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

[Orsan Senalp]

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