You must log in or register to comment.


zombie_berkman wrote

Fuck ubi, its just a slight reset on capitalism. Problems are just going to come up again later


selver wrote (edited )

Supporters of BI are delusional / very naive. Decades of austerity, no real anti-capitalist political movement, but people think capitalists are about to hand over an unlimited strike fund? No fucking way. BI is disguised austerity & privatization. It will coincide with all other social systems/supports being decimated, with people being expected to pay for those services privately, with their meager BI cheque. It also functions as a wage top-up for the working class so that corporations do not have to increase wages.


Dumai wrote

the main function of UBI is to keep a dispossessed precariat consuming, which is why silicon valley salivates at the mere prospect of it


surreal wrote

It may be all that and it sucks we have come to this but it's also a step towards reducing poverty. People that don't have their basic needs covered, will at least find some relief. Like everything, there will be sociopaths who will try to gain from this but even if there is a tiny chance of reducing poverty it may be worth it. Also guaranteed income is not something new and people have been talking about this so long and have been mocked and worse. So imho it's better if it exists that if it doesn't.


selver wrote

No, that was my whole point, it's not a step towards reducing poverty. There is a reason that neoliberal governments around the world are currently very seriously considering Basic Income, the exact same governments that have been implementing severe austerity measures for years, cutting State spending on social services wherever they can. They didn't all just gain a conscience. The BI programs that are very likely to be implemented soon have been designed by austerity-driven capitalists. It will be a regressive system where people end up with less money & services than before.

These are political parties that have spent decades cutting social spending, with no regard for people in poverty, and now they are suggesting BI. If lessening poverty was really their goal, there are a million ways they could have done so without this broad restructuring (like, for example, not consistently cutting social services / welfare programs). It is completely divorced from our political context to suggest that these assholes are implementing BI to reduce poverty.


surreal wrote

i am not saying reducing poverty is their goal but it will be a side effect and people that have nothing at the moment will have at least something. Of course it's not even close to a real solution against poverty and it's a tiny step but it's still a step than staying in this shitty status quo. BI has proponents from all kinds of ppl in the political spectrum. Again this isn't something neolibs came up with. The notion of BI existed before.

Btw i think the main reason neolibs want this is because of the damage austerity has done to the circular consumption and without ppl spending money on stuff there is none of their so precious "growth".


Dumai wrote (edited )

it won't be a side effect at all -- if the poor have to purchase services that were previously provided by the state then their wealth has decreased in real terms. and if you don't think ubi will further the marketisation and privitisation of state welfare then you're in for a nasty shock in the very very near future


happy wrote

Not to mention BI is just a bandaid on a larger problem and is probably only going to increase the wealth of property owners via increased rents.