Predictions for what UBI does to society

[Joij21]

This line of reasoning is so reactionary you are basically advocating that we should've never left tribal, nomadic societies.

If you find this statement a tad over the top then let me put it another way.

If what you say above is true why should capitalism have displaced feudalism?

None of those was through violent revolution. But rather natural reform and evolution of economic systems. Sometimes it was violent, but those examples were from failing states that couldn't keep up with the times.

IMHO violent uprisings should only be validated when the reward outweighs the risk. Committing treason for no reason is no way to go about things, especially when doing so can make things go from bad to worse.

 

[Hygro]

Wait so expanding social security to go to everyone through legislative means would constitute warlords but the violent total systemic change to capitalism was a natural and peaceful transition?

 

[stinkubus]

Imposition of the capitalist order and the nation state system that came within was done with extreme violence. How on Earth do you think the current borders in Europe were established? Was the American Revolution not treasonous or violent?

Just found this today, wanted to use it as a meme, and did not think I would get the opportunity so quickly.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This line of reasoning is so reactionary you are basically advocating that we should've never left tribal, nomadic societies.

If you find this statement a tad over the top then let me put it another way.

If what you say above is true why should capitalism have displaced feudalism?

Paradigm shifts usually take time and come about slowly. They frequently involve dramatic disruption in places. Socialism has been creeping its way into use in different forms and places for quite a while. Large scale implementation is still a problem. Even at the nation state level there are difficult obstacles since capitalism is a world wide institution. "Socialism" is still a theory that no one knows how to actually "get to from here".

 

[stinkubus]

Paradigm shifts usually take time and come about slowly. They frequently involve dramatic disruption in place. Socialism has been creeping its way into use in different forms and places for quite a while. Large scale implementation is still a problem. Even at the nation state level there are difficult obstacles since capitalism is a world wide institution. "Socialism" is still a theory that no one knows how to actually "get to from here".

Plenty of people have ideas about how to get there from here. The balance of power is favorable to the enemies of socialism. They have their wealth, almost total control of the state, and the hearts and minds of most of the land.

If you want a simple answer as to how we get started I'll give you two words: labor organization. I have no doubt that if any serious attempt were made to revitalize the labor movement white people would quickly found out that they are not immune from state violence in this society.

Furthermore, I take serious contention with the idea that paradigm shifts within a society are slow. They come about in revolutionary moments when the internal contradictions of the existing order become too great to bear.

 

[Joij21]

Imposition of the capitalist order and the nation state system that came within was done with extreme violence. How on Earth do you think the current borders in Europe were established? Was the American Revolution not treasonous or violent?

Just found this today, wanted to use it as a meme, and did not think I would get the opportunity so quickly.

Those were wars of the Reformation and Counter Reformation. All religious based, the economic after effects were just a byproduct. Hardly any of it was revolts by the people. More like lords and kings fighting each other until they trashed and wrecked the system they had previously upheld, thus forcing them to give concessions to the middle class in order to bolster their labor force/armies after wiping them out.

 

[Joij21]

I have no doubt that if any serious attempt were made to revitalize the labor movement white people would quickly found out that they are not immune from state violence in this society.

Why would the state crack down on newly formed unions? Wouldn't that be more of a corporate problem? It would be the private sector that would deal with that, and so the anger would be towards the corporations and not towards the government, thus averting this whole revolutionary scenario that you fantasize about. The most that would come out of that would be people vandalizing corporate property, hardly any rebellion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Plenty of people have ideas about how to get there from here. The balance of power is favorable to the enemies of socialism. They have their wealth, almost total control of the state, and the hearts and minds of most of the land.

If you want a simple answer as to how we get started I'll give you two words: labor organization. I have no doubt that if any serious attempt were made to revitalize the labor movement white people would quickly found out that they are not immune from state violence in this society.

Furthermore, I take serious contention with the idea that paradigm shifts within a society are slow. They come about in revolutionary moments when the internal contradictions of the existing order become too great to bear.

Of course there will be opposition. The status quo rarely likes big change. Labor organization is a small part of of what it would take to move from what we have now to something Socialistic. Such a change would involve two forces: the building up of the new and the dismantling of the old. They are not the same. Increasing the power of labor does not solve the problems of transition. Increasing the power of labor does not create a more equitable society. It is one aspect of change. And as AI and automation come to the forefront, it may be less important. It might be better to talk about the bottom 50% of people and their needs rather than "the workers".

 

[Hygro]

UBI is probably the most money changing hands for the least coordination needed to implement.

 

[Samson]

Why would the state crack down on newly formed unions? Wouldn't that be more of a corporate problem? It would be the private sector that would deal with that, and so the anger would be towards the corporations and not towards the government, thus averting this whole revolutionary scenario that you fantasize about. The most that would come out of that would be people vandalizing corporate property, hardly any rebellion.

They have quite a record of it...

 

[Joij21]

They have quite a record of it...

Not in any recent memory. More like the 19th century and early 20th. Things are more subtle today, with corporations preferring more underhanded tactics while playing the victim card.

Also they pretend to "fake" hate the government, while the government does the same. Often times with the government threating to "crack down" and "trust bust" the company when in reality they work together behind closed doors.

Then you have the media which usually spins the narrative to frame that particular corporation as "evil" and nobody else. Usually calling it a "bad corporation" that "abuses their workers" without going so far as indicting the whole system as being that way. Rather it is framed like only that company is wrong and the rest are doing a good saintly job at managing things. Eventually rival CEOs of competing companies come up for interviews to discuss how horrible that particular company is and how great and glorious theirs is.

Long gone are the days when corporations would bring in Pinkerton mercenaries to kill off their striking workers. It's now all a dog and pony show with a media system that likes to pick and choose sides.

 

[Samson]

Not in any recent memory.

People have not forgotten

 

[Joij21]

People have not forgotten

But ya know what? It was all perfectly framed, so it's like it never even happened.

P.S. They didn't call Margaret Thatcher the "Iron Lady" for nothing. Doesn't surprise me she'd be behind this.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not like unions are paragons of not using violence.

If they want to go in strike sure but they also harass "scabs" or block access to various locations.

Want to strike go ahead. Abusing no union members, throwing rocks and blocking roads not so much.

 

[AmazonQueen]

None of those was through violent revolution. But rather natural reform and evolution of economic systems. Sometimes it was violent, but those examples were from failing states that couldn't keep up with the times.

IMHO violent uprisings should only be validated when the reward outweighs the risk. Committing treason for no reason is no way to go about things, especially when doing so can make things go from bad to worse.

Have you studied European history? Plenty of revolutions on the path to modern democracy over here.

 

[stinkubus]

Why would the state crack down on newly formed unions? Wouldn't that be more of a corporate problem? It would be the private sector that would deal with that, and so the anger would be towards the corporations and not towards the government, thus averting this whole revolutionary scenario that you fantasize about. The most that would come out of that would be people vandalizing corporate property, hardly any rebellion.

Because a unified labor movement is an existential threat to those who currently hold state power. The US state has reacted violently to labor organization from its inception. If you want a recent example just read up about COINTELPRO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

 

[Joij21]

Because a unified labor movement is an existential threat to those who currently hold state power. The US state has reacted violently to labor organization from its inception. If you want a recent example just read up about COINTELPRO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

That's the old government. Back when we were locked in a cold war against the soviets. The government loosened up ever since the soviets collapsed. As a matter of fact our government no longer targets leftists anymore.

 

[Joij21]

Have you studied European history? Plenty of revolutions on the path to modern democracy over here.

Modern democracy ain't capitalism. Get your facts straight.

 

[stinkubus]

That's the old government. Back when we were locked in a cold war against the soviets. The government loosened up ever since the soviets collapsed. As a matter of fact our government no longer targets leftists anymore.

Um... the organizations targets by COINTELPRO were entirely domestic in nature and had nothing to do with the Soviets. BLM protestors were targets of state violence just last year.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Modern democracy ain't capitalism. Get your facts straight.

OK Plenty of revolutions on the path to modern capitalism.
In countries like the UK and France.
I believe you even had a revolution to create the USA.