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?

  • Three_Magpies [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Isn’t UBI just giving first worlders an extra $1000/month so they can enjoy more treats provided by exploitation of the imperial subjects? I don’t see this as a step towards liberation — it’s more likely to end in pacification.

    Maybe it would make people’s lives more comfortable. It puts me in a difficult spot because I know people are hurting but I see this program as a purse-string that hangs over the head of the working class.

    “Behave yourself!” They will say, “because not everyone gets UBI and if you engage in anti-social behavior we can pull yours away.”

    :porky-happy: controlling all the levers of society but we all have a little more $$ doesn’t seem like something to hang our hat on.

    • DetroitLolcat [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Isn’t UBI just giving first worlders an extra $1000/month so they can enjoy more treats provided by exploitation of the imperial subjects? I don’t see this as a step towards liberation — it’s more likely to end in pacification.

      This isn't an argument against UBI, it's an argument against literally all welfare. While the US engages in imperial plunder, there are non-imperialist nations that have implemented direct cash transfer programs extremely effectively and there is absolutely no rule saying a welfare state has to rely on imperialism. The idea that welfare can only come through imperialism is just a differently-worded conservative "how do you pay for it" argument.

      UBI is literally just the expropriation of capitalists' wealth to lift millions of proletarians out of poverty. The left really needs to stop pretending it's anything different.