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@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@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@gmail.com> wrote:

Michel, what does the out comes tell in your opinion? 


On 10 Aug 2016, at 13:35, Michel Bauwens <michel@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-economic-pathway-21st-century/)


--
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour



--

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour