I see arguments against UBI, that it's just the ruling class trying to remain in power, that your landlord will just raise rent by that much. Couldn't the same arguments be used against raising min wage? See, here's my thing, I think UBI would just be the capitalists desperately putting the system on life support but why are leftists so against UBI but not against raising min wage? You're not a liberal, you know better that you can't vote for or against either one. If those in power conclude that's what they need to do they'll do it. It won't matter if you agree or disagree or who's in office. To me that seems like one of those societal contradictions like Mao talks about. Under fuedalism those in power were naturally the only ones with the power to change society, but they had no incentive to so they did what they could to remain in power as long as possible, but ironically the way they solved those contradictions either changed society or set the stage for societal change.
I just can't get worked up about UBI one way or the other, that's not a materialist way of viewing it. A materialist way of looking at it would be to figure out, is this going to be what the ruling class conclude to be the way they stay in power? If so, what effects will that have on society?
I think the materialist argument is that working class power comes from doing labor, and thus having the power to withdraw it (strike). This is how we threaten the capitalists to accept our demands. With UBI we would no longer work (to the same extent anyway) and thus not have this power. But there are other problems too, notably how it would necessitate increased exploitation of the peripheral countries.
The day the working class is no longer needed by the ruling class is the day the ruling class starts discussing why they keep us around.
I mean, they have been not only discussing that, but implementing it, for a while now
deleted by creator