4 ms·

This bit makes me think of HN people and UBI: > Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time

This bit makes me think of HN people and UBI: > Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great English scientific society. The President's speech was a speech for social planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago, they would not have listened to what I say to them now. Today, the man at the head of the Royal Society holds revolutionary views and insists on the scientific reorganisation of human society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not kept pace with these facts. Seems to me that technical dev type people are indeed becoming abundant, and many are entertaining the notion of UBI, myself included. Not long ago, I would have thought it silly to even consider.

fsloth 5y ago
Turchin's theory of elite overproduction as an engine for societal upheaval is quite relevant to this, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction
Miner49er 5y ago
UBI is interesting, because it isn't really socialist. It can easily be a tool of capital to retain power. If lots of things are automated, to the point where many don't need to work, who will own the robots (the means of production)? The socialist solution would be to find a way to collectively control/own these. Maybe vote on a board to decide what is best or something like that. They would find a way to distribute the goods produced. This could be called a UBI. But UBI would also be the capitalist way to go about things. The capitalists will own everything, and just give the masses enough UBI to keep them happy enough to not fight back.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  UBI isn't socialist at all; socialism is about central planning – large bureaucracy making decisions. UBI mostly removes the bureaucracy and decision making power of how to spend government proceeds. This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians.
  - oats 5y ago
    Nor is "central planning" a socialist concept. The only remotely consisent throughline in the vast spectrum of socialist thought has been democratic ownership or control of one's workplace. In fact, many strains of leftism explicitly reject central planning of an economy, which they would see as a result of an unjustified hierarchy.
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      Democratic ownership is central planning. It means using votes to decide how the whole country will move. The hierarchy is unavoidable at scale.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > UBI isn't socialist at all It is consistent with socialism, but not essentially socialist. > socialism is about central planning No, it's not. Central planning may be part of some versions of socialism, though there are serious arguments within socialism that central planning in the strong sense is incompatible with socialism, and instead a degenerate single-capitalist form of capitalism. Socialism is about common/worker ownership and control of the institutions, means, and proceeds of economic production (each of these is a goal and a means to the others.) UBI, especially when funded from taxes on wealth, property, or income where capital income is not excluded or favored, is a mechanism for common participation in the proceeds of production. > This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians. I think you mean the 20th Century and right-libertarians, though as you state it jt is, in fact, also true of the 21st Century (but there it is libertarian socialists at the fore, who aren't the libertarians you seem to want to refer to with your “UBI isn’t socialist” line.)

fsloth 5y ago

Turchin's theory of elite overproduction as an engine for societal upheaval is quite relevant to this, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction

Miner49er 5y ago

UBI is interesting, because it isn't really socialist. It can easily be a tool of capital to retain power. If lots of things are automated, to the point where many don't need to work, who will own the robots (the means of production)? The socialist solution would be to find a way to collectively control/own these. Maybe vote on a board to decide what is best or something like that. They would find a way to distribute the goods produced. This could be called a UBI. But UBI would also be the capitalist way to go about things. The capitalists will own everything, and just give the masses enough UBI to keep them happy enough to not fight back.

akvadrako 5y ago
UBI isn't socialist at all; socialism is about central planning – large bureaucracy making decisions. UBI mostly removes the bureaucracy and decision making power of how to spend government proceeds. This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians.
- oats 5y ago
  Nor is "central planning" a socialist concept. The only remotely consisent throughline in the vast spectrum of socialist thought has been democratic ownership or control of one's workplace. In fact, many strains of leftism explicitly reject central planning of an economy, which they would see as a result of an unjustified hierarchy.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Democratic ownership is central planning. It means using votes to decide how the whole country will move. The hierarchy is unavoidable at scale.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > UBI isn't socialist at all It is consistent with socialism, but not essentially socialist. > socialism is about central planning No, it's not. Central planning may be part of some versions of socialism, though there are serious arguments within socialism that central planning in the strong sense is incompatible with socialism, and instead a degenerate single-capitalist form of capitalism. Socialism is about common/worker ownership and control of the institutions, means, and proceeds of economic production (each of these is a goal and a means to the others.) UBI, especially when funded from taxes on wealth, property, or income where capital income is not excluded or favored, is a mechanism for common participation in the proceeds of production. > This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians. I think you mean the 20th Century and right-libertarians, though as you state it jt is, in fact, also true of the 21st Century (but there it is libertarian socialists at the fore, who aren't the libertarians you seem to want to refer to with your “UBI isn’t socialist” line.)