August 2016 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] will the basic income create inflation, a nuanced analysis
by Michel Bauwens 11 Aug '16

11 Aug '16

interesting, as bob haugen says, for many people, especially in the US, capitalism is the only horizon they know, and they seek to improve it, but it rather disproves the idea of a neoliberal plot, since this seems a genuine attempt to improve some of the ills of the system as the author perceives it, i happen to disagree with the premises, but it shows the possibility of a broad coalition of moving towards a UBI, that goes beyond the majority of left-oriented citizens who already favour it, to sectors such as social enterpreneurships, fair trade and associated social liberal types, Michel On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The previous article in the series by the same author. Highlighting is > mine. > > > *Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?* > *An answer to a growing question of the 21st century* > > *What would you do?* > > So what exactly would you do, if you were guaranteed $1,000 per month for > the rest of your life? And yes, that’s around what the amount would most > likely be here in the United States, at least at first. So think about that > amount for a moment, and don’t think about what others might do with it, > think about what you would do with it. Perhaps you would do more of what > you enjoy. So what is that? > > *Didn’t they try this in Russia?* > > You’ve compared this idea to communism, so let’s focus on that first. In > doing so, let’s also talk about what was actually done in the former Soviet > Union and not what was intended. What they actually did there, simply put, > was transfer the means of production from those who ran the businesses > based on market forces, into the hands of a bureaucracy who made decisions > based not on market forces but on politics and cronyism. This is a terrible > idea. But why is this a terrible idea? > The market works because it is a means of figuring out what people want, > the degree to which they want it, and the means of getting it to them. > Let’s take bread as an example. In Russia, they thought everyone should > have bread. That was a decision made by those in power, and they then tried > to make that happen, whether everyone wanted bread or not. This did not > work so well, and there were shortages. Plus, those with the connections > got more than enough while others got none. Trying to give bread to > everyone, although noble in gesture, was a failure. > > *The magic of markets* > > So how do we do it here in America right now? The makers of bread make > bread, and sell it to stores, so that people with the money to buy bread, > can buy bread. If bread isn’t getting bought, less bread is made. If all > the bread is getting bought, more bread is made. Those who make the bread > aren’t making a top-down decision on how much bread to make. They are > listening to market forces, and the decision is bottom-up. This is perfect, > right? Just the right amount of bread is getting made and at just the right > price. No, it’s not. Why? And how can this be improved? > Right now only those with the means to pay for bread have a voice for > bread. We love to use the term, “voting with our dollars”. So is the > outcome of that daily election accurate? Does everyone have a voice for > bread? No, they don’t. There are people with no voice, because they have no > dollars. The only way to make sure the market is working as efficiently > and effectively as possible to determine what should be getting made, how > much to make of it, and where to distribute it, is to make sure everyone > has at the very minimum, the means to vote for bread. If they have that > money and don’t buy bread, there’s no need to make and distribute that > bread. If the bread is bought, that shows people actually want that bread. So > how do we accomplish this improvement of capitalistic markets? > > *With unconditional basic income (UBI).* > > By guaranteeing everyone has at the very least, the minimum amount of > voice with which to speak in the marketplace for basic goods and services, > we can make sure that the basics needs of life — those specific and > universally important to all goods and services like food and shelter — are > being created and distributed more efficiently. It makes no sense to make > sure 100% of the population gets exactly the same amount of bread. Some may > want more than others, and some may want less. It also doesn’t make sense > to only make bread for 70% of the population, thinking that is the true > demand for bread, when actually 80% of the population wants it, but 10% > have zero means to voice their demand in the market. Bread makers would > happily sell more bread and bread eaters would happily buy more bread. It’s > a win-win to more accurately determine just the right amount. > And that’s basic income. It’s a win-win for the market and those who > comprise the market. It’s a way to improve on capitalism and even > democracy, by making sure everyone has the minimum amount of voice. > > *Can we really improve capitalism or is this just theory?* > > If you want actual evidence of how much better capitalism would work with > basic income, look at the pilot project in Namibia: > “The village school reported higher attendance rates and that the children > were better fed and more attentive. Police statistics showed a 36.5% drop > in crime since the introduction of the grants. Poverty rates declined from > 86% to 68% (97% to 43% when controlled for migration). Unemployment dropped > as well, from 60% to 45%, and there was a 29% increase in average earned > income, excluding the basic income grant. These results indicate that basic > income grants can not only alleviate poverty in purely economic terms, but > may also jolt the poor out of the poverty cycle, helping them find work, > start their own businesses, and attend school.” > Think about that for a second. Crime plummeted and people given a basic > income actually created their own jobs and actually ended up with even > greater earnings as a result. > Or how about this psychology experiment as evidence for increased > productivity? > “The participants given a choice between either two or three puzzles each > spent about 5 minutes working on the puzzle they selected. But those who > were also given the option not to participate spent about 7 minutes working > on their selected puzzle. Explicitly choosing to do something rather than > not to do it greatly increased the amount of time people spent on the task.” > This suggests that if we create the option for people to be able to choose > not to work, genuinely choosing to work may result in even greater > commitment, because it is suddenly a matter of choice and not force. Choice > is a powerful motivator. > Speaking of motivation, what does the science have to say about money as > an effective motivator for complex and creative tasks? > > *Larger rewards lead to poorer performance.* > > “This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one > of the most ignored. I spent the last couple of years looking at the > science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic > motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even > close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science > knows and what business does... That’s actually fine for many kinds of 20th > century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, > reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work, often doesn’t work, and often > does harm.” —Dan Pink > In the 21st century, as we continue quickly automating away half our jobs > in the next 20 years — jobs less cognitively-complex and more > physically-laborious — we need to enable ourselves to freely pursue our > more creative and complex ventures. Some of the best work happening right > now, is the stuff being done in our free time — that is unpaid — like > Wikipedia and our many other open-source community creations, not to > mention all the care work performed for our young and elderly. Basic income > is a means of recognizing this unpaid work as having great societal value, > and further enabling it. > Or how about the multiplier effect as evidence of enhanced capitalism? > “All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple > effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, > standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the > national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a > high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.” > This means that by redirecting that money pooling at the top doing > comparatively very little, accumulating in ever increasing amounts through > continual redistribution upwards from the bottom and middle of the income > spectrum, and recirculating that clotted money back down to the bottom and > middle, this would actually expand the entire economy while making it more > sustainable and more inclusive. This is how the body works. This is how > engines work. This is how systems work. > A system cannot exist in perpetuity that is designed for one-way flow. > Thomas Piketty has recently demonstrated in his sweeping Capital in the > 21st Century that our current system is exactly that — one way. It is up to > us to create a true circulatory system for the engine of capitalism. > Without monetary circulation, the system as a whole will come to a grinding > halt. If Piketty is right, then holding on to an ideology of income and > wealth redistribution as “theft” may just be like a heart refusing to pump > blood anywhere but the brain. > > *Capitalism 2.0 sounds great and all but can we afford it?* > > Basic income is entirely affordable given all the current and hugely > wasteful means-tested programs full of unnecessary bureaucracy that can be > consolidated into it. And the cost also depends greatly on the chosen plan. > A plan of $12,000 per U.S. citizen over 18, and $4,000 per citizen under 18 > amounts to a revenue need of $2.98 trillion, which after all the programs > that can be eliminated are rolled into it, requires an additional need of > $1.28 trillion or so. So where do we come up with an additional $1.28 > trillion? > • A land value tax has been estimated to be a source of revenue of about > $1.7 trillion. > • A flat tax of around 40% would be sufficient. Due to the way such a tax > works in combination with UBI, this would effectively be a reduction in > taxes for about 80% of the population. > • A 10% value added tax (VAT) has been estimated to be a source of revenue > of about $750 billion. That could be increased to reach $1.3 trillion or > added to other sources of additional revenue. > • These other sources of revenue could be a financial transaction tax > ($350 billion), a carbon tax ($125 billion), or taxing capital gains like > ordinary income and creating new upper tax brackets ($160 billion). Did you > know that for fifty years — between 1932 and 1982 — the top income tax rate > averaged 82%? Our current highest rate is 39%. > • There is a place in the world that already pays a regular dividend to > everyone living there, universally to child and adult, through a wealth > fund it has created through royalty fees paid by companies for the rights > to profit from its natural resources. This place is Alaska, and the > “Alaska Model” could be applied anywhere as a means of granting a basic > income as the social dividend from a sovereign wealth fund of > resource-based revenue. > • We could even get more creative by thinking about how we go about giving > away other forms of shared resources royalty-free to corporations, like the > use of our public airwaves, and patents/copyrights that should have entered > the public domain long ago but haven’t thanks to corporate lobbying from > those like Disney to protect their profits off of creations like Mickey > Mouse. Did you know the Happy Birthday song isn’t even in the public > domain? Companies should pay us instead of politicians to keep things out > of the public domain, and we could use this revenue as an additional > means of growing a resource-based wealth fund. > Suffice to say, there exist plenty of funding options, any one of which > are more than sufficient, that if combined could potentially allow for a > larger basic income, or a reduction or even elimination of income taxes > entirely. > > *Okay, it’s affordable… but wouldn’t people stop working?* > > We studied this question in the 1970s here in the United States, back when > Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) was a goal of President Nixon and the House > even successfully passed a bill for it. The findings from the accompanying > large-scale experiments done in cities like Seattle and Denver found that > surprisingly, hardly anyone actually stopped working, and instead reduced > their hours slightly, with men reducing their hours the least — by a > maximum of 8%. This slight reduction in hours was then replicated to even > less of a degree in Canada’s Minimum Income (Mincome) experiment, with men > choosing to work as little as 1% fewer hours. > Meanwhile, we find ourselves today working too much. Having drifted away > from the 40-hour work week, we now find 1 out of every 3 of us working more > than 50 hours, with many even working more than 60 hours. And what are the > effects of this? > “New studies show that working more very seldom produces better results. > Employees work many more hours now than they have in the past, but it’s > coming at the expense of health, happiness, and even productivity. While it > looks good to be the first to arrive and the last to leave work each day, > it turns out that putting in 60 hours of work each week may do more harm > than good in achieving end results. Through the data, one thing becomes > extremely clear: to boost productivity and foster excellent employees, the > best thing businesses can do is to bring back the 40-hour work week.” > We want to start working less. It would be good for overall productivity > to be working less. In fact, in certain circumstances, we shouldn’t even be > working at all. It’s called presenteeism, and happens when people refuse to > call in sick. > “According to various studies, the total cost of presenteeism to U.S. > employers falls anywhere between $150 billion to $250 billion each year, > and those costs are on the rise as presenteeism becomes more frequent in > tight economic times.” > Right now people are going to work when they actually should not be going > to work, and this is having a negative effect on the entire economy and > even our overall health. We need people who are feeling sick to stay home > when they should be staying home and not feeling forced to work because > they absolutely have to earn that money, or out of fear of losing their > jobs if they actually take a sick day. > It’s kind of curious isn’t it? Here we are worrying people will work less > if we guarantee a basic income, and the reality of the situation is that > people are presently working too much, and it is costing all of us. Combine > this with the fact there’s 3 people seeking every 1 available job, and the > obvious solution is that we actually want people to be able to choose to > work less, to free up more positions for those seeking jobs who are > currently being excluded from the labor market. > But still, what about those few who WOULD stop working? > Through the elimination of the welfare trap thanks to basic income, this > would mean that anyone choosing not to work — instead opting to just live > off their basic incomes — would be earning less than everyone choosing to > work for additional income. This could not only decrease unemployment and > increase productivity, but simultaneously fix the situation we have right > now, where it’s possible for the unemployed to actually earn more in > equivalent benefits than the cash incomes of those who are employed. > Plus, the very ability of people to not need a job, makes it that much > harder for employers to exploit employees with insufficient wages and poor > working conditions. The ability to actually say “No”, means the > empowerment of labor on an individual level — no unions required. > Simply put, basic income makes work actually pay. > > *Why would (insert who you dislike) ever agree to this?* > > The idea of basic income cuts across all party lines. From the extreme > right to the extreme left, we are hearing calls for basic income. Those on > the right love its potential to shrink the size of government and do away > with minimum wage laws, while those on the left love its potential to > reduce inequality and once and for all put an end to poverty. Basic income > is not “left” or “right”. It’s forward. > So why should you support unconditional basic income? Why should you have > supported the abolition of slavery back in the late 19th century? Why > should you have supported the right for people other than rich white men to > vote? Why should you have supported our landing on the Moon? Why should you > have supported the ending of the Vietnam war, or the beginning of LBJ’s war > on poverty? > Because you want to make our world a better place. That’s why. > > autonomias.net > twitter.com/TebeoTeo > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------- > ...buscar y saber reconocer quién y qué, en medio del infierno, no es > infierno, y hacer que dure, y dejarle espacio... > > On 10 August 2016 at 20:27, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > wrote: > >> this is a good article on the subject: >> >> https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic- >> income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7#.ob51tv878 >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: >> http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income
by Orsan Senalp 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

I missed empirical evidence Dmitry provides but certainly support to Varufokis by as he calls them genuine neo-liberals is the best proof of such 'plots'; these are more liberal wing of neoliberals 'cooperating' with conservative in the transnational and systemic struggle against national capitals and Brics based global capitalists. Orsan > On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:19, Dmytri Kleiner <dk(a)trick.ca> wrote: > >> On , Michel Bauwens wrote: >> the polls suggest that the idea that the UBI is a neoliberal plot is >> empirically false, >> at the most you could say that some of the proposals of UBI may come >> from neoliberal circles as well > > It is empirically certain that UBI is a neoliberal plot, we have the documents to prove it. > > Please try to understand that the fact that other people also support UBI, who are not part of this plot, is not proof against. > > Logic! Use it! > > Cheers. > > > > -- > Dmytri Kleiner > > http://dmytri.info > @dmytri

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income
by Orsan Senalp 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

I think Peter and Michel pointed this, I am tended to agree - I see those activists, also ex-NGO / union / project experts as unemployed or precarious workers who could benefit by liberating time to peruse activism or radical organizing. > On 10 Aug 2016, at 17:22, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I can't remember who mentioned this in this fascinating conversation, > but I would like to concede one other point to those arguing against > UBI: that some of the people pushing it are PB activists who have > precarious incomes and want it to support their activism. > > To be upfront, that is one (but not the only) reason that I like UBI. > We don't need it ourselves, we live on US social security that was > extracted from our past paychecks. But that functions for us as a > basic income and we can devote fulltime to trying to aid the > transformation to a better economic system. > > My background is peasant and working-class, but I have class-climbed a > bit by making my living after about age 35 as a self-taught computer > programmer and part-time activist. But we have many friends who could > do a lot more activism if they had some income. > > I think this is related to Peter's pro-UBI argument about an opening. > > On the other hand, I don't foresee UBI in the US in any near or > mid-term future. Another reason that, while this is a fascinating > discussion, I am not personally involved in the outcome. > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Orsan <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> :) Dymtri you have thrown a good stone in the water, we try to take it out, >> but nice discus sion indeed. >> >> To go back to Peter's, Michel's and Ursula's points, I think if left or >> progressive forces could bring it forward as part of a broader program; >> including universal social public services, shorter (4 hours) work day, >> legitimate alternative currencies, so on so forth and linked to alternative >> mode of production (I call it transnational-value-unchains) universal income >> can play a good and even rEvolutionary role. Solely and if it would >> substitute public services, and legitimize global slavery regime, of course >> left neoliberals would love this happening. If every one agrees with this >> there seems to be no disagreement at all among all different participants to >> this exchange? I wonder if there is anyone would be supporting only UBI >> without universal social - Free public services? >> >> Orsan >> >> On 10 aug. 2016, at 16:35, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >> >> hi Dmytri, >> >> obviously I use another logic >> >> my logic is >> >> some of the people who advance UBI have a neoliberal agenda (including the >> neoliberal left as suggested by TD) >> >> that doesn't prove that most of the UBI tradition and proponents have that >> agenda (that is in my view, certainly disproven) >> >> now of course I am very interested in a bibliography that proves that some >> of the neoliberals who support UBI are involved in a plot, and I hope you >> can provide it, it would be very interesting for us all >> >> but that would of course not prove your claim, >> >> your claim to be true would have to prove that other propositions for a UBI >> do not exist, and a knowledge of the future that the majority of proponents >> would loose out in any conflict >> >> this is also a prediction that you know in advance how the social struggle >> (or class struggle) would end, and in way that is discontinuous with the >> history of social advances in the past (where social advances where the >> result of long struggles, massive mobilizations, compromises, and the >> self-preservation logics of capital) >> >> I'm not arguing of course that these advances were unilateral victories, I >> am only arguing that they were not total victories and plots for capital >> >> you have a lot more to prove in that text, for example that a basic income >> is incompatible with a basic outcome ... >> >> I don't mind speculation at all, but when speculation is couched in the >> language of absolute certainty, then it requires a lot of proof .. >> >> as they say, extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence >> >> but I welcome very much the documentation on the neoliberal side of the >> debate, >> >> Michel >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Dmytri Kleiner <dk(a)trick.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On , Michel Bauwens wrote: >>>> >>>> the polls suggest that the idea that the UBI is a neoliberal plot is >>>> empirically false, >>>> >>>> at the most you could say that some of the proposals of UBI may come >>>> from neoliberal circles as well >>> >>> >>> It is empirically certain that UBI is a neoliberal plot, we have the >>> documents to prove it. >>> >>> Please try to understand that the fact that other people also support UBI, >>> who are not part of this plot, is not proof against. >>> >>> Logic! Use it! >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dmytri Kleiner >>> >>> http://dmytri.info >>> @dmytri >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >>

1 0

will the basic income create inflation, a nuanced analysis
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

this is a good article on the subject: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cau… -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income
by Orsan 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

What if it is demanded not for all but only for workers, unemployed or well employed, students, artists that are squeezed or structurally flexibilised into low wage jelly mode, plus 'illegal' / paperless immigrants, and domestic workers only? Next to all others, and made optional, means you need to apply and show your situation? Since to me low working hours, and other demands like free public services are also granted by the state at the end, am I mistaken? Orsan > On 10 aug. 2016, at 18:47, Dmytri Kleiner <dk(a)trick.ca> wrote: > > > No, it cannot be formulated in a more radical way, as a more radical way would imply a p2p/non-market way, which obviously doesn't need a a state-granted basic income. > > We can attach additional demands to it, which would constrain its negative effects and make it potentially beneficial on balance, however, while UBI requires these demands for it to be beneficial, the needed demands do not require UBI to be beneficial, so the question becomes would adding UBI to this program of demands make the program more or less politically viable. > > My position is that adding UBI makes the program less viable, as mentioned, polls show that unconditional benefits and benefits for rich people are not widely supported, and thus adding UBI only hurts such campaign. This is to be expected, given class composition. > > As winning UBI without the additional demands that make it beneficial would be extremely harmful, it deosn't make sense to support it. Others feel differently here. > > As far as I can tell, this is the only open question: Would adding UBI to a program that includes wage protection and the reversal of austerity policies make such a program more or less likely to get mass support. > > I also feel that the marginal benefits of UBI, even with the program of demands required to make it beneficial, is not significant enough to warrant it's inclusion, even it was politically viable. > > Cheers. > > > >> On , Orsan Senalp wrote: >> Sorry yes I saw it, it did posted on the list, was just reading some >> off the email and it sounded like discussion is going round. So may be >> it can be thought not as 'universal income' as promoted or supported >> by left-neo-liberals but can it be reformulated, in a more radical way >> do you think? Or why should it hurt the other demands but complete >> them, that part I didn't get? >> Orsan >>>> On 10 Aug 2016, at 17:16, Dmytri Kleiner <dk(a)trick.ca> wrote: >>>> On , Orsan wrote: >>>> I think if left >>>> or progressive forces could bring it forward as part of a broader >>>> program; >>> Yes, I cover this in detail in my response to Ursula, and conclude that adding UBI to this program is not needed and only hurts the campaign for the other demands in the program. >>> Did this not make the list? >>> -- >>> Dmytri Kleiner >>> http://dmytri.info >>> @dmytri > > -- > Dmytri Kleiner > > http://dmytri.info > @dmytri

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income
by Orsan Senalp 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

Sorry yes I saw it, it did posted on the list, was just reading some off the email and it sounded like discussion is going round. So may be it can be thought not as 'universal income' as promoted or supported by left-neo-liberals but can it be reformulated, in a more radical way do you think? Or why should it hurt the other demands but complete them, that part I didn't get? Orsan > On 10 Aug 2016, at 17:16, Dmytri Kleiner <dk(a)trick.ca> wrote: > >> On , Orsan wrote: >> >> I think if left >> or progressive forces could bring it forward as part of a broader >> program; > > Yes, I cover this in detail in my response to Ursula, and conclude that adding UBI to this program is not needed and only hurts the campaign for the other demands in the program. > > Did this not make the list? > > > > > -- > Dmytri Kleiner > > http://dmytri.info > @dmytri

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income
by Orsan 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

Agree, I see your point and increase Teo, I recently re-read the trilogy of Negri and Hardt, they fail to provide a good analysis of the enemy, but we know they know. Then their target is determined as the conservatives, obviously. They even put forward suggestion of alliance with liberal industrial capital, fraction of global and transnational capitalist class. I argued before that, and in the recent paper and presentation I shared elaborated a bit; is on the one hand we have oil-wall street-military-cum-part of silicon valley complex (big five). And on the other industrial-financial-mostly hardware producing Parts of Silicon Valley. Like Naomi Klein, Negri and most of the leftist argument support, or are talking positively about the 'mixed' economy' agenda of the letters. With this meaning neo-liberalism mixed with some social protection. When you listen Free Lancers Union, Platform Cooperativism people, New economy coalition' change vision, so on, their arguments come very close to the concepts of industrial 'liberal capital'; even 'Antropocene', 'commons' as UBI, are promoted by these; that is why I have been calling the part of seemingly radical left as delayists, aligning with others calling themselves 'accelerationists'. Total sum in my opinion, is neutral, so zero change. Since with a left-face arguments come to replace real radical transition visions; by aligning with the industrialist fraction of global capital. Take Gulen movement, in relation with a click in CIA aiming to advancing this agenda in Muslim countries too. They even hooked up people like Wallerstein. People thinks about Zaman (means Time) as something like the Guardian... Unbeliavable. So either some people are not able to read the enemy line, their configuration, and clashing strategies, at global and national levels simultaneously; or they are for analysis or practical reasons sidelining with the agenda of the one side of the enemy. What I can not understand, while Syriza attack squats, mayor Podemos jails street vendor Union members, Obama destroys the world, Lula, Chavez, Morales does what they do... Who is going to advance people's agenda, be it UBI or anything else? No one asks this question, from among the supporters of progressive policy. O. > On 10 aug. 2016, at 15:12, Theodoros Karyotis <tkaryotis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > this automatic identification of the binary forces of two-party systems as pro-capitalist and pro-social has no empirical basis. > who is more cutting-edge neoliberal? sarkozy or hollande? cameron or blair? trump or clinton? samaras or tsipras? in terms of outcomes, not of rhetorics, I would always say the second. > > rather, they are two different kinds of pro-capital agendas, one appeals more on consensus and social cohesion and the other more on tradition, law and order. when one fails, the other one is already waiting in line to finish the job. > > accordingly, a UBI can be a tool in the hands of the neoliberal left, should the neoliberal right fail to reach the same ends by brute force. > > autonomias.net > twitter.com/TebeoTeo > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ...buscar y saber reconocer quién y qué, en medio del infierno, no es infierno, y hacer que dure, y dejarle espacio... > >> On 10 August 2016 at 14:59, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >> hi orsan, >> >> if the basic income is in the interest of capital, you would suspect that pro-capitalist forces would be in favour, and pro-social forces would be opposed >> >> policy is always preceded by ideological discussions, for example, as you yourself indicated, the neoliberal policies were prepared by the long journey of the mount pelerin society >> >> the evidence suggests the contrary, it suggests that the UBI proposals were largely prepared within progressive forces, and that is where the support for the UBI largely resides >> >> the one right wing party that mostly supports the basic income, is Geert Wilders, but this is because they have the support of working class neighborhoods which feel abandoned by left neoliberalism .. >> >> the polls suggest that the idea that the UBI is a neoliberal plot is empirically false, >> >> at the most you could say that some of the proposals of UBI may come from neoliberal circles as well >> >> you would then have to argue that these forces want the UBI to destroy social security, but if you read the discussions in silicon valley, it is much more against the fear of precarisation , i.e. that automation destroys the possibility to 'realize' capital >> >> capital needs workers to create surplus value, and consumers to realize that surplus value through their buying ... while individual capital is interested in diminishing costs, including labor costs, capital as a whole needs a minimum amount of buying power, hence the more advanced system thinkers of capital are very concerned with that loss of purchasing power through the diminishing of the number of workers, hence the speculation around the basic income in these circles >> >> the shape a UBI would take, depends on the balance of power in society, but the incipient growth of support amongst progressive forces, suggests that this may become one of the big social battles of the future, and hence, much more likely to be adhered too as a necessary compromise by capital to save the system as a whole >> >> there is no reason to see UBI as linked to a destruction of the social state, >> >> it can be seen as a new advance in the long historical struggle of the working class, >> >> Michel >> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Michel, what does the out comes tell in your opinion? >>> >>> >>>> On 10 Aug 2016, at 13:35, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Some people suggest that the basic income is a campaign by capital , that it is a neoliberal proposal, >>>> >>>> yet it would seem that the sociological reality is entirely contrary to that claim, >>>> >>>> here is research from the netherlands, which clearly correlates support for the UBI to progressive forces, and opposition to it from the right: >>>> >>>> "National poll: 40 percent in favor; 15 percent don’t know; 45 percent against basic income >>>> In a recent national poll, 40 percent of the Dutch population declared themselves to be in favor of a basic income, with 45 percent against and 15 percent expressing uncertainty. The voters of the three left wing parties are in favor, with their endorsement breaking down as follows: GreenLeft 60 percent, the Socialist Party 54 percent, and PvdA 53 percent. >>>> >>>> The votes of Democrats 66 are divided, with 44 percent in favor and 45 percent against. The followers of the right wing parties, by contrast, are quite clearly against basic income: 73 percent against in People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, and 61 percent against in CDA. It is interesting to note that voters of the populist right wing Party for Freedom, headed by Geert Wilders, are also divided, with 37 percent in favor, 46 percent against and 17 percent uncertain. The Party for Freedom is the biggest party in current polls." >>>> >>>> (http://basicincome.org/news/2016/08/basic-income-post-social-democratic-eco…) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org >>>> >>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >>>> >>>> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >>>> >>>> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list >>>> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >> >> >> >> -- >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org >> >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetworkedLabour mailing list >> NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour >

1 0

a list of supporters of the UBI
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

can you spot the neoliberal ? Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, André Gorz, Varoufakis, Toni Negri, Standing, Chomsky, Reich, Klein, Franco 'Bifo' Berrardi, Van Parijs, Graeber. Black Lives Matter -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: FW:
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kanth, Rajani <rkanth(a)fas.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:09 AM Subject: FW: To: "michelsub2004(a)gmail.com" <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> The Great Impediment (For Noam Chomsky) My critique of Eurocentric Modernism (EM) lays its manifold ills bare. However, only those with a full knowledge of (EM) social science and social history will glean its import. The rest – much of the EM intelligentsia - will see it, I regret superficially: as an ‘externalist’ diatribe holding Europe responsible for the ills of the modern world. Indeed, the superficial kind have already turned a deaf ear (or a blind eye) to my writings. Now , as it happens, I have the facts to prove my platitudes: but , of late, I care not to provide it in each instance. Life is, simply, too short: and cares are long, far too long (these notes, for the most part, I write in under 15 minutes, daily, so one can’t address all issues at once). For those who are serious, I might add, it is not an insuperable task to read my books and decide for themselves. If they then find themselves yet in disagreement, I am virtually certain that they are, in effect, in disagreement with verifiable facts: i.e. , they are driven by cultural pride to offer resistance. So be it. I know enough of European mores to know that they would far prefer their own self-criticism to a critique from the ‘Other’: it is somewhat equivalent to men who ‘understand’ feminist issues, personally, but quail when accosted by angry feminists – at which they become vehemently ’defensive’. But I am not of their ilk: few are more aware of the inadequacies – ontic, epistemic – of the “Other’ than I. And I would not be even slightly ‘defensive’ when those are pointed out: indeed, I myself point them out as/when needed. In other words, I am not ethnocentric (could be a lapse on my part?). Nor do I project a ‘good vs evil’ story of our kind. I do suggest a ‘mammalian’ vs ‘reptilian’ ( as sets of traits) contest at play, but that is not at all the equivalent of the former. To an extent, it is not ‘moral judgments’ at all that are at issue. It is palpable differences in ideology and practices that can lead to outcomes that, in a realist/rationalist sense, are to be preferred/resisted. Stated starkly, human survival is at issue. One set of traits (EM) spell our collective destruction, in the near future: the other, our continued survival in the usual prosaic, hum-drum, unromantic manner. So it is NOT a debate over ideals, or utopias. Or East and West. *** So, what is this Great Impediment (to amelioration, to a drawback, to a return to less destructive modes of living)? I will be expedient, and sum it up succinctly. The EM paradigm has resulted in the deep ‘embedding’ of untrammeled self-interest, amongst its audience (i.e,, the vast majority of the peoples under its sway, East or West) to the point where there is little hope for an en masse embrace of more benign societal possibilities for the higher good. This is another key difference between the EM world and the Other. We may all be ‘selfish’ today, the world over: but its degree, intensity , and scope is much muted in societies still within a traditionalist ‘ideological’ (philosophical)cast where communal norms still have some core value and significance. To be sure, they can still act, and do act, asocially, even anti-socially, but remain in full awareness of the transgression as a violation of norms. In short, they may be immoral, but they cannot be amoral. And so it allows, under the right impetus, for a return to sanity. The ‘Post-Human’ , amoral , cast – made up of the prior mentioned traits – is what really prevents societies like the US to ‘correct’ pathological , suicidal, ways of living/functioning , even when there is a gathering ‘awareness’ that all is not well. They know, but they cannot move: why? Because no personal , material loss is acceptable, in such psyches, for any cause. And such ‘correction’ as is needed today will involve a diminution of personal, material , monetary wealth – or power at the level of the rulers - (albeit at a substantive reduction of societal costs and enhancement of societal benefits). I am not talking of the very thin fringe – that still exists - that is, possibly, readily sacrificial of present (material) benefit for future (non-material) gains. I am speaking of the vast populace. Whence every effort at improvement has to be ‘sold” ,materially, on the lines of, e.g., “ a green economy will provide more jobs and generate more wealth, etc” : which is rather like implying that honesty is good policy - because you could get richer that way. In effect a society based on ‘universal egoism’(self-interest) is not a human society at all but a marvel of social (EM) engineering: it is a pathological, abnormal, entity . This ‘model’ is quintessentially EM : hailing from the notion of society as a ‘contract’ (that is celebrated , instead of execrated, in EM literature). It is not. Anthropic society is a balance of affections, not interests (consider its ontic base, the family, for a few second to fathom this). So EM societies rest on epistemic error, embodying a self-destructive ‘ethic’ (egoism). This is not true even of otherwise ‘bourgeois’ formations such as Denmark, or India , which yet retain, if very thinly, their original anthropic cast ( in the case of the former, a very palpable ‘tribal’ self-awareness also helps retain that mother lode). The mnemonics of anthropic societies are still extant, in their case, if only in some ‘sub’ stratum of consciousness. But it is enough. It will suffice. Regeneration is possible in such instances (and they are numerous), and so there is an ontic base for ‘hope’ (or rather, positive expectations). But where, for the most part, even the memory of ‘non-selfish’ attitudes and motivations (other than in institutions such as the Army or a Church where they are a sine qua non) has been systematically extinguished, as in Anglo-Norman societies, the task is harder. The ‘Hobbesian’ cast is sunk too deep. Ordinary ‘rationalist’ means, thereby, will not suffice. Kennedy’s famous ‘Ask not what the country can do for you…” trope was a great rhetorical soundbyte and idyll: if, also, regrettably, pure banana oil. Try selling that on Main Street. That is why I have suggested that only Charisma can break the spell, or a cataclysm that, suddenly and powerfully, reveals our desperate co-dependence masked by EM ideology. You know which alternative would be the preferred one. But, if I am right, which option is ‘preferred’ will also depend upon whether we are of a moral - or an amoral cast. [© R.Kanth 2016] -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

who is for and who is against basic income
by Michel Bauwens 10 Aug '16

10 Aug '16

Some people suggest that the basic income is a campaign by capital , that it is a neoliberal proposal, yet it would seem that the sociological reality is entirely contrary to that claim, here is research from the netherlands, which clearly correlates support for the UBI to progressive forces, and opposition to it from the right: "*National poll: 40 percent in favor; 15 percent don’t know; 45 percent against basic income* In a recent national poll, 40 percent of the Dutch population declared themselves to be in favor of a basic income, with 45 percent against and 15 percent expressing uncertainty. The voters of the three left wing parties are in favor, with their endorsement breaking down as follows: GreenLeft 60 percent, the Socialist Party 54 percent, and PvdA 53 percent. The votes of Democrats 66 are divided, with 44 percent in favor and 45 percent against. The followers of the right wing parties, by contrast, are quite clearly against basic income: 73 percent against in People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, and 61 percent against in CDA. It is interesting to note that voters of the populist right wing Party for Freedom, headed by Geert Wilders, are also divided, with 37 percent in favor, 46 percent against and 17 percent uncertain. The Party for Freedom is the biggest party in current polls." ( http://basicincome.org/news/2016/08/basic-income-post-social-democratic-eco… ) -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 2