5 ms·

There is always a new reason why the most recent incarnation of socialism just didn’t happen to work out as expected this time around.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
UBI (in its contemporary form) is most famous for being a product of neoliberal economic and political theory, not socialist economics. The only state in the US that has anything resembling UBI is Alaska[1], and you'd be hard-pressed to characterize them as "socialist." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
Most of the world has some amount of socialism mixed in. Originally this was a strategy devised by Otto von Bismark, a Prussian conservative who thought providing concessions to workers might help keep the communists out of Germany. He succeeded. Over time, it turned out that social benefits can actually be quite effective for other reasons too. Today, many OECD countries are explicitly social-democratic. Some countries claim to not be socialist at all, but still do have some (possibly more limited) social programs (eg in education and health care).
- cercatrova 4y ago
  > Most of the world has some amount of socialism mixed in. Why do people keep misusing the definition of socialism. Do workers own the means of production? If not, it's not socialism. Now I'm not a socialist but I'd like the words we use to have meaning so that we all know what we're collectively talking about. Social benefits and social democracy != socialism, people should just use that term instead.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    > Social benefits and social democracy != socialism For so many instances of the word "social", it's difficult to see how we can't just tack -ism at the end and be happy.
least 4y ago
Richard Nixon was the closest a president has ever been to implementing UBI and one of the biggest proponents for UBI was Milton Friedman through the negative income tax.
- gruez 4y ago
  >one of the biggest proponents for UBI was Milton Friedman through the negative income tax. A negative income tax is most definitely not UBI. You still have to work to get it, therefore it's not universal. It's a pure wage subsidy program.
  - least 4y ago
    That is simply not true. If you did not work you would file an income tax with 0 earned income and be eligible for basic income up to the percentage of the break even point. If the break even point was 10k at a 50% rate a person with 0 income would be entitled to 5k.
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    NIT and UBI are exactly the same, mathematically. You don't need to work to get it – instead your income starts negative.
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
The whole point of UBI is that it's designed to preserve capitalism, it keeps people consuming and spending in the face of massive automation and job loss, because if masses of people are out of work and hungry, you will get a real revolution. UBI keeps the means of production in the hands of those who already hold them.

There is always a new reason why the most recent incarnation of socialism just didn’t happen to work out as expected this time around.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

There is always a new reason why the most recent incarnation of socialism just didn’t happen to work out as expected this time around.

woodruffw 4y ago

UBI (in its contemporary form) is most famous for being a product of neoliberal economic and political theory, not socialist economics. The only state in the US that has anything resembling UBI is Alaska[1], and you'd be hard-pressed to characterize them as "socialist." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

Most of the world has some amount of socialism mixed in. Originally this was a strategy devised by Otto von Bismark, a Prussian conservative who thought providing concessions to workers might help keep the communists out of Germany. He succeeded. Over time, it turned out that social benefits can actually be quite effective for other reasons too. Today, many OECD countries are explicitly social-democratic. Some countries claim to not be socialist at all, but still do have some (possibly more limited) social programs (eg in education and health care).

cercatrova 4y ago
> Most of the world has some amount of socialism mixed in. Why do people keep misusing the definition of socialism. Do workers own the means of production? If not, it's not socialism. Now I'm not a socialist but I'd like the words we use to have meaning so that we all know what we're collectively talking about. Social benefits and social democracy != socialism, people should just use that term instead.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  > Social benefits and social democracy != socialism For so many instances of the word "social", it's difficult to see how we can't just tack -ism at the end and be happy.

least 4y ago

Richard Nixon was the closest a president has ever been to implementing UBI and one of the biggest proponents for UBI was Milton Friedman through the negative income tax.

gruez 4y ago
>one of the biggest proponents for UBI was Milton Friedman through the negative income tax. A negative income tax is most definitely not UBI. You still have to work to get it, therefore it's not universal. It's a pure wage subsidy program.
- least 4y ago
  That is simply not true. If you did not work you would file an income tax with 0 earned income and be eligible for basic income up to the percentage of the break even point. If the break even point was 10k at a 50% rate a person with 0 income would be entitled to 5k.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  NIT and UBI are exactly the same, mathematically. You don't need to work to get it – instead your income starts negative.

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

The whole point of UBI is that it's designed to preserve capitalism, it keeps people consuming and spending in the face of massive automation and job loss, because if masses of people are out of work and hungry, you will get a real revolution. UBI keeps the means of production in the hands of those who already hold them.