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.
Because landlords will just eat it by jacking rents up
Because It'll be like this: "yeah, we'll give you UBI, as long as you do what we tell you."
-big tech CEO's, as they replace everyone's job with AI
Because we want to own the means of production not be involved in a time share scheme with it. Jobs guarantee is better.
> 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
the proletariat will learn to work for the good of society in general because the interests of the greater society aligns with their individual interests (i.e. if people stop working we'll all go without so everyone should work). this will take a long time to become part of the generally accepted morality, as under capitalism we learn to work for individualist motives and it is reflected in the superstructure. under a DotP, some kind of welfare could be given to those who really can't work but in general the people must learn to understand the importance of work in the way i described above.
>>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.
>>2477687I'm open to it but the fact that techbro libertarians are so open to it makes it very suspicious.
>>2477759
What is the goal of socialism then?
>>2477688You're also against raising the minimum wage right.
>>2477767
socialism is between capitalism and communism
thats basic marxist theory as i understand it
>>2477775
what do you mean in all honesty? history is a dialectic, so restoration of capitalism in socialism or communism is possible, I don't deny that.
>>2477687We don’t like money here
>>2477697most people don't pick up on kantian ethics
>>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
>>2477687The 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 masses so they don't fight for their rights 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.
>>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.
>>2477854I just want to proletarianize the Hitlerite small homeowners. And I think subsidizing the slumlords is good industrial policy for this sort of stuff. I do worry about the capitalists using UBI as a Trojan horse to defund social services.
>>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
>>2477862>So I think it might densify cities.isn't the point to abolish the distinction between town and country? Do you really want your entire revolutionary vanguard in one place where they can be nuked?
>>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.
>>2477885Grassroots democratic councils supported by a vanguard party could very well want some kind of UBI or ecological policies as policy demands
>>2477885none of those things are helpful without a vanguard party to take advantage of them. a proletarian party might advocate for unions, UBI, etc., but advocating for these things in the abstract, independent of a party which can take advantage of any victories, is futile and hopeless.
>>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 >>2477888That's not what the distinction between town and countryside is. It's really a kind of imperialism. IMO proletarianizing the petty-bourgeoisie small homeowners can only help to end imperialism. As for cities tying people down, it seems to me that being bound to one housing unit by property ownership restricts mobility.
> The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party) >>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.
>>2478254refute his points then. what would stop employers from further lowering wages if ubi was implemented?
>>2478091came here to post cockshott
>why do marxists not want to increase the amount of politically impotent middle classers
wow truly a riddle
>>2478254>it's quite funny how radical leftists like here are stuck on 18th century economics but they also want to radically overthrow the system.You write this about the guy who says capitalism and communism are the same mode of production because they both run on electricity
>>2478285Well, for one, he might actually need to increase the wages, because nobody has to work because basic needs are met. For the first time, the pressure of making a living to survive und be obedient to your employer dissapears
>>2478293cockshott says this?
>>2478290well that's the main paradox of politics, right? by actually fixing problems, you deradicalize people, but by introducing problems, you radicalize people. So if your goal is to radicalize people and get them to abandon reformism, you have to make things worse. But if you actually come out and say "I want to make things worse and radicalize people" you sound insane. So you're stuck with sitting by as conditions deteriorate and waiting for a critical mass of people to become radicalized, educated, and organized. But as conditions become worse people tend to get less educated and less organized, even if they become more radicalized.
>>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.
It's funny that so many people know that Marx once said he wasn't a Marxist, but no one seems to know why he said that. He was arguing with people who were against fighting for reforms because they would lead workers away from socialism. Marx called their argument "revolutionary phrase-mongering." This would apply well to many internet "radicals."
>>2478091When The Cock speaks, I listen. Death to UBI.
>>2478412>He was arguing with people who were against fighting for reforms because they would lead workers away from socialism.can we get a quote
>>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.
>>2478285Why is the capitalists lowering wages in proportion to UBI a bad thing? UBI just serves to transfer wages from class traitors to less well off proles and helps proletarianize the petty-bourgeoisie.
>>2478290UBI takes money from the middle-class and gives it to the poorer workers? If anything UBI is a measure which reduces the size and power of the middle-class.
>>2478451not if you make UBI ridiculously low like 500 dollars,then it just grows the middle class because those who were nearly there actually gain money,whereas the poor maybe can consoom more instead of purely surviving
UBI needs imperialism to fund it
Money as a store of value is always relative. One's wealth only exists in comparison to another's poverty. As long as there is an extractive class this cannot change, and that class will never allow for the working man to survive without compulsion to labor. It is essential to maintaining his class position. If we are going to advocate for welfare, it should be distributed directly (universal healthcare and housing, etc), as this is far more difficult to dilute away. Even then, compare public and private healthcare and housing in pretty much any country around the world. There is almost always a stark contrast.
That being said, I don't think worker misery is essential to a revolution. People have been immiserated across place and time, and it has never guaranteed any action. What is required is a plausible and achievable alternative.
They want to substitute all social benefits including pensions for the elderly and unemployment benefits with it. It would conclude the ongoing gradual axing of the social democrat welfare state as landlords, kulaks and porkies would increase inflation in order to pocket the UBI while proles would be left with nothing and being forced to ask for pension and unemployment contracts with private insurance companies.
>just press the UBI button bro! ignore that capitalism can only be maintained at the expense of the proletariat
not how reality works lol, read marx
>>2478430>idc about sloganeeringcute slogan
>>2479022uygha really thought that was a clever shit to say lmfao
one critique of UBI I don't see in this thread is that, even ignoring that landlords will just jack up rents or whatever. Let's say you also rent control, the problem with UBI is that it's universal. If subsistence is guaranteed through UBI, real wages can decrease (either directly through pay docks or indirectly through inflation). Workers will earn what they need to survive, but capitalists will still make UBI as well. Capitalists already have their subsistence guaranteed through exploitation of surplus value. So their UBI will just become either luxury spending or reinvestment in means of production.
>>2478430>the point of proletarians joining unions isnt the benefits themselves lol but rather their tendency towards associationThe international longeshoreman's association is very well "associated" but when they recently went on strike, they made an exception for military cargo bound for israel. What are we to do with unions like this?
>>2477765I’m against wages let alone minimum wages
>>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.
>>2479032i like the one where they do a reverse tax below a certain threshold. like everyone below 100K gets 500 a month and no taxes and everyone above has to pay an increasing graduated progressive tax up to a million where its 90%.
>>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, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
Porky loves UBI because that means he can just gut everything else, and then gut the UBI
>>2479086That's a psychological no-go. People don't mind getting stuff, but making them pay while others aren't enrages the monkey brain.
>>2477687Right on point that most of you dont understand basic economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?wprov=sfla1Ubi works with mass scale automation because everything is cheap. Without it there will be runaway inflation.
>>2479086that's called negative income tax which is different than UBI.
>>2521779see
>>2479032>one critique of UBI I don't see in this thread is that, even ignoring that landlords will just jack up rents or whatever. Let's say you also rent control, the problem with UBI is that it's universal. If subsistence is guaranteed through UBI, real wages can decrease (either directly through pay docks or indirectly through inflation). Workers will earn what they need to survive, but capitalists will still make UBI as well. Capitalists already have their subsistence guaranteed through exploitation of surplus value. So their UBI will just become either luxury spending or reinvestment in means of production. Value transfer from proles to lumpens.
>>2521779UBI will not create Inflation as long as it is fully paid for by a combination of increased Tax revenue and eliminating the Means-Tested Social Safety Net, which is much easier then most think as a Nontaxable 1000$ monthly UBI for all Adult U$ Citizens would cost 3 Trillion dollars annually (their are ~250 million Adult U$ Citizens, and 250 million times 12,000$ equals 3 Trillion Dollars) and will be completely paid for by a combination of a 10% VAT on Non-Essential goods (everything but Food, Housing, Healthcare, Education, and Clothing/Hygiene products) producing 1 Trillion dollars in Revenue (Consumer spending is 20 Trillion dollars annually, and ~50% is on the Essential goods exempted by the VAT, so the VAT will generate 1 Trillion dollars in revenue), eliminating the Means-Tested Social Safety Net (ie. Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, SSI, SSDI, etc.) saving 1 Trillion dollars, and Progressive Tax Reform (Creating a more Simple and Equitable Federal Income Tax code that will help pay for the UBI and would consist of four brackets for Individuals; 0% for all Income under 50,000$, 10% for all Income between 50,000 and 99,999$, 30% for all Income between 100,000 and 499,999$, and 50% for all Income over 500,000$) producing an estimated 1 Trillion dollars in additional revenue, or alternatively you don’t need to combine it with a Progressive Income Tax, as for both the sake of simplicity and increased Revenue I am strongly considering combining the Nontaxable $1000 monthly UBI for all Adult US citizens, with a 20% Flat Income Tax on both Individuals and Corporations that would replace the current Progressive Income Tax code, which would mean that any Individual making less then $72,000 a year, would be a net beneficiary, as they would get more from the UBI then they pay in the 20% Flat Income Tax, which would generate 3.2 Trillion Dollars in revenue from Individuals, and combined with the 1 Trillion Dollars raised by the VAT, the 4 Trillion Dollars raised by Payroll Taxes, and probably another Trillion Dollars from the Corporate Income Tax, Financial Transaction Tax, Carbon Tax, etc. this would be more then enough to completely Balance the Federal Budget (3 Trillion dollar UBI, 1.5 Trillion Dollar Social Security, 1.5-2 Trillion Dollar Medicare For All, .5 Trillion Dollar Defense, .5 Trillion dollars on other programs, including Free College, and .5-1 Trillion Dollar Interest payments), thus eliminating any concerns about Inflation/Affordability, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
>>2521913I don’t see what is wrong with the scenario you just described from a Communist standpoint, due to the fact that as long as basic subsistence is covered, UBI will allow Proles to divorce Income from employment and have increased Class Consciousness, thus lowering the Rate of Profit for the Bourgeoisie, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
>>2477700>sounds even more like the state telling you what to doLmao grow up
>>2521969What is $12000 a year going to really do for anyone? You can't even pay rent with that. Why is everything so expensive here?
I don't support it because it's a way to spin cuts to welfare and public infrastructure. Get rid of the welfare state, privatize public services, slash taxes and regulations, cut or even abolish public education. But don't worry prole, here's your monthly $1000 check which is far less than the value of everything we're getting rid of.
At the same time a lot of the responses you'll get will be from dogmatists who see any reformism or concession as anti-Communist and are committed to the idea that larping the Bolshevik Revolution is the only way to socialism, since that's what feeds their ego. Not realizing that Marx very explicitly wrote against socialists like this, ones who were against reforms for acc reasons.
>>2521972Remember, that 12,000$ is for every Individual, so if you live with a couple of Roomates, your Parents, have a Girlfriend/Boyfriend, etc. that is an extra 24,000-36,000$ every year for your household on top of whatever you are currently making, so that’s actually a lot of money when you think about it, and would definitely dramatically reduce, if not completely eliminate, Homelessness/extreme Poverty if it was ever enacted, ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
>>2521971job guarantee is lame and gay. give me a reason why it's better than UBI.
I don't want a job, I want money.
If you want to live entirely at the mercy of whoever hands out the chits, you can have UBI.
No one is getting any basic income though, so it's a smokescreen. Humanity has been done for many decades now. The only difference today is that it's official, and the last gasps of false promises are made.
If they were going to do a UBI they'd do it through the existing state. SSI is already set up to be a universal basic income if the government wished it to be so, instead of making a qualification of disability and permanent underclass status. So, the "UBI" thing is a way to point at this underclass and say that the underclass is the problem. That's all they're really doing.
What the people demand, and what they will never be allowed to hold, is wealth. Not income or money, but tangible wealth to call their own, to say "this is mine". They will not be allowed to hold a plot of land to call their own, and they won't be allowed to share in public wealth or some commons that they might have imagined would sufficiently resolve the need for wealth that brought us to this discourse in the first place. The moment you create a society where predation is maximized for its own sake and it is naturalized, there is no possibility of communism in any sense that word had any meaning. That has already been accomplished, and it was done in the name of socialism.
Anyway the plan was to run the welfare state to "dope" enough people into submission / dependence, then yank it away. They didn't even give you that much. They gave less in charity than the Church gave, and the Church was notoriously miserly. You got "services" that were set up to kill you and insult you from the start and laugh as you die, thinking this was some sort of "help". It's sadistic and Satanic, which is what humans are.
Honestly though, the best solution for humanity is to give up on any shared society. They wanted a Satanic race, and oh boy they got it. At least if humans are alone, they can wash themselves clean as best as they can when they die. Membership in human society is always predicated on taking part in a great ritual sacrifice and humiliation. That is the human spirit. There is nothing else in this retarded, filthy race. They happily became what aristocracy always wanted them to be: they are now made in the image of aristocracy, glorifying the essential act of torture and backstabbing. Everyone who wanted anything at all different has been hounded and destroyed, and now is laughed at until they die. Failed race.
I suppose you were hoping for a positive answer, but you won't find one. They all lied to you about everything. All I do is try to tell people this, and then find in the ruins whatever I'm going to find that would be apart from the great orgy and rot of the human race. That is all we ever had, really. For most of history, we did nothing but toil and live in some miserable place, usually outside of the city, and the time we had apart from humanity was the only freedom and happiness we ever knew. Who would want to be around fucking humans and all of the torture that is inherent to their race? Since I have no reason to deny this, I can say to others that they can "free" themselves as much as they can by renouncing humanity, renouncing humanism, and making it clear that humanity has chosen this fate for no good reason. Any better world was a transient thing that would be destroyed the moment someone decided it would give them jollies to destroy it. They laugh at you for thinking it could be anything else, and those people only had to select for each other and enforce a lockout for about a century to realize their vision. You were warned. Everyone who saw this coming from the start was humiliated and run out, for the sake of opportunistic filth that glorify the worst of humanity.
That mentality I'm describing is at the heart of the "UBI" conceit. They're mocking egalitarianism or the concept that everyone would have a bare minimum of existence. If you really wanted to accomplish the benefits of UBI, you would not keep the firms of liberal society with their disastrous contracts intact. It would instead take the form of violent forced requisition, until humans learn their lesson and submit to permanent forced requisition. Humans never knew anything but class society, and now, that is a marked feature of their race. Even if aristocracy were wholly eliminated, class society would remain. Marxists laughed at you for believing you could "abolish class" in that way. If you really did want to abolish social class distinctions, you're asking very different questions from economic ones. Without anything to question the untrammeled right of transgression that has been humanity's practice from the start, social classes will be inevitable, and the question is ultimately a moral one. Of all of the orders of humanity, the aristocratic order is the only one that is wholly and completely useless. Not only is it pointless to have a marked class of men called "aristocrats", but every action and deed of aristocracy is a poison if it is adopted by any of the other orders. If however there were no aristocracy, the same impulses that made political society so dreadful would play out. There would still be distinct classes of men or functions. This is inevitable so long as life has certain needs for security, technology, and a sense of right and wrong that any animal would have to eventually reckon with. The only order that really wanted it to be different, and the class that has always been attacked, was the lowest class, whose members usually wound up dead or excised from humanity proper and not allowed to have any social existence at all. For the lowest class, any idea that humanity was their "friend" was some kind of sick joke. They only ever said that because they were threatened with exemplary violence and terror to say it, knowing it was a lie. What else could someone who was tortured that much do? They would say and do whatever it took to not have to speak to these Satanic apes, at least for a little while.
All of these things I speak of do have fairly simple mechanical solutions, if someone wanted to reform humanity into something good. "Good", unfortunately, is anathema to what humans are or want to be. Every time someone states plainly obvious things that humans could do to mitigate the worst of this, humans stare at you blankly like you're crazy. Even to save themselves individually, humans can't stop themselves from reveling in ritual sacrifice and torture. They simply refuse to speak of things that would be very simple, because to say the truth and act on it would run contrary to the forces that gave birth to the human race, and all of the principles upon which their society and their civilization were built. It's been especially hilarious for them to point and laugh at you who ask these naive questions. They laugh that they got you to believe human institutions were ever about anything but the utmost evil for its own sake.
I dont want by rent to go up by [insert UBI value here]
No, I'm not saying individualism is "natural" or justified. If anything, there is no evidence that the individual has any existence "in nature", or that the individual should count for much of anything. I am saying that if you want to reform a race that has been from its birth essentially Satanic, that goes far out of their way to destroy even the most basic conditions of life when this served no real purpose and usually made 99% of humanity worse off in some way, you're going to have to think really long and hard about how that can happen, and if such a thing is ever desirable.
The best, of course, would be if the people ruling over us stopped interfering in our associations apart from them, and we who remain could build something functional with what hasn't been stolen or sacrificed to this beast. We do that all of the time for ourselves and those who might call friends, so far as friendship ever counted for anything.
There is also no reason why the state or the ruling class "has" to do any of the Satanic behaviors. If anything the ruling institution could easily say "we win", establish some settlement where people are told in no uncertain terms that they are not part of humanity and they just live here, and we part ways permanently and irrevocably. It was the choice of certain people to deny us even the smallest condition of existence, at great expense to the state, because they had a conceit that they could "perfect the race" by doing this over and over. It's astounding to me that this drive, Eugenics, is not the prime enemy of all mankind, and those who advanced it are not dragged out and shot.
With all of that said, there isn't a "natural" or "economic" reason why you couldn't have a UBI, like if you do this you will summon bad juju in the universe. Ideas like a citizen's dividend go all the way back to Thomas Paine. Rome even had policies of straight up giving free men land so they could increase the pool of men eligible for conscription, who would back the state. This idea of giving to everyone a flat sum of money or wealth is inherent to a democratic society. That it is questionable to speak of the idea that people can have ANYTHING says just where the idea of a democratic society stands.
>>2522068UBI is just making laborcrats in the west even more complacent than they already are in their reliance on exploitation of the third world. Bandaid solution fr
My comment was more aimed at your childish concern regarding the government telling you to do stuff lol
UBI will be given to workers by the ruling class to bribe them not to revolt
>>2477688Yes, I want to proletarianize the petty-bourgeoisie. This is why I generally support these kinds of Keynesian policies. I do not support UBI in the case of the USA because the USA possesses the exorbitant privilege, so these kinds of policies do not benefit debtor countries in the same way.
>>2521779But I want inflation and to proletarianize the petty-bourgeoisie.
People here will support UBI eventually, just have to wait for China to implement it.
>>2477687>Regardless if it's concession to the capitaliststhen you admit its not natural at all for a communist to support this shit
>it's the only path I see towards an eventual communistic society.then you're dumb as fuck
UBI is anti-Marxist and pro-treatlerism.
>its to encourage them to do stuff even if they have a basic safety net and no state tells them what to do
Yeah, they’ll just do nothing
>>2522540>le human nature! le profit motive!libtard clocked
Unique IPs: 49