4 ms·

This isn't socialism at all. The main tenants of socialism are ending profit and private property. UBI embraces the same kind of capitalism we have now with pri

This isn't socialism at all. The main tenants of socialism are ending profit and private property. UBI embraces the same kind of capitalism we have now with private property and profit. In order to say that UBI is socialist, you also have to be calling Social Security socialism, and you have to think that President Obama is a socialist. I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them). It seems like there would opposition from left, and UBI would require a complete dismantling of all non-healthcare entitlement programs, a serious reduction of the tax code, and heavily clamping down on all immigration.

chadgeidel 11y ago
"In order to say that UBI is socialist, you also have to be calling Social Security socialism, and you have to think that President Obama is a socialist." And that's exactly what the Tea Party types are saying.
- mason240 11y ago
  So you agree with them?
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    You don't have to agree with them to know that's what they'll say, and that they do have a number of people following them.
dragonwriter 11y ago
UBI is absolutely a kind of socialism; it may embrace the same kind of 'capitalism' we have now, only in that what we have now and sometimes call 'capitalism' is a system which blends many elements of socialism with some structures of capitalism in an attempt to address the kind of problems with capitalism that were the center of the critique by the socialists who named "capitalism" as a thing while at the same time maintaining the desirable features of capitalism, e.g., reward mechanism and incentives. UBI builds on that to, to be sure, but it certainly reflects an idea of common ownership of some commons on which rents are collected (and, if its going to work at all in an increasingly capital-intensive and less-labor-dependent economy, those "commons" are going to include a share of superficially privately-held capital -- i.e., the means of production -- so its pretty hard not to see the direct connection with socialism.)
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I think the fact that the use and disposition of the "superficially privately-held capital" is determined by individual private entities is actually fairly significant, even if they're losing a cut of the revenues. It strikes me as similar to the way in which paying taxes on our labor does not make us "slaves". Whether the lack, in this sense, of "state control of the means of production" is enough to make it "not Socialism" seems to be something people could reasonably disagree about.
s73v3r 11y ago
Something actually being socialism or not has never stopped those on the right from rallying against it. All they'll hear is taxes and people getting money, and they'll be all against it. >I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them). I don't. And it's not a caricature when based on statements they've actually made. Remember Mitt Romney's 47%?

chadgeidel 11y ago

"In order to say that UBI is socialist, you also have to be calling Social Security socialism, and you have to think that President Obama is a socialist." And that's exactly what the Tea Party types are saying.

mason240 11y ago
So you agree with them?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  You don't have to agree with them to know that's what they'll say, and that they do have a number of people following them.

dragonwriter 11y ago

UBI is absolutely a kind of socialism; it may embrace the same kind of 'capitalism' we have now, only in that what we have now and sometimes call 'capitalism' is a system which blends many elements of socialism with some structures of capitalism in an attempt to address the kind of problems with capitalism that were the center of the critique by the socialists who named "capitalism" as a thing while at the same time maintaining the desirable features of capitalism, e.g., reward mechanism and incentives. UBI builds on that to, to be sure, but it certainly reflects an idea of common ownership of some commons on which rents are collected (and, if its going to work at all in an increasingly capital-intensive and less-labor-dependent economy, those "commons" are going to include a share of superficially privately-held capital -- i.e., the means of production -- so its pretty hard not to see the direct connection with socialism.)

dllthomas 11y ago
I think the fact that the use and disposition of the "superficially privately-held capital" is determined by individual private entities is actually fairly significant, even if they're losing a cut of the revenues. It strikes me as similar to the way in which paying taxes on our labor does not make us "slaves". Whether the lack, in this sense, of "state control of the means of production" is enough to make it "not Socialism" seems to be something people could reasonably disagree about.

s73v3r 11y ago

Something actually being socialism or not has never stopped those on the right from rallying against it. All they'll hear is taxes and people getting money, and they'll be all against it. >I think you would find a lot more support among conservatives than you think (it seems like you have quite the caricature of them). I don't. And it's not a caricature when based on statements they've actually made. Remember Mitt Romney's 47%?