Universal Basic Income can never happen under Capitalism. It’s impossible. Were it to happen, it would literally collapse the system. Unemployment and the threat of such is the engine that keeps people in the wage slavery grind. Take that away and nobody would opt to be a wage slave as opposed to just coast on UBI and enjoy life. And even if not everyone took the UBI route, the remaining workers would have so much bargaining power, they would dictate terms to the bosses, and we can’t have that.
Stop thinking UBI has any chance of happening in any large scale.
After a few months of smoking weed and playing video games with your friends, surely you’d get bored and feel like going to, say, Tokyo or Machu Picchu or somewhere (or taking up skydiving, or building the house you always wanted, or anything else that requires money). So you’d find work during some of your free time to save up for that.
That’s what I’m talking about—how do you afford the weed and video games if UBI is only covering basic necessities? Those are luxuries too. Piracy? How do you buy the computer? If you want to play a board game, that is a luxury. D&D? Gotta get some dice. If you make art, you need paint.
It seems like some people think that luxuries are some sort of Django Unchained exploitative dinner party, but it’s really more like every item that brings joy that is not required to simply survive. I don’t want to exist in a world without luxuries, and I don’t think you have to reject them entirely to escape capitalism.
Don’t mistake this as a defense of the American capitalistic empire—I hate it as much as the next guy—but I also enjoy my cell phone, my bong, my computer, and the occasional drink. Those are luxuries that make my life enjoyable, and giving them up would equal a pretty bleak existence.
your idea of “basic necessities” seems to be punitively spartan. Surely after rent on a small apartment, electricity, food that’s neither foie gras nor Nutriloaf and such, you’d have a small amount left over, which you could use to have a drink, buy some apps for your phone/computer (and one of those would be considered a necessity), rent a movie, or similar. It wouldn’t be extravagant, but it wouldn’t be some kind of puritanical dopamine famine either.
Unless, of course, the system is run by puritans who levy a tax on joy itself for ideological reasons, in which case living in any state above a sort of suspended animation without working would be a crime. If tabloid newspapers were responsible for the design of the system, we might see that.
Personally, I like foie gras, French wine, and/or a good cigar. There is a real level of artistry in making some of these things, and I enjoy appreciating it.
Once we start trying to categorize which luxuries are reasonable, there is bound to be disagreement. If I want rarer luxuries, I would want the option to be able to work for those.
I still very much agree that there should be a basic quality of life that is socially funded and assured for all people.
My peep, after a few months of people chilling the fuck out at home, the capitalist system will have collapsed upon itself. Hell it almost collapsed in the 60s by the workers having slightly more leverage due to unions.
If people could just chill around without fearing for food and shelter, they would just help each achieve what they wanted without needing money.
And I assure you, there’s plenty of people who would rather not go to fucking Machu Picchu if it required becoming subservient. We know this historically when capitalism first started, no people wanted to go and work in factories when they could just chill in their villages and their communal farms. It required enclosures and extreme amounts of violence to change this.
We usually agree on stuff, and I’ve enjoyed this opportunity to debate with you a little.
You may be right that nobody wanted to go to the factory, but it is incorrect to act like people just chilled in their villages. Before money and professions, people spent time surviving every single day. The weak died if they could not hunt. People created the idea of the village in the first place so that people could labor on tasks they are suited for and the group has a better chance of survival—if you have the strong man hunt and the wise man lead, then everyone benefits from more food and good decisions.
Money is an extension of that idea—that not everyone is suited to produce the exact same resources—allowing people to pursue different roles and get the necessities they need for life without literally carrying chickens around to barter with. It is a convenience that allows people to operate in a system where your entire survival is not dependent on your own labor, and you need to cooperate and trade with others.
I agree that people should have the fear of homelessness and hunger removed with socialistic or communistic programs, but I would hope that the end result would be that people could pursue interests that they are passionate about, including part time or full time careers, so that their labor contributes to something they believe in rather than just being something to pay the bills. Then, that extra money is where luxuries and entertainment come in—that is the incentive to choose a job over just a hobby. It incentives with the carrot instead of the stick.
Yeah that’s a convenient myth. You should read Debt.
Separation of skill doesn’t require capitalism or money. Improvements in life are the result of the scientific method. I’m not suggesting primitivism. I am pointing out that human psychology doesn’t work the way you think.
I’ll check out that book, thanks.