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

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 30 2016 22:37

The UK strike:
"The coal industry in the UK, nationalised by Clement Attlee's Labour government in 1947, was encouraged to gear itself toward reduced subsidies in the early 1980s under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
...
The strike ended on 3 March 1985 following an NUM vote to return to work. It was a defining moment in British industrial relations, and the union's defeat significantly weakened the British trade union movement."

The coal industry got nationalised (you know it can only go down hill from here), and also here we see the working class fail to become independent from the state and what happens is that Margaret Thatcher becomes a big winner.
(the link doesnt work but go to wiki and look for "UK miners' strike (1984–85)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_%281984%E2%80%9385%29

The Hungarian revolution was political and not economical as it was directed against USSR and for political freedom
They didnt want to get rid of the state, rather they wanted to have their own independent state

The French working class was so deep into the state that when De Gaulle who had fled to Germany asked for a vote everything collapsed.
"De Gaulle went to a French military base in Germany, and after returning dissolved the National Assembly, and called for new parliamentary elections for 23 June 1968. Violence evaporated almost as quickly as it arose. Workers went back to their jobs, and when the elections were finally held in June, the Gaullist party emerged even stronger than before."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_events_in_France

Thats how dependent the working class was of the state. The state calls for a vote the working class follows like sheep and votes and the state survives because the working class is so deeply dependent on the state.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
May 30 2016 23:41

Ah "sheep", was waiting for that one to come out.

Anyway, you missed the point of the post.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 31 2016 05:51
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Ah "sheep", was waiting for that one to come out.

Perhaps u dont know what sheep means
2.
a. A person regarded as timid, weak, or submissive.
b. One who is easily swayed or led.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sheep

So there you go..

Quote:
Anyway, you missed the point of the post.

No i didnt miss the point. I just didnt reply to it. I mean i dont dictate the terms i just know what it takes

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
May 31 2016 09:48

Have recent posters prior to Chilli on this thread actually gone back and read it before launching in to express an opinion as I fear it might go off on a tangent now?

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
May 31 2016 11:12

Gulai Polye #92
‘The coal industry got nationalised (you know it can only go down hill from here), and also here we see the working class fail to become independent from the state and what happens is that Margaret Thatcher becomes a big winner.’

Rather depends on what you consider ‘downhill’. For the thousands of miners who for the next forty years gained wages and conditions their fathers could only dream about, they would not agree with this assessment. Was private ownership so wonderful that the miners longed for the pits to be de-nationalised? I think not.

Rather than simple minded rhetoric, examine the experiences of the working class. The role of nationalisation in the UK was to take ailing industries, refurbish them as far as possible, and return them to private ownership. This is the present strategy with the gradual privitisation of the NHS.

The working class in the last hundred years won concessions from the capitalist class, the mistake was for them to believe the state would protect their gains. Nationalization is no substitute for workers control. Simply to attack nationalization is to sing from the Thatcherite song book.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 31 2016 23:24

Auld-bod
It depends, if you wanna live the smooth life but still under a capitalist dictatorship and with near zero influence on the politics, then please just go ahead and continue to appeal for authority.

On the contrary if you wanna fight for a system that offers the utmost freedom for the individual a fair system can offer then there lies a fight ahead of us, a transition as Marx said it, a fight where sacrifices has to be made.

Quote:
For the thousands of miners who for the next forty years gained wages and conditions their fathers could only dream about ...
The working class in the last hundred years won concessions from the capitalist class,

Are you referring to that part where the capitalist class trembled at the fear of a USSR supported revolt throughout Europe, so in order to prevent that they raised the living conditions of the workers?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
May 31 2016 23:27

My great grandfather and great uncles were miners back in the halcyon days before the pits were nationalized. They were paid a pittance and when they were injured they got no sick pay. But they thoroughly enjoyed the freedom they experienced under the private coal owners.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
May 31 2016 23:44
Fleur wrote:
But they thoroughly enjoyed the freedom they experienced under the private coal owners.

Do you know how their freedom got reduced after the nationalisation? (If thats what your saying)

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Jun 1 2016 01:36
Quote:
Gulai Polye #92
‘The coal industry got nationalised (you know it can only go down hill from here), and also here we see the working class fail to become independent from the state and what happens is that Margaret Thatcher becomes a big winner.’

Rather depends on what you consider ‘downhill’. For the thousands of miners who for the next forty years gained wages and conditions their fathers could only dream about, they would not agree with this assessment. Was private ownership so wonderful that the miners longed for the pits to be de-nationalised? I think not.

I recall Dave Douglass once conducted a spirited defence of coal-mine nationalisation by relating the before and after figures for health and safety. He also related the statistics of the NCB safety record to many other nations mine safety.

As an ex-postal worker, perhaps i too would hold reservations about being privatised fully. At one time we had the privileges of the civil service Whitley System, nothing too much to go over-board with but better i think than when we became a government public sector corporation and now a private business.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 1 2016 01:54

State capitalism is still capitalism and any revolutionary movement - both in theory and practice, through education and lived experience - will need to come to terms with this fact. It's absurd to think that public sector workers are any less capable of making this realization than those in the private sector

Quote:
Are you referring to that part where the capitalist class trembled at the fear of a USSR supported revolt throughout Europe, so in order to prevent that they raised the living conditions of the workers?

And, for all your talk of "freedom", way to deny the working class any agency in challenging their own exploitation.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Jun 1 2016 02:45

I was being sarcastic.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 1 2016 03:55
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Are you referring to that part where the capitalist class trembled at the fear of a USSR supported revolt throughout Europe, so in order to prevent that they raised the living conditions of the workers?

And, for all your talk of "freedom", way to deny the working class any agency in challenging their own exploitation.

You really have no idea. The capitalists chipped in to safe capitalism. Its evident if you just do a minimum of research.

The cold war was a war that was fought not to conquer land but to conquer the workers and capitalism won because they applied the most cost effective strategy. Making sure the workers had a decent life. While the authority driven leaders over in USSR had absolutely no idea what they were doing.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 1 2016 04:00

First, what does the graph have to do with anything?

Second, dude, can you make an effort to actually respond to the points raised?

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 1 2016 04:06
Chilli Sauce wrote:
First, what does the graph have to do with anything?

This is where your brain steps in and goes into thinking mode

Quote:
Second, dude, can you make an effort to actually respond to the points raised?

No i only wanna reply to that which i wanna reply to

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 1 2016 04:11

Here's the thing - I get what point you're trying to make with the graph and I agree that capital and the state will offer concessions to the working class when they fear rebellion or unrest. Although, for your sake, it might make you look a bit less ill-informed if you attempted to add some small degree of explanation to your style of argument by internet graphic.

In any case, correlation does not equal causation, and it's on you to prove that
(a) tax rates are the best way to understand the bourgeoisie's thinking
(b) those changes in tax rates reflects what you say it does and
(c) that pacification of the working class was the sole thing driving those changes - which, given your view of the working class as "sheep" seems pretty illogical on your own terms.

Quote:
No i only wanna reply to that which i wanna reply to

In other ones, you'll not respond to the ones that challenge or disprove your points. Got it.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 1 2016 07:52
Chilli Sauce wrote:
In any case, correlation does not equal causation, and it's on you to prove that
(a) tax rates are the best way to understand the bourgeoisie's thinking
(b) those changes in tax rates reflects what you say it does and
(c) that pacification of the working class was the sole thing driving those changes - which, given your view of the working class as "sheep" seems pretty illogical on your own terms.

I would, if only the capitalist are not our enemies. You see what does enemies do to each other? They hide information. But they cant hide everything. Sometimes here and there they leave an obscurity due to their decision making. Some call these "dots". The more dots you are aware of the more easier it is to guess their decision making. Basically what you need to do is connect the dots.

Im not gonna force some "knowledge" down your throat. Im just gonna present you a guess, and if you wanna accept this guess as reasonable or not is up to you.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 1 2016 13:06

Gulai Poyle, I suggest that you do try to explain what you mean. I've read lots of your posts in several threads and I often struggle to figure out what you are trying to convey. Having people guessing is a weird way to communicate.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 1 2016 13:23
Quote:
You see what does enemies do to each other? They hide information. But they cant hide everything. Sometimes here and there they leave an obscurity due to their decision making. Some call these "dots". The more dots you are aware of the more easier it is to guess their decision making. Basically what you need to do is connect the dots.

Gulai Poyle: Modern day Socrates.

Quote:
Im not gonna force some "knowledge" down your throat

I love how this only applies when someone challenges your logic or consistency. Other than that, you're more than happy to make broad, sweeping - even patronizing - statements dropping your obviously superior knowledge on us.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 09:23
Khawaga wrote:
Gulai Poyle, I suggest that you do try to explain what you mean. I've read lots of your posts in several threads and I often struggle to figure out what you are trying to convey. Having people guessing is a weird way to communicate.

Like what?

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 10:05
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Gulai Poyle: Modern day Socrates.

No because Socrates said suffering an injustice is better than to commit an injustice. If you just let yourself suffer an injustice the injustice will just continue and you will help to perpetuate the injustice. If you want the injustice to end you will have to fight back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvY3VWe4O4k

He is like Jesus with the "turn the other cheek" thing. Bullshit

Quote:
I love how this only applies when someone challenges your logic or consistency. Other than that, you're more than happy to make broad, sweeping - even patronizing - statements dropping your obviously superior knowledge on us.

Did you change your opinion because you wanted to or because you were forced to? If you didnt change your opinion then who cares?

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 10:47
timthelion wrote:
I agree, that when we create basic-income and abolish the minimum wage.

You dont abolish the minimum wage with basic-income, because then the basic income will become the minimum wage because no one will want to work for less than what they can get from the system.

Example:
Basic income = 10.000
Wage = 9000

Worker: I demand a wage of 10.000 or i will not work
Boss: ok a wage of 10.000 is decided

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jun 2 2016 13:25
Gulai Polye wrote:
timthelion wrote:
I agree, that when we create basic-income and abolish the minimum wage.

You dont abolish the minimum wage with basic-income, because then the basic income will become the minimum wage because no one will want to work for less than what they can get from the system.

Example:
Basic income = 10.000
Wage = 9000

Worker: I demand a wage of 10.000 or i will not work
Boss: ok a wage of 10.000 is decided

basic income would mean everyone got a fixed income from the state regardless of if they were in work or not

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jun 2 2016 13:20
Gulai Polye wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Gulai Poyle: Modern day Socrates.

No because Socrates said suffering an injustice is better than to commit an injustice. If you just let yourself suffer an injustice the injustice will just continue and you will help to perpetuate the injustice. If you want the injustice to end you will have to fight back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvY3VWe4O4k

He is like Jesus with the "turn the other cheek" thing. Bullshit

Yeah, you misunderstood the reason I made the Socrates reference.

Quote:
Quote:
I love how this only applies when someone challenges your logic or consistency. Other than that, you're more than happy to make broad, sweeping - even patronizing - statements dropping your obviously superior knowledge on us.

Did you change your opinion because you wanted to or because you were forced to? If you didnt change your opinion then who cares?

As often seems to be the case, I really don't see how your response here has anything to do with what I posted....

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 13:33
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
Example:
Basic income = 10.000
Wage = 9000

Worker: I demand a wage of 10.000 or i will not work
Boss: ok a wage of 10.000 is decided

basic income would mean everyone got a fixed income from the state regardless of if they were in work or not

So what if the basic income would be reduced from 10.000 to 9.000 then the worker would still have 10.000 since thats his wage right?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jun 2 2016 13:38
Gulai Polye wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
Example:
Basic income = 10.000
Wage = 9000

Worker: I demand a wage of 10.000 or i will not work
Boss: ok a wage of 10.000 is decided

basic income would mean everyone got a fixed income from the state regardless of if they were in work or not

So what if the basic income would be reduced from 10.000 to 9.000 then the worker would still have 10.000 since thats his wage right?

what?
with basic income the idea is everyone revives the basic income as well as what ever other income they can acquire

this makes it different from, from for example jobseekers allowance, where the benefit is removed or reduced if you get a job

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 14:00
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
Gulai Polye wrote:
Example:
Basic income = 10.000
Wage = 9000

Worker: I demand a wage of 10.000 or i will not work
Boss: ok a wage of 10.000 is decided

basic income would mean everyone got a fixed income from the state regardless of if they were in work or not

So what if the basic income would be reduced from 10.000 to 9.000 then the worker would still have 10.000 since thats his wage right?

what?

Like this

So in the beginning a person is having a normal wage. Then basic income is introduced at time A, then the wage is increased to the level of the basic income (because the other option for the worker is to not work and recieve more money that way than to work). Then at point B the revolutionary basic income is lowered but the wage stays the same until otherwise agreed.

Gulai Polye
Offline
Joined: 24-05-16
Jun 2 2016 14:09

Now i get it. You get money from the state even when you are working and hired by capitalists. Wow... It should be called counter-revolutionary because all the power goes to the state and not to the working class...

Misovlogos's picture
Misovlogos
Offline
Joined: 31-05-16
Jun 2 2016 14:42
Gulai Polye wrote:
Now i get it. You get money from the state even when you are working and hired by capitalists. Wow... It should be called counter-revolutionary because all the power goes to the state and not to the working class...

In what possible sense is that true?

Those absent ownership of the means of production would no longer be objectively compelled to sell themselves into wage-labour. Instead, they would able to autonomously organise their life, family and labour outside of the logic of profitability. At the same time, the absolute worst-off would have a real escape from poverty. This materially helps people, changes economic relations in a significant way, and creates a space for struggle. How is that counter-revolutionary, and how does it help the state more than it does the prospects of socialism? Obviously it's not a panacea, but it's one, highly achievable step in the short- to medium-term. Do you think there is anything worth doing short of the immediate implementation of anarcho-communism (or whatever you hope for)? You can only work within the limits of history.

Misovlogos's picture
Misovlogos
Offline
Joined: 31-05-16
Jun 2 2016 15:02
Joseph Kay wrote:
Also, in its left wing versions, a basic income is meant to give people enough to get by on. Some rough calculations here: UK living wage £7.65 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks ~ £16,000/year. UK GDP per capita is $39,941, ~£24,000. So we're talking about (16/24) x 100, 67% - two thirds of GDP [assuming that everyone keeps working, which seems unlikely]. I just can't see it.

These are rather uncharitable figures. Most advocates of a UBI support an unconditional sum well below £16,000 p/a. The current welfare spend in the UK is £250bn. Let us suppose that over-65's are covered by pension schemes, that parents are given a modest sum to spend on behalf of their children, and that the UBI is recaptured from high-earners (i.e. those earning over £30,000). Given existing UK demographics, that leaves about £250bn to distribute among 28 million adults: which comes out just below £9,0000 per person. Also, public spending as a proportion of GDP in the UK could simply be increased. At the moment, it's about 40%. In Scandinavian countries, which are typically the models for UBI, it's about 50%. If that difference was funnelled directly into UBI, then that would be a further £200bn. If the advocates of UBI are to be believed, then creativity, labour flexibility, education, and poverty reduction should all increase - it will be net positive for growth.

I'm not saying all of this because I sincerely believe it, but just to illustrate that on non-absurd assumptions a UBI is perfectly feasible (it simply depends on the sum that we are talking about).

Most defenders of a UBI appear to believe that it's the next capitalist regime in the global core: the direction of technology, labour markets and culture all point in the direction of a UBI. That it will sublate neoliberalism, as neoliberalism did post-war Fordism.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jun 2 2016 15:29

Fair enough, but once you go below an amount it's possible to live on, and completely remove child/sickness/disability support, you're surely condeming millions to poverty? Removing means-tests without providing enough to live on seems a backwards step (increasing the freedom of younger, healthier, childless people at the expense of the rest).

Now maybe you could raise top-rate income tax to provide a means-tested top-up for some, on top of the existing £250bn, or rent caps, or some similar policy package. But if the sums worked out, I'm sure the Greens (for example) would have a costed policy, rather than their embarassing retreat from UBI last election.