Regardless if it's concession to the capitalists, or that a portion of capitalists even want , it's the only path I see towards an eventual communistic society.
If classless, moneyless and stateless society is the goal, the only way to teach society is to voluntarily to do stuff without force, its to encourage them to do stuff even if they have a basic safety net and no state tells them what to do.
If UBI continues for centuries, I could see a society emerging that does away with money altogether and people just organize to do favours for each other instead of the system we have now.
>>2477691>>2477690>>2477688Jobs guarantees sounds even more like the state telling you what to do, rather than UBI. Same with owning the means of production…sure it starts in an anarchistic way perhaps, but eventually a state burocreacy who seeks control will come out of it, or just destroy it. It's inevitable.
We already have UBI but its conditional, aka the state checks on you and sees if you are elligible. Its already total control.
Regardless if an UBI will just inflate prices on everything, it's the only way to principally organize and make ideas such as job guarantee (and truly what you want and what is needed) or a new planned economy possible. Even if it will take many years to overthrow the system. It's decouples the need of capital of desperate workers to keep the machine. It would be crucial opening.
It's just more capitalist mumbo jumbo, there's a reason liberals worship at the altar of stuff like this. You're still keeping the exact same capitalist hierarchies in place with the added benefit of what
>>2477690 said, you've now added an even extra layer of capitalist control over the basic necessities for day to day life.
>>2477710Is that correct material anaylsis?
The state and capitalists are very happy to keep sending checks and then not care what happens. It increases their profits in comparision to their traditional welfare system which needs a huge burocreacy and baloons in budget each year.
In the short terms it might even be more precarious than current benefits. But it provides an opening to truly change the system in 1st world countries.
>>2477687This sounds loike new words for "welfare". But this time instead of completely refusing to alter the class relationships, the claim is that somehow the welfare will. And somehow this will be done by a liberal government prior to said qualitative or quantitative change, for… reasons.
Finally a way to vote around revolutionary change! No need for conflict, just tweak the knobs of liberalism until class abolishes itself.
>>2477767socialism is between capitalism and communism
thats basic marxist theory as i understand it
>>2477700>Regardless if an UBI will just inflate prices on everything, "regardless of how my house is on fire" uhh no???
>it's the only way to principally organize and make ideas such as job guarantee (and truly what you want and what is needed) or a new planned economy possible.MMT takes "common sense" liberal economics and turns it on its head, kind of a Marxist dialectical progression of our consciousness
>>2477847>>>Regardless if an UBI will just inflate prices on everything, >"regardless of how my house is on fire" uhh no???dialectics uygha
dialectics…
I am too stupid to understand MMT tbh. Its why Im where
>>2477687Welfare and social services are good because they lower the rate of profit by creating infrastructure like hospitals and so on.
These kinds of social democratic policies are not really socialist but they are good industrial policies which are a prerequisite for socialism. You can't socialize the means of production without socializing production.
I'm not sure how UBI applies here. IMO UBI would jack up the rents which is ultimately a good thing. I want to proletarianize the Hitlerite petty-bourgeois small homeowners. Jacking up rents subsidizes the landlords who will buy out the small homeowners. So I think it might densify cities.
>>2477687People on here at least, I cannot speak for "socialists marxists" referenced in your title, are against any reformist measures like UBI, unions, wage increases, rent control, etc. that amount to putting a band aid on capitalism's gushing gunshot to the neck and instead support the escalation of the internal contradictions (the key tensions) of class society until it collapses either into either barbarism or socialism. The task they forget is actually going out and organizing the proletariat into a militant vanguard party so that we will get socialism instead of barbarism. So because of this it looks like, in the USA at least, we're getting barbarism. But some here also say the USA is incapable of socialism and that barbarism is deserved as reparations for imperialism or whatever.
So there's your answer.
>>2477854The fight for socialized services might begin from the start once UBI get introduced in its neoliberal form because the ruling class will in inevitably want that the most
But under UBI fighting for public services will be mich easier and more meaningful, because everyone is free to do so. Some might want to live in the woods or go help 3rd world countries, or go help the environment.
it's the most revolutionary of all the reforms out there
>>2477854>The so-called UBI is a Trojan horse to co-opt and deceive workers, dismantle, privatize, and commercialize the rights of the welfare state, and create pacification among the massescorrect
>so they don't fight for their rightsincorrect. we aren't fighting for "rights" given by a bourgeois dictatorship which are themselves a trojan horse for pacification just like UBI is
>and organize collectively for the right to guaranteed full employment, reduced working hours, the fight for collective wages, and solidarity among workers, all to deceive young people with economic neoliberalism and bourgeois individualism. Marxists must firmly oppose any UBI and prevent its apologists from infesting the left without exception.more talk about rights. the forcible overthrow of existing society is the goal, not getting more "rights" from the bourgeoisie which can be withdrawn by them.
>>2477865In my opinion, communists should be in favor of socializing housing as a right for the population to use, rather than housing being a commodity for market speculation.
Workers' retirement must be separated from speculation and profit. UBI apologists and financiers deny or ignore the relationship between the means of production, which needs to be resolved by socializing the economy instead of reducing everything to a relationship of money distribution. Capitalists will want to take advantage of this by passing this cost on to other workers through regressive taxes to create false consciousness and reaction, while in the background, deregulation, austerity, and neoliberal policies will be implemented because the means of production are still controlled by capitalists and the logic of profit.
>>2477891I know that the overthrow of the bourgeois state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and then abolish private property, anarchy of production, and social classes in socialization is necessary to definitively solve the problems of today's society. This doesn't mean we can't fight for reforms, but these reforms must lead to greater radicalization, awareness, and organization among workers, intensifying the class struggle so that the proletariat can assume power and prevent the masses from becoming complacent, depoliticized, and passive when the contradictions of capitalism and the declining rate of profit prepare for a revolution when a revolutionary situation arises.
I will leave a quote from a political program for reforms during a bourgeois democracy by communists, citing Lenin as an example:
<8) State insurance for workers covering old age and total or partial disability out of a special fund formed by a special tax on the capitalists.
<8) Full social insurance of workers:
<a) for all forms of wage labor;
<b) for all forms of disablement, namely, sickness, injury, infirmity, old age, occupational disease, child birth, widowhood, orphanhood, and also unemployment, etc.
<c) all insurance institutions to be administered entirely by the insured themselves;
<d) the cost of insurance to be borne by the capitalists;
<e) free medical and medicinal aid under the control of self-governing sick benefit societies, the management bodies of which are to be elected by the workers.
<9) Payment of wages in kind to be prohibited; regular weekly pay-days to be fixed in all labor contracts without exception and wages to be paid in cash and during working hours.[…]
<11) Housing laws to be enacted and a housing inspectorate elected by the workers’ organizations to be instituted for the purpose of sanitary inspection of dwelling houses. However, only by abolishing private property in land and building cheap and hygienic dwellings can the housing problem be solved.
<V. I. Lenin, 1917, Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme, 4. Draft of Revised Programhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm >>2478091not convinced
it's quite funny how radical leftists like here are stuck on 18th century economics but they also want to radically overthrow the system.
>>2478386>if your goal is to radicalize people and get them to abandon reformism, you have to make things worsemy goal isnt "radicalizing" (meaningless term) "people" (vague abstraction)
the
proletariat, not "the masses" or whatever other populist term ideologues like, is already struggling against capital bc uhh thats the whole point of the proletariat being immiserated wage workers, otherwise why tf would they rebel on their own. communists just ought to unite them, not "radicalize" them like rhetoric is enough to get the average person to risk their life against capitalism
>>2478402You know that the proletariat becomes impotent middle classers when trade unionism and social democracy deradicalizes them. Stop pretending like you didn't know what I meant.
the "agitate" in "educate, agitate, organize" essentially means "radicalize" and you and I both know that the context of the conversation was the proletariat.
>>2478405idc about sloganeering
>trade unionism deradicalizes themtheres a lot more nuance to the marxist critique of trade unionism than that and the point of proletarians joining unions isnt the benefits themselves lol but rather their tendency towards association
>>2478420The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm
>After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply … as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).Maybe UBI is bad for other reasons (e.g. chaining the workers to the state instead of being independent) but simply dismissing it as reformism doesn't make much sense unless you're also against raising wages, lowering working hours, improving safety standards, passing parental leave or universal healthcare, etc.
>>2478445>The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist strugglesI wonder about this. Is it supposed to say "impossibility of avoiding a workers revolution" or something? I dont see why we would reject reforms in principle, but it is interesting that they propose a minimal and maximal program. I thought the point for Marx was indeed to get workers on board with a "maximalist program", not to deny reforms in principle but exactly to prove the point that revolution was necessary. Sure its entirely possible that there is a world in which the bourgeoisie gives up and allows fundamental reforms that lead to the end of capitalism, but alongside reforms to improve living conditions I always thought that we were supposed to propose reforms that would break the back of capital, which they would in turn use the state to defend against violently, which would then demonstrate to the workers through practice that true democracy cannot coexist with the institution of private property.
I cant tell if this discussion is about refusing reforms in principle or if Marx was actually against using reforms and bourgeois electoralism as a form of propaganda to raise class consciousness, not as a hidden tactic or bait and switch, but openly saying so all along the way that the end goal is total revolution.
>>2477687Based Analysis Comrade, I have always stated that Communists should critically support Social Democracy in the Imperial Core as long as Maoist PPW is not viable their (Though Maoist PPW is viable in the Periphery/Semi-Periphery as proven by the ongoing Maoist PPWs in India, the Phillipines, Turkey, and Peru, Maoist PPW will not be viable in the Imperial Core until World War III breaks out and/or Liberal Bourgeois Democracy is permanently suspended, with both of these events probably happening around the same time), with UBI being the most Historically Progressive policy of Social Democracy, due to the fact that it divorces Income from Employment, thus lowering the rate of profit and making it much easier to organize the Proletariat to demand higher wages and dramatically increasing Class Consciousness, with the massive caveat that UBI will probably never be implemented in the U$, which is rapidly transforming into a Christian Zionist Nationalist Fascist Police State under the Trump Dynasty, until the inevitable World War III between the U$ and China escalates into a Global Nuclear War that will destroy the entire Global Capitalist-Imperialist System, thus allowing for a World Maoist PPW to create a Global USSR (The SSRs and SFSRs of the future Global USSR are shown in the map I posted) that will place the Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World on the Shining Path to Communism, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
Unique IPs: 34