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

Wed Aug 10 19:18:01 CEST 2016

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 at 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 at 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