[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] who is for and who is against basic income

[Orsan]

:) 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 at 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 at 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/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160810/10be3706/attachment.html>