governments have come about from violent revolutions.
jsnk 9y ago
> UBI might be "socialist" in the sense that it is a redistribution of wealth, but it would still be within a capitalist system. Free markets, private property ownership, and employment would still exist. Try replacing UBI with any of these words below and see how comical this sounds. - Price control - Welfare state - High taxation - Nationalization of private industries - Forfeiture of property
- deusum 9y ago
  What's comical is your weak argument. You're equating basic income to an authoritarian state.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Price controls aren't part of Socialism. The welfare state isn't part of Socialism. High taxation isn't part of Socialism. Temporary nationalisation of private industry may be a part of Socialism. Forfeiture of private property (in the sense Proudhon and by extension Marx take it to be) is part of Socialism. Unless you were saying something else which I have failed to understand. But UBI most certainly is not part of Socialist policy. It is social democratic policy (and this is not to be confused with democratic Socialist policy!)

ue_ 9y ago

I also don't understand this. Where did the idea that UBI means 'Communism' come from? I am myself a Communist; the Communists and anarchists of today and since the 19th century would be thoroughly ashamed to see that a concept like UBI has been given the title 'Communism' or even 'Socialism'. Does GP know that under UBI, there is still ownership of private property, there is still primacy of wage labour (and therefore what Marx terms 'exploitation'), there is still no democratic communal control over the social means of production, there is still a class society, there is still a state. A society which has adopted UBI satisfies all the necessary requisites for a capitalist mode of production - and most importantly requires a state. So I wonder - have the Communists miscommunicated their aims and goals and theory so as to lead people to be so misinformed, or are people ignorant (I don't use this word in a disparaging way, I am ignorant about glassmaking for example) for some other reason? More importantly, have authoritarian governments of the 20th century permanently misled people to think that Communism means "strong government"? Rather than "the withering away of the state due to the changing societal base"? To understand the social anarchist or Communist position, someone popular in the left wing Youtube scene has made a well-edited and cogent leftist critique of UBI that came out yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A It is still a great shame to see comments so misinformed, such that all I must say is: read books! The anarchists, Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin, the Communists, Marx and Engels, the democratic Socialists, Oscar Wilde, George Orwell and the Georgists, including Leo Tolstoy and Albert Einstein. It would do one wonders to become informed on these political philosophies.

RealityNow 9y ago
The masses are just extraordinarily ignorant when it comes to politics, largely because the media has shoveled down this erroneous notion that Communism = Soviet style fascism, and Socialism = capitalism with a strong government and nanny state.
- wahern 9y ago
  > Communism = Soviet style fascism Any examples, at scale, where communism didn't degenerate to authoritarianism? When you keep the centralized structure of the state, you're perpetually at risk of groups hijacking it. In liberal capitalist societies hijacking of the state is prevented (albeit imperfectly) by competing centers of power. For example, the capitalist class vs the political class. Or the jurist class vs the legislative class. Democracy alone is insufficient because once you unify these centers of power, authoritarianism is inevitable as the population as a whole is not nimble or cohesive enough to respond to usurpation of total power. The lower classes get screwed either way, but at least in a capitalist democracy they evidently (given the past 200+ years of political history) are more capable of extracting concessions through shifting alliances. Seems to me you either need to nurture this power struggle, or you need to dismantle the state altogether--anarchism. Regarding socialism, is there any correct definition? Like the term democracy, I think it's fairly fluid as practical matter. But "capitalism with a strong government and nanny state" is one, fair description. I mean, doesn't that basically describe Fabian Socialism? Indeed, hasn't almost every self-described socialist government in the world almost entirely divested itself of legal ownership of the means of production over the past 40 years? I don't think it's unfair to conceive of modern socialism as a method of wealth redistribution via taxation and regulation of the capitalist economy, though that's probably over inclusive. At some point you have to stop discussing these forms of governments as platonic ideals and focus on their actual manifestations. Their actual manifestations provide evidence about the soundness of presumptions and the viability of structural constraints.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > Any examples, at scale, where communism didn't degenerate to authoritarianism? Kerala in India, 33 million people. In any case, I think you're confusing correlation with causation. Violent revolutions usually result in authoritarian states whether they be far left, far right or anywhere in between. Nearly all communist governments have come about from violent revolutions.

jsnk 9y ago

> UBI might be "socialist" in the sense that it is a redistribution of wealth, but it would still be within a capitalist system. Free markets, private property ownership, and employment would still exist. Try replacing UBI with any of these words below and see how comical this sounds. - Price control - Welfare state - High taxation - Nationalization of private industries - Forfeiture of property

deusum 9y ago
What's comical is your weak argument. You're equating basic income to an authoritarian state.
ue_ 9y ago
Price controls aren't part of Socialism. The welfare state isn't part of Socialism. High taxation isn't part of Socialism. Temporary nationalisation of private industry may be a part of Socialism. Forfeiture of private property (in the sense Proudhon and by extension Marx take it to be) is part of Socialism. Unless you were saying something else which I have failed to understand. But UBI most certainly is not part of Socialist policy. It is social democratic policy (and this is not to be confused with democratic Socialist policy!)