On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, at 06:45 AM, furtherfield wrote:
> Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer
>
> By Dmytri Kleiner.
>
> The reason many people on the left are excited about proposals for a
> Universal Basic Income (UBI) is that it acknowledges economic
> inequality and its social consequences. In reality, however, UBI
> provides political cover for the elimination of social programs and
> the privatization of social services.
>
> “The notion that we can solve inequality within capitalism by
> indiscriminately giving people money and leaving the provisioning of
> all social needs to corporations is extremely dubious. While this view
> is to be expected among those, like Murray and Friedman, who promote
> capitalism, it is not compatible with anticapitalism.
http://robmyers.org/2016/05/27/left-universal-basic-income/
"""The Universal Basic Income proposed by the Left is different from
that proposed by the Right. Rather than replacing the welfare state it
is a supplement to it.
As Srnicek & Williams note in “Inventing The Future”, 2015 (p.297):
"The conservative argument for a basic income – which must be avoided at
all costs – is that it should simply replace the welfare state by
providing a lump sum of money to every individual. In this scenario, the
UBI would just become a vector of increased marketisation, transforming
social services into private markets. Rather than being some aberration
of neoliberalism, it would simply extend its essential gesture by
creating new markets. By contrast, the demand made here is for UBI as a
supplement to a revived welfare state."
In the footnote to this, they quote Alyssa Battistoni, “Alive in the
Sunshine”, Jacobin 13, 2014 (p.4):
"A UBI programme would ideally involve a transformation of the welfare
state. Programmes that provide services must be kept and expanded – for
example, healthcare, childcare, housing, public transport and internet
access. All of these should be immediate goals of the left, not only for
their inherent good but also because expanding public services is
necessary for reducing overall energy consumption."
And in response to the question of why the rich should be given money as
well as the poor, they respond (p.296):
"As there would be no means-testing or other measures required to
receive the UBI, it would break free of the disciplinary nature of
welfare capitalism."
It is perfectly possible to disagree with any or all of this. That does
however first require acknowledging it. And there’s a lot more where
this came from…"""
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
