DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Is Basic Income a good step in a stage of revolutionary socialism?

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jun 19 2014 11:49
Stalinski wrote:
and in the meantime - what will you do - or will you just magically puff communism/anarchism into a capitalist country - that's very unlikely

So, in the transition, how will this guaranteed income be paid for? - no way I'm gonna work if I can get my bucks for free, no sir!

A rough outline of social revolution. It doesn't really address the second question. But you'll get something out of it.

Ablokeimet wrote:
ultraviolet wrote:
this leads me into a (non-rhetorical) question[/b], something i've always been unsure about without even quite realizing i'm unsure because it seems like it should be obvious. what exactly does it mean to "smash the state"?

A very good question, since it raises an issue that illuminates the difference between a couple of different currents within Anarchism. My answer to it starts with a quote from Gustav Landauer:

"The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently."

To smash the State is to build a set of counter-institutions which allow society to function, but without a coercive power from above, thus allowing the working class to withdraw from the coercive institutions of capitalism. Class struggle Anarchists believe that this will occur through the building of soviets or some similar organs of mass revolutionary workers' direct democracy and the these soviets deciding that they will move beyond being merely oppositional bodies to becoming the means by which workers will control social life, including "the economy" directly.

At this point, if not before, we can expect that the capitalists will attempt to use their State to crush us with violence*. And, at that point, we need to be clear about our right to use reasonable force in self defence. We need to defend ourselves from the violence of the State in its death throes. If the capitalists attack us, we mobilise to defeat them - with arms, if necessary (as is likely to be the case at some stage).

This brings us to Ultraviolet's next question:

ultraviolet wrote:
in a revolution, how will we know when the state is defeated?

OK. Let's imagine President Sarah Palin is in the White House and doesn't want to give up, now that the North American Congress of Soviets has declared itself the sovereign power and that the United States have been abolished. Now, if the Congress of Soviets hasn't gone off half-cocked, it will mean:

(a) That the vast majority of the working class in North America has delegates at the Congress;

(b) A majority at the Congress of Soviets has decided for the Revolution; and

(c) A reasonable proportion of the minority at the Congress can be expected to go along with the declaration, since their objections are based on timing or procedures.

Now, it's obvious that the State hasn't yet been defeated if President Palin is still sending the 82nd Airborne Division against us, so let's assume that they've mutinied and come across to our side. The first condition of knowing that Palin has been defeated is, therefore, that she's run out of soldiers to attack us or pilots to bomb us. In keeping the loss of life down, it would be important to take out her ability to communicate with the military and other coercive organs of the State. Taking down their communication network would therefore be the first thing. The second thing would be cutting off supplies of fuel, electricity, water and food for the White House and all military bases that haven't come across. This would be important in putting them under pressure and preventing them just waiting events out. In these circumstances, they'd have the choice of coming out and attacking, or surrendering. Attacking without the advantage of communication with their other forces, however, would mean a lack of strategic perspective and often not knowing what to do once they were out of the base. In the meantime, we could pick them off one by one.

OK. Suppose we'd dealt with all the military. What then? We don't set up a Red Army, as the Bolsheviks did. Instead, we rely on the people armed. This means:

(a) Army units which have surrendered are disbanded, as are most of those which have come across.

(b) A minority of the military units which have come across to the Revolution are re-organised into a training corps, training up the workers' militia with elected and recallable officers that has already formed (see above for defending ourselves during the process of revolution), before becoming individual advisors to units of the militia as the training spreads.

(c) Cops and demobbed soldiers have to be swiftly absorbed into the working class. Give them honest jobs to do as soon as possible. The last thing you want is for them to go looking for a modern Wrangel because they're now unemployed. This would also have the advantage of cutting the working week and/or increasing production after the dislocation of the period leading up to the Revolution.

(d) As the economic transformation (i.e. the abolition of wage labour and the communisation of economic life) occurs, the workers' militia will transform, through the same process, into the armed people, since all classes will dissolve into the working class and the working class will, therefore, disappear as well.

The question remains of what to do with President Palin and her Administration, with the politicians and with the top of the officer corps. I think that the answer there would be exile. Let them go to any country that will have them.

There would also be a further question (and this is why I chose the US as the site of the Revolution breaking out) of the vast store of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, and other armaments like bombers, aircraft carriers, etc. The answer to this is simple. [b]We destroy them.

This would be challenging to implement, because it requires confidence in the reaction of the working class in the rest of the world, but it is also the course which would lead most swiftly to the Revolution spreading. We would give the world clear evidence that the most dangerous imperialist power on Earth is no more and demolish, at a stroke, all the paranoia about "ravening Anarchists laying waste to the world with the weapons they have stolen from the United States". We would deal with the global network of US bases by inviting all US military personnel serving overseas to come home and be demobbed, or to join the society in which they are stationed if that is their preference (Now, take a moment to consider the difficult choices before the base commanders once their home power is destroyed and they are isolated in a society in which they are unwelcome in the eyes of the masses and now useless in the eyes of the local government).

Finally, there is the possibility of invasion from outside. This is a real threat to consider, because many imperialist nations intervened in the Russian Civil War. This is less of a danger than might be imagined, however, and certainly not a reason to maintain a State and a Red Army. This is because:

(a) The soldiers of the invading armies will be very vulnerable to revolutionary propaganda. The real danger would be that their armies would dissolve in the face of fraternisation. Intervention would also expose the invading State(s) to the danger of the contagion spreading through returning soldiers.

(b) Although the destruction of the major military hardware of Uncle Sam would mean the workers' militia would be at a disadvantage in terms of armaments, that wouldn't affect the difficulty in the establishing an occupation. We could keep things like fighter jets and anti-aircraft defences until the danger period is over, but the real advantage we would have would be that it would take a vaster number of forces than they would be able to raise, let alone maintain, to keep the revolutionary workers' movement down.

Therefore, in answer to the choices put up by Ultraviolet, my choice would be to err on the side of generosity. We should remember that, through the organs of mass workers' democracy, and through rehearsed reaction plans, we will be able to deny economic resources to those who rise in revolt against the Soviets. Tanks aren't a lot of use if they have no fuel to run on, drones are useless if their communication with base is jammed and soldiers need food as well as guns. Staging a revolt against the Soviets would be lot harder than people might imagine.

In summary, therefore, my proposals stem from the realisation that the "physical force vs moral force" debate has been superseded. With the rise of capitalism, the major force which the working class has to wield is economic force. And it is this force which will win us the Revolution and do the most important part in defending it. Physical force will only be necessary for a supplementary role.

* This will be the case until the Revolution has spread across more than half the world. At some stage after that point, provided we have been successful in preventing the Revolution degenerating into dictatorship, the rest of the transition would be resisted with progressively less vigour.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 19 2014 14:04

Stalinski wrote:

Quote:
So, in the transition, how will this guaranteed income be paid for? - no way I'm gonna work if I can get my bucks for free, no sir!

Presumably within capitalism the 'money' would come from the same place most of it comes from now, created ('puffed') out of nothing by fiat in just the way Stalinski (mass murdering psychopathski?) suggests, through fractional reserve banking, outlandish leveraging etc.. But anarchist communists aren't really into capitalism of any kind, so I guess I have to admit to not really understanding Stalinski's/delusional-paranoid-Sadistski's point.

Yours sincerely,

Die Hitlermaschineski

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Jun 19 2014 14:30
factvalue wrote:
.. But anarchist communists aren't really into capitalism of any kind

that's a relief wink

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 19 2014 14:31

Entdinglichung wrote

Quote:
that's a relieve

..big daftski

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Jun 23 2014 10:26

I don't really get why Stalinski hasn't been told where to go now by honest? Admins? The username should have rung alarm bells from the start. He/she is clearly mistaken as to what sort of site this is.

Stalinski
Offline
Joined: 17-06-14
Jun 24 2014 04:21

I believe we have much in common, ie: I believe in Socialism with the end aim of Communism, quite similar really, although tlhe means for getting there differ slightly.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Jun 28 2014 15:52

In my post no4 at the beginning of this I said that this reform proposal had been around ''..almost as long as I have..'' (referring to it's discussion amongst radicals in the early 70's) and then having eventually got round to reading Rowbotham's interesting biography of Edward Carpenter, I noticed that in fact the same idea of a 'Citizen's Income' had been suggested by Bob Muirhead in the 1920's as a 'good half-way house to communism' except of course that at that time (as still it seems for many of to-days leftists) the 'communism' referred to was still dependent on several other 'half-way houses' such as nationalisation, municipalisation and worker/consumer co-operatives. Whatever other benefits such measures when they materialised may have provided for workers none of them have of course brought communism any nearer, having in the end been more useful as means of stabilising and modernising capitalism in an earlier era.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jun 29 2014 08:18

Well, wasn't the Speenhamland system at the end of the 18th century basically it?

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Jul 6 2014 01:46

The Pro-case

"Imagine a world in which not one more child dies of starvation or preventable diseases. Imagine a world in which no child is forced to work instead of going to school. Imagine a world in which no one has to worry about being homeless or going to bed hungry. Imagine a world where no one has to work in conditions they don’t want to work in. Imagine a world where if you don’t like your boss, you can quit your job. Imagine a world free of largely free crime because no one is poor. Imagine a world without poverty.
The amazing thing is that, that world is actually possible. It is not only possible but it wouldn’t even be that difficult to achieve. One law could make it all possible.
No, this is not some sort of communist utopia. We don’t even have to change anything about the way we govern, any of the other laws we have, or the basic structure of the economy. We just need to add one law. And in many countries it is just a matter of expanding a program that already exists.
A universal basic income would be an amount of money given to each citizen enough to cover their basic needs for food, housing, and shelter. Many other social welfare programs could be eliminated because a universal basic income would make them unnecessary. The money from these other programs would go into funding a universal basic income. Taxes would need to be raised a bit but not tremendously.
It is absolutely possible to enact a universal basic income. Imagine that world without poverty. Now let’s stop imagining and let’s make it happen!"

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/society/the-economics-of-global-povert...

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Jul 6 2014 18:45

ajj,
You are just winding us up with this nonense and taking your commitment to open discussion a tad too far given you don't believe a word of it!!

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Jul 7 2014 07:48

Just relaying what its proponents are saying and how extensive their reach...published in GULF NEWS.

Perhaps i detect that it is meant to undermine the idea that revolution is a required option for the betterment of people , much like christian communists/liberation theology does. All we need is one act of legislation and we have heaven on earth!! ...(cue to move on from humming Lennon's Imagine and break into Beatles song ..."All we need is love")

I really don't know if the author comes from the Libertarian Right ("Many other social welfare programs could be eliminated") or if Left-wing ("Taxes would need to be raised a bit but not tremendously.")

It may well be the sort of reforms that the capitalist class will throw at us to save themselves if we seem to be getting to much support for anarcho-communism, and hope no-one reads all the small-print that will come along with it.

JimJams
Offline
Joined: 1-09-11
Aug 10 2014 16:44

Scottish Greens have detailed CI policy after independence.

Main bits:

£50 a week for kids,
£100 for 16+
£150 for pensioners
70 per cent of households would be better off than presently.
Those in the lowest income bracket would benefit the most.
Measures of inequality would be brought in line with some of the most equal countries in the world.
Income earned in addition to the citizen’s income would continue to be taxed progressively.
Benefits for disability, carers, housing benefit etc stay.
Would cost £1bn

Pretty decent amounts. Effect on poor households and inequality nothing to sniff at either.

Is it revolutionary? No. Is it the best reformism has to offer? Yes. Will the greens get in? Probably not.

Article here:
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/greens-publish-citizens-income-pla...

Report here: http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/downloads/Green+Yes+briefing+-+Citizens...

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Aug 11 2014 04:12

Today's Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/10/tax-benefits-citizens-in...

Quote:
So far support for a citizen’s income is limited to the Green party, although the government’s switch to a flat-rate state pension is a step in that direction.

Scottish left Commonweal think-tank argues for it
http://scottishcommonweal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/citizen-s-incom...

Milton Friedman was an advocate of the scheme, too.

I think this sums up the futility of the fantasy

Quote:
Poverty is that state and condition in society where the individual has no surplus labour in store, or, in other words, no property or means of subsistence but what is derived from the constant exercise of industry in the various occupations of life. Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society, without which nations and communities could not exist in a state of civilization. It is the lot of man. It is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of wealth.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recovered-economic-h...

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 27 2015 12:05

Thought this was worth a bump as the Dutch city of Utrecht is working with the University to test out the idea of an unconditional basic income:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-city-of-utrecht-to-...

Klaus
Offline
Joined: 27-04-10
Aug 16 2015 12:27

FWIW here's a new Kittens piece on basic income:

Quote:
The problem with a demand for a Universal Basic Income is not that it is not going far enough or that it is not radical enough. This criticism presupposes a unity of purpose and accuses this reformist demand of being limited in its seriousness of pursuing it. But if people put forward demand A – a Universal Basis Income – instead of demand B – the end of the capitalist mode of production, say – they have their reasons. To hit its mark a critique must take seriously that the proponents of a Universal Basic Income take the capitalist relation of technology and poverty as a self-evident starting point, that they claim the wage is a reward, that they consider the capitalist state as a neutral arbitrator encountering the capitalist economy as an a priori fact, that they share the state's worry about its economy and its budget, and that they believe the welfare state to be a means to end poverty. These wide-spread but incorrect verdicts lie behind the appeal of demands for a Universal Basic Income and that is why everything is wrong with free money.

http://antinational.org/en/what-wrong-free-money

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Aug 29 2015 11:13

Just based on that extract that article looks like a fucking joke. It basically just said 'the problem isn't that its not radical enough, the problem is that its underlying assumptions are all Wrong (i.e non radical)'.

RC
Offline
Joined: 11-07-08
Aug 29 2015 16:40

Its easy to say: wouldn't it be nice if everybody had a basic income? Yes, that would be nice. But the next question is: so who is going to pay for it? That takes the steam out of the whole idea. If you say 75,000 a year, then everybody knows that’s not affordable. If you say 125 a week, then that’s just a new name for the already-existing welfare assistance. If you want a real income, it has to be said: capitalist society does not have the money for it. Because that’s not what money is for in capitalism. Not only that: a real basic income would be completely counter-productive for capitalism because capitalism is based on forcing people to work by the creation of poverty; that’s what drives people to the employment line. It can’t be said that a basic income could be financed from the already-existing wealth – that’s not the purpose of capitalist wealth. If you say: ok, we’ll expropriate the stock exchange in order to make a basic income affordable, then there will no longer be a stock exchange. Unless the supporters of guaranteed basic income want to do that, then it’s really not affordable or just the same old welfare assistance as now. This system needs poverty so that workers serve the growth of capital. If people refuse to serve capital and think that they can milk capitalism like a cow that provides their sustenance, the cow will just run away. You either have to abolish capital or serve it, but you can’t do both. Basic income is just leftist wishful thinking.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 29 2015 17:38
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
Just based on that extract that article looks like a fucking joke. It basically just said 'the problem isn't that its not radical enough, the problem is that its underlying assumptions are all Wrong (i.e non radical)'.

I think the argument is that starting from common but wrong assumptions about how society works, you end up barking up the wrong tree. The problem with barking up the wrong tree isn't that you haven't barked far enough up it, but that you're barking in the wrong direction altogether (kinda stretching the metaphor there).

I think the piece makes a pretty good case for the different things meant by different advocates of UBI, and the basic incompatibility of the more radical left versions with capitalist relations. But for many of the left advocates that's precisely the point, it's sort of a transitional measure to demand/impose on capital, which reduces the imperative to work, undermines capitalism, and acts as a lever to an automated post-work society (I'm thinking of Paul Mason, or Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams). So for some, the medium-term incompatibility with capitalism is the point.

Twenty Seven
Offline
Joined: 16-09-15
Sep 16 2015 07:05

Implementing a guaranteed minimum income as well as full employment would be useful. Obviously they don't replace capitalism, but they could open up the space for workers to organise ourselves and our workplaces without having to fear discipline from the bosses. This carries great potential for the radical worker's movement, but is also the sort of reform package that even social democrats and left-liberals could get behind. It's the sort of movement which benefits the working class in the short term while also furthering our ultimate goal - something I'm not sure that wage struggles (for example) accomplish.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Sep 21 2015 13:15

One of the most effective criticisms i have read on the UBI has surprisingly been from Left Unity. The proposal to include the UBI in their manifesto actually came from an ex-SPGBer and it got shot down

The debate is here
http://leftunity.org/whats-the-alternative/
http://leftunity.org/economics-policy-commission-draft/

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Sep 21 2015 13:24

UBI will necessarily be a part of any communist revolution but that is a qualitatively different thing than a reform past by such and such labor party.

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Sep 21 2015 13:26

I'm not sure it would take the form of money income ( would have to eventually get rid of that preoccupation) but it would be the general social gurantee to fundamental necessities.

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Sep 22 2015 01:55

Latest sceptical article on the UBI here

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32875-guaranteed-basic-income-is-n...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 23 2015 04:09
Pennoid wrote:
I'm not sure it would take the form of money income ( would have to eventually get rid of that preoccupation) but it would be the general social gurantee to fundamental necessities.

That's quite a different thing though, no?

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Sep 23 2015 17:25

Chilli, yes which is why I said as much in my first post. Communists however have to grapple with the same basic problem; how will we all get fed? And they will always have to grapple with that problem, and it will always be a concrete one.

For reformers in capitalism it is mostly a slogan, and even if it became a policy it would take the form of a stimulus to the demand for the population either by "helicopter money" or in their bank accounts, or by EBT cards etc. Which would have with it all the problems of citizenship, and picking out who is qualified for the income etc.

For communists it is an issue of working class power and social planning. For reformers it is an issue of compromise with class relations as they are.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Apr 24 2016 17:10

Well having been 'wound up' again by yet another liberal/lefty article in the UK Guardian promoting this and a particularly annoying presentation by some reformists at the recent Dublin Anarchist bookfair with no real understanding of how the capitalist economy or state operates in the real world (and only a half reasonable rebuttal from the WSM speaker) thought I would add this 'back to basics' critical text to the list:
https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/en/what-wrong-free-money/

Zeronowhere
Offline
Joined: 5-03-09
Apr 25 2016 12:05

An income guarantee would not fit in with a capitalist economy, being a measure which acts at the expense of profits to establish wages, and would hence merely tend to destabilise it and lead to impoverishment sooner or later. In that sense, it's a fairly indifferent measure, especially when this lack of stability is viewed as a bad thing. Such income issues were a fairly iffy issue for socialists regardless - if they go along with either view or are ambiguous by default, then they might get along fine, but as soon as they are somewhat indifferent or seriously interrogate things they ended up with a gun to their heads, in a personal manner. It was if anything a case where dissent from such movements could also have gained traction, because of course there will be a socialist tendency in wishing to discuss and plan the overall society freely, while capitalism did pretty much just work via unconscious exile or execution.

As far as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' specific demands involving wages or other such things would have to be by nature temporary, transient and of little account, if such a hypothetical scenario were to occur, because the proletariat is like all parts of the capitalist production process something which must pass away and cannot escape this qua proletariat. In that sense, this 'basic income' might actually fit, having all of these characteristics. It doesn't generally seem that relevant to capitalism - if people disliked how capitalism distributed wealth, they could have helped change it then, but apparently that was not the issue - but in general it might have seemed more relevant to those forms of socialism which tended to shift focus away from the social dynamic and so on towards portrayals of poverty, suffering, etc., in which case such things might come up. Of course, people were either satisfied with the social form, and hence harmonious with it, or weren't, and then opposed it and showed it no needless graces, but in any case could hardly determine their views within the atomisation of measures such as 'basic income,' etc., which were hence by nature strictly marginal - as such, movements in such directions would have to be judged ambiguous and hence limited. Proclaiming human control of the social organism was, of course, a socialist thing, and hence such things would merely help us if they were not strictly marginalised.

timthelion
Offline
Joined: 14-05-16
May 30 2016 11:09

Very enlightening discussion. I want to leave three remarks:

1. Basic income is as almost as old as Lockian property law.

Quote:
Nothing could be more unjust than agrarian law in a country improved by cultivation; for though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no owner. While, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his.

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

From Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm - PS: I found that article here http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/capital_distribution.htm

2. Some free market libertarians support basic income, as it is seen as solving the problem of minimum wage and coersion. They see the minimum wage as being an interference with the free market but the lack there of as being impossible due to the problem of starvation. Take UBER or Mechanical Turk as examples. These are labor markets, which decide on a price which is far bellow minimum wage, and the problem is, that the workers than starve. This "failiure of the market" can be solved by abolishing the minimum wage and creating a basic income instead. I think that this idea is rather disturbing. Wal-mart has already experimented with the concept, by keeping workers bellow poverty. Those workers don't starve due to food stamps and medicade. Most people see this as a way for Wal-mart to steal from the state. I agree, that when we create basic-income and abolish the minimum wage, we are basically financing the extreme exploitation of labor. But this argument should explain why some on the extreme right of neoliberalism are proponents of it.

3. Right now, in the US, there are people with severe dissabilites which currently are denied payments due to the fact that the dissability courts have determined that they are capable of working. Most people who have affective dissorders are denied payments, even though it is cheeper to keep a bi-polar person on dissability than to stress them out with work and risk having to institutionalize them. There are people who are unable to digest their food, and thus throw it up. But since the dissability court only meets with the person once, than if the person doesn't throw up during the meeting, they can get denied payments due to having no evident dissability. People who work with such patients are also proponents of basic income.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 30 2016 18:00

The problem with basic income is two fold.

1. It increase statepower and
2. It increase people ability to get dependent on the state

When statepower increases it also increases a person high up in the system to have power and abuse this power to his own advantage. Thus raising his own income generated from taxes and people can do nothing about it

And so when they day comes to go on strike to smash the state and make it go bankrupt there will be no one out in the streets.

What we need is to raise peoples ability to take care of themselves and make them be independent from the state. Make organisations that exclude state intervention so that they can act freely when it is necessary.

There is also a 3rd problem but no one really knows much about it before it can be tested.

3. There is a risk people will stop working.

If people can get enough money to get by without working it will reduce the amount of products in the supermarket and then what had good intentions about getting rid of poverty instead will increase poverty. What does it matter that you have 100 bucks in your pocket but there is nothing to buy?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
May 30 2016 21:01
Quote:
It increase people ability to get dependent on the state.

...If people can get enough money to get by without working...instead will increase poverty.

That's some right-wing nonsense.

Not to mention, quite patronizing. I mean, most of us rely on private companies for our income, does that mean we're incapable of seeing our individual exploitation or wider systematic exploitation. Why is that any less like for unemployed workers who are on benefits?

And, quite ahistorical, Hungary 56, Paris 68, the UK miner's strike - these all occurred in the midst of some of some of the most comprehensive state welfare systems ever devised. And yet, those "dependent" workers still managed to rebel, go on strike, and directly challenge the legitimacy of the state.