Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
Richard Nixon was the first US president to present the idea to the public. Conservatives, paradoxically, were behind the idea, not democrats. The idea that Universal Basic Income could negate the tendencies of the public towards any form of socialism or communism, at the time, might have been a reason why American conservatives wanted the political pendulum from not going too far to the left.
So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income?
So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income?
Comments (43)
Socialism has many points other than division of wealth however, being the fixation of prices, abolishment of class inequality (except government/population before the advent communism) and private property, prohibition of wealth accumulation by private entities, and seizing of the means of production.
If one is attracted to any of the aforementioned, UBI does not make socialism moot.
You are specifying a lot of specific criteria which may belong to certain systems of socialism, but which I don't think can legitimately be said to be true of "socialism" in general. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would, in a sense, solve most of the problems targeted by socialism....
Socialism is a much broader project that just this. It's also about public ownership, democratic control and social justice. In short, the active participation of citizens in decisions made about them and the redistribution of wealth and resources back into community - education, amenities, hospitals, healthcare, etc. In theory, a universal, basic income might work well in a dictatorship - to help pacify a population.
We marginal lefties (like myself) "aspire to socialism" in this postmodern-identitarian, neoliberal-corporatist, reactionary populist era?
And no: "UBI" doesn't even begin to address (neoliberalism's) structural imbalances and social injustices which "socialists" critique and oppose with alternative (speculative) socioeconomic arrangements
What is socialism?
To me, socialism and communism aim for the same basic thing: freedom and democracy. That the production of a human society the workplace, the corporation, the factory, whatever should be run democratically, by and for the people, like the US professes to care about regarding its government is a no brainer. No reason the same attitude we hold about government cant be applied to production.
With that simple change democracy at work the rest will likely follow. No more 90% of profits going to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks, no more CEO pay of 400 times the median worker salary, no more stagnant real wages, no more key decisions placed in the hands of a board of directors, themselves chosen by (and members of) the elite group of major shareholders in the world.
So to answer the question: it doesnt make it obsolete until you tell us what it is. By my thinking, UBI doesnt solve the real problem, which is one of power: the decisions being in the hands of a self-perpetuating, small elite of private owners.
:fire: :up:
But does it not stand to reason that implementing a UBI - globally - would have to be achieved through methods which, at the end of the day, would tend to act against the interests of the elite? After all, if the elite could guarantee compliance through UBI, they would have done so long ago. UBI in its essence is a contradiction of elitist privilege.
Regarding socialism in the US, I don't think it would ever fly. However, I do have to say that when the core practical-not ideological, as some of you describe or mention-aspect of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, then what's to desire about socialism with such a bad reputation economically that have been demonstrated historically. It would seem as though that someone analyzed socialism, and cherry picked the only possible thing that people would be able to benefit from it without any change in the ideological landscape between the two party system in the US.
Politics aside, I was discussing this topic with several people who said that with a crushing defeat to totalitarian states, along with aspiring socialists around the world, UBI would prove to be a very soft power maneuver around the world towards promoting capitalism with some redistributive characteristics.
In the same way that Medicare and Medicaid do, or giving overtime, or increasing the minimum wage, etc. Social programs arent loved, but since taxpayers fund them and they mostly avoid paying taxes (or pay a lower percentage than middle class folks) its not such a problem.
If, in order to fund UBI, we increase taxes on the rich then youd see an outcry.
But even in that case (raising taxes on the rich), the problem I mentioned remains: the decisions (in production, and by extension in government [thanks in part to Citizens United]) still remain in the hands of a power elite. Roughly the kind C. Wright Mills discussed.
Exactly. But the hypothesis is that UBI is successfully implemented. So what happens as a result of that is at least in part altered by that. It would be one way to move things forward.
Im a little confused with your anaphors here.
If UBI is successfully implemented, the result is altered by its success? How does this relate to taxes?
:up:
The economics is sound and a rising tide lifts all boats.
Most intellectuals and academics agree on neoliberalism causing inequality. So, if UBI doesn't address this aspect of neoliberalism, then what socioeconomic arrangements would?
A rising tide lifts all boats and drowns all those without a boat.
Just saying...
Getting rid of neoliberalism, heh.
You may be very familiar with the points I am making here. Not everybody is.
The problem with entitlement spending is that Congress has not seen fit to keep these programs fully funded over time.
Federal entitlement program (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others) comprise the biggest share of mandatory spending which is considerably larger than discretionary spending (too many programs to list). I was surprised that the pie charts displaying government income and expenses didn't include interest on the national debt. The interest is $658 billion per year, on a debt of $34 trillion.
US GDP is around $25 trillion, so the debt is larger than GDP. Not the end of the world, but not desirable either.
We have a national debt because the US Government has spent more money, year after year, than it collected in taxes. Could it have cut spending? Some of it could have been cut (discretionary spending). More taxes could have been collected. Moderated spending and a progressive tax schedule, especially for the corporations and wealthy individuals, would -- over time -- reduce the national debt. We have paid off the national debt before: We accumulated a very large debt during WWII, which (if memory serves) was paid off sometime in the 1970s. The post-war economy was booming and the tax rates were far more progressive -- that is, wealthy people paid a lot more taxes than they do now.
We are stuck on a treadmill at this point. We can dismount, but it will require some big changes.
I think we might be assuming a lot without looking around a bit. We seem to be equating socialism to entitlement spending (non-discretionary social programs, which equal more than half the budget), but we also spend money with the tax code in an attempt to manipulate behavior and redress inequities. We also spend money on government institutions which arguably are socialist, as they defend the best interests of the nation as a whole against the individual or corporations (even, in a sense, education). And we fund utilities that are basically publicly owned as their ability to capitalize on shortage and demand is decided by the government. And I dont know if anyone would consider our discretionary spending (food, transportation, veterans, foreign affairs, etc.) as socialism although it is a 1/4 of the budget, which, along with the military and other spending, is half the budget, and thus would need taxes to be paid for by everyone else not getting a UBI (as @BC and @Mikie point to).
Nevertheless, if we are just discussing social programs, really what we are talking about (what all the fuss is over usually) is entitlement spending, which is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security Income. I assume the idea of a universal income is to equalize the bottom of the income bracket (and not to give everyone a certain amount of money), and so then isnt SSI basically a kind of UBI already (except only for old people)? Which leaves us with Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. But in becoming an aggregate supplier for insurance, we are attempting to strong-arm the market through collective bargaining. Now, aside from the argument that that might not be effective, just giving everyone money to pay for healthcare insurance is not being involved in the market at all and would basically amount to paying for universal healthcare insurance, which seems very socialist.
My preferred version is economic democracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy
plus demarchy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Not only socialism but also capitalism exploits the fact that we need a sufficient income or outcome for living.
A universal basic income means that there will be no more starving, homeless, uneducated or uninsured individuals to exploit.
However, there will still remain plenty of inequalities for the political interests to exploit in their pursuit of power.
The welfare state, too, largely began as a conservative project. These and other examples lead me to believe conservatism is often the hand-maiden of socialism. Conservatives oppose radical change, sure, but they can never offer a direction different than the socialist one, so they must be content being dragged in the socialist direction. In my opinion this is because both are founded on similar attitudes.
Two attitudes immediately come to mind. First, rather than concerning themselves with limiting government power and scope, the socialist and conservative are mostly concerned with who holds that power. Both desire the presence of these institutions of power and wish the anointed to wield them in order to support and enforce a theoretical order of their choosing. Second, both believe themselves to be entitled to force others how to live.
So I do not think policies such as UBI makes socialism moot; it makes socialism a reality.
The amount of UBI would have to be higher if the amount were individuals only income, and not a supplement.
Thrift-minded employed people who have not suffered a financial disaster are able to save enough money to provide an operating financial cushion--a savings account. It feels good to know that things like a tire replacement, dental care. new shoes, and the like are not going to result in a crisis. UBI accomplishes the same thing.
I don't believe that a UBI distributed within a capitalist economy is the same thing as socialism, not even close. It would be a good thing, but socialism requires much, much broader and deeper changes in the operation of society.
Genius!
Right?
It's like Social Security or a safety net program; but, for everyone!
I'm not sure if you're following here; but, socialism goes quite a bit farther than just redistribution of wealth. According to what others said; it seems that UBI is just a band-aid to an ill of capitalism's influence on inequities due to the very nature of the socioeconomics. Nevertheless, UBI addresses these inequities and distortions in perception of wealth being managed by the state, in a quite positive manner.
Where have I heard this song before? :chin:
Yes, well UBI is not socialism according to what others have said. Yet, it seems to be an economic tool that helps the disenfranchised and poor from unhappiness and rebellions in seeking political change, and I think that was the original purpose of UBI (in accordance with the OP).
But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant?
If the poor are so pissed off at the government that they need to be "pacified", that's probably a good signal that they shouldn't be pacified.
Well, supply and demand would adjust over time; but you have a point if its about inflation. Inflation would rise; but, with an adjustment (or lag as they call it) to supply, then maybe prices would return to normal or slightly elevated over time.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, during Nixon's term, communism was at it height and quite possibly conservatives in the US were trying to outdo whatever promises of supplies for the poor in socialist countries to be countered with UBI by Nixon's own team of advisers. In this strategic aspect (from the point of view of any capitalist socioeconomic system), then this strategic aspect would seem to be relevant at the time of Nixon's presidency.
Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by CEO's from Silicon Valley like Elon Musk, regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it.
In that context it sounds like an awful idea.
People becoming chronically reliant on modern governments is asking for trouble.
I give it exactly one crisis before "universal" is replaced by "conditional".
UBI does neither, and seems like an economic Trojan horse to me.
I don't see welfare recipients, the homeless, the long-term unemployed who are not looking for work and not collecting benefits of any kind--the lumpen proles at the bottom--revolting. It seems to me more likely that workers who are several rungs up the economic ladder (identifying as working class) are the group likely to revolt. Some of these people think of themselves as "middle class" because of their material acquisitions, but a lot of the so-called middle class are just comfortable working class people.
Real middle class people are very much part of the administrative system and are not likely to revolt (because they would be one of the main targets of revolution).
SO, I don't think UBI is intended to prevent a revolt of the masses, it's to keep them minimally contented. It's a nuisance to manage their discontent and unhappiness, not a major threat. Groups that are any sort of real threat to the establishment are not bought off with a basic income. They are confronted and attacked by the police.
In any volatile situation, where revolt could grow out of riot, the police shoot to kill. lumpen proles (like George Floyd) have been treated pretty harshly by the police when they get out of line. It's not an aberration, it's policy.
I can't imagine it doing terrific in a place like NYC or London. The city of Berlin itself is a tax drain in Germany, where more money comes in than comes out.
However, in a healthy society that is not a role the government should take on. In a healthy society, people form social bonds with friends, family and their wider community that provides them with a much more personal and robust safety net.
Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies, because they seek to replace social bonds with government surrogates.
It turns people isolated, needy and dependent on government, which (needless to say) isn't a desirable situation at all.
How does socialism create jobs? Are you talking about government jobs?
Sounds a bit reductive, no? The world is much more complicated than that. At the same time, were the issues being discussed much better for societies that are less atomized, perhaps in the past? Not sure about that. Seems a distraction from the issue at hand imo. I am not entirely sure ideals like this are reliable just as the notion of the American Dream never was.
Social structure is underpinned by needs. The nanny state seeks to fulfill those needs with the purpose of making the individual less reliant on other individuals, but thereby making them more reliant on the state.
This is seen as a desirable form of emancipation, which in my opinion it isn't.
UBI would be a rather extreme manifestation of the nanny state.
The reason I point it out is because atomization is often blamed on individualism, when it is in fact collectivism that causes it, as in the process of binding the individual to the state ("collective") it breaks apart social structures.
:100: :fire:
Furthermore, mere government ownership of the economy does in itself not guarantee that everyone has an income. It only guarantees that customers have nowhere else to go, if they don't like existing supply.
There are many forms of socialism:
Marxist socialism (internationalist goals), National socialism (racial goals), Trade-union socialism (better known as fascism), social democracy (which is rather a form of capitalism).
You would still need to figure out a way to get people to work in the context of universal basic income. Most people only work because they have to. Without a production of goods and services to buy, money is essentially worthless.
Housing cost would also be even more inflationary than today. Renters would use their universal basic income to outbid each other. So, the money would probably largely end up in the pockets of landlords. It would also have a strong pull effect on illegal immigration.
Universal basic income is so inflationary that it won't be able to cover the cost of living.