Society/Culture A basic income for citizens.

[VineyIsLORD]

Agree with most of that, especially the role of the organised labour movement. But part of capitalism is those workers owning at least part of the fruits of their labour via wages with which they can then purchase their own capital and create wealth. (I'm not debating that these were often too low compared to the profits their work created) Under feudalism you worked someone else's land all day and were fed, clothed and housed enough so you could wake up the next day and repeat. There was no alternative.

The way i see it, capitalism creates wealth, and socialism ensures a fairer distribution. It is the balance of these principles that provides quality of life for the masses. I don't have much time for polemic. Yes there was massive inequality of wealth in Melbourne, but if we applied pure socialism from the start nobody would have gone and found the gold, would they? No point distributing wealth when there is none to distribute.

Society needs a balance. We don't want child war eastern Europe with no wealth to divide, and don't want 21st century USA with its entrenched poverty traps.

Feudalism is a lot closer to what we have, globally, right now than anything.

Labour creates wealth, capitalism allows people to profit from that labour without actually putting any labour in themselves. It allows people to exploit other peoples wealth creating ventures and skim off the top.

To provide an example/theoretical for you: If you are the driving force behind a companies success, and you put a lot of work into it the way a CEO does for example, then you aren't generating wealth via capitalism. Your labour is the most valuable labour in that company, and you deserve to be compensated accordingly. Capitalism is the share holder who just owns the company and contributes nothing.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

It certainly does appear to be one giant pyramid scheme raping the earth for all its worth. It may be dying, but it still has a bit left in it, and i think you've alluded to, poorer people in Asia and Africa are the likely beneficiaries.

The middle classes in the West are likely to be the ones least happy in relative terms

Man there's a reason they have suicide nets at iPhone factories in China.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That graph clearly shows a huge spike in real wages correlating with the rise of the organised labour movement and associated anti-colonialism movement beginning in the late 1800's. Even through the two biggest wars in history. With a recent drop off correlating to the austerity measures of currently failing capitalist England.

Whilst the era of industrialisation and capitalism without organised labour is rather unimpressive. In fact throughout the entire 1700's and 1800's real wages never even reached the lofty heights of the 1400's!

In relation to capitalism requiring lower wages overall, the reason they haven't dropped significantly in England since WW2 is because low skilled jobs have been offshored. But that is done now and workers in a previously decimated Asia now want better wages. Where is the capitalist system going to find ever decreasing wages now?

Thanks for proving my point buddy!

Im sure Hobsbawn said that capitalism was saved from itself through allowing the labour movement to act with legitimacy. It kept us pacified enough and nearly eradicated the boom bust cycle.

If I was a capitalist with a long view of history (if any exist. Maybe a couple took some Arts subjects) I wouldnt be so quick to force labour movements to the edges.

 

[kickazz]

Man there's a reason they have suicide nets at iPhone factories in China.

Indeed. Not to mention the cassiterite or coltan sourced from Congo that is funding war and rape of more than half of the women. Apple is perhaps not the best example company.
Motor industry, whilst I'm sure not perfect, has made a big difference to lives of poorer people in India and China.

 

[kickazz]

Feudalism is a lot closer to what we have, globally, right now than anything.

Labour creates wealth, capitalism allows people to profit from that labour without actually putting any labour in themselves. It allows people to exploit other peoples wealth creating ventures and skim off the top.

To provide an example/theoretical for you: If you are the driving force behind a companies success, and you put a lot of work into it the way a CEO does for example, then you aren't generating wealth via capitalism. Your labour is the most valuable labour in that company, and you deserve to be compensated accordingly. Capitalism is the share holder who just owns the company and contributes nothing.

True true, but if i get paid well enough, which is a reasonable chance in this scenario, i could afford to become a share holder of that company (or any other i choose).

The shareholder contributes by making money available to buy new machines, do new projects, employ more people, etc.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Indeed. Not to mention the cassiterite or coltan source from Congo that is funding war and rape of more than half of the women. Apple is perhaps not the best example company.
Motor industry, whilst I'm sure not perfect, has made a big difference to lives of poorer people in India and China.

Sure has. And Thailand and especially those Vietnamese commies.

But its important to note that international trade isnt something that is either socialist or capitalist.

As much as I am enjoying this discussion we are probably taking the thread off topic. Even thiugh the socialist argument is kind of central to the idea of a basic income.

And its important to remember that even 80 years ago the idea of universal healthcare and education was considered just as insane as a universal basic income is today.

So yeah basic incomes... im for it and think it will happen eventually, but Australia will be late to adopt as we are a primary producing nation and will keep full time jobs longer than most similar countries.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

True true, but if i get paid well enough, which is a reasonable chance in this scenario, i could afford to become a share holder of that company (or any other i choose).

The shareholder contributes by making money available to buy new machines, do new projects, employ more people, etc.

Yes. And a socialist would argue that capital injection is only needed because of a capitalist system in the first place. Socialists argue for an end to for profit banking and that all lending should be done by credit unions and a central publicly owned bank. So a workers collective could access those funds without relying on giving up ownership of their labour.

 

[kickazz]

Sure has. And Thailand and especially those Vietnamese commies.

But its important to note that international trade isnt something that is either socialist or capitalist.

As much as I am enjoying this discussion we are probably taking the thread off topic. Even thiugh the socialist argument is kind of central to the idea of a basic income.

And its important to remember that even 80 years ago the idea of universal healthcare and education was considered just as insane as a universal basic income is today.

So yeah basic incomes... im for it and think it will happen eventually, but Australia will be late to adopt as we are a primary producing nation and will keep full time jobs longer than most similar countries.

Yes back on track.

I've read and heard on BBC documentary that a basic income would be very effective in preventing those lower levels of poverty and destitution. Ideally it would be universal, as in, same amount around the world; but seems unlikely and idealistic.

Would it have to be accompanied by some sort of price fixing of essentials though? I'd be concerned that the likely inflationary effect would render it useless if those who lived on it alone had considerably increased food, rent and heating bills.

 

[bad setanta]

That graph clearly shows a huge spike in real wages correlating with the rise of the organised labour movement and associated anti-colonialism movement beginning in the late 1800's.

Are you also referring to the rise of the Fabian society which started the Labour party. You'd enjoy the thoughts and views of Bertrand Russell who was a prominent socialist and analytical/maths genius, if your not already familiar with him.

 

[coerced]

You say that but for 200,000 years of human history we've had about 300 years of capitalism or close to it - maybe 1,000 if you include monarchy as a form of capitalism due to the private ownership element - and it has resulted in war and famine and environmental destruction on a pretty ridiculous scale.

The norm for humans is not capitalism.

So what? Neither are most of the things modern humans do. Capitalism isn't dying, if anything it is accelerating.

 

[coerced]

Real incomes have increased over the last hundred years despite ever increasing automation.

Nothing was truly 'automated', manual labour was replaced by mechanised labour, but still controlled by man. The era we are moving into is where the algorithms control the machines: 90% of humans won't be needed, for anything.

The solution to this is pretty simple - impoverishment, despair and increasing rates of death, or what has been happening in the US the past 15-20 years.

 

[Todman]

Yes. And a socialist would argue that capital injection is only needed because of a capitalist system in the first place. Socialists argue for an end to for profit banking and that all lending should be done by credit unions and a central publicly owned bank. So a workers collective could access those funds without relying on giving up ownership of their labour.

Not the old nationalization of the banks argument, you might like the sound of it but in reality it doesn't work well.

Suppose you have a great idea that would require you to apply for a loan via your nationalize bank (an artificial monopoly). You go in and in good faith fill in all the forms and then go away and wait for approval.

If your loan gets knocked back then there is nowhere else for you to go the bank, remember the bank is the monopoly. Then you wonder why your loan was not approved. Your idea could be against the philosophy of the government in power then you are stuffed. (How dare you create a machine that will do the work and make ten workers redundant.)

If you loan gets approved then you may be made to wait months for the bank to make the money available. Remember it is a large centralized bank (with built in inefficiencies) where it has to pander the ruling elite before it will deal with you.

This is one of the reasons Ben Chifley lost the 1949 election.

 

[Todman]

Capitalism is nearly dead.

"We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called 'socialism'."
-Vladimir Lenin, "To the Rural Poor" (1903); Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 366

 

[medusala]

Nothing was truly 'automated', manual labour was replaced by mechanised labour, but still controlled by man. The era we are moving into is where the algorithms control the machines: 90% of humans won't be needed, for anything.

The solution to this is pretty simple - impoverishment, despair and increasing rates of death, or what has been happening in the US the past 15-20 years.

Automated or mechanised is somewhat of a moot point is it not? Take farming for example. Where once a farm may have employed close to 100 men it would be now down to 3/4.

As for the US, if idiot politicians insist on huge levels of unskilled immigration plus an increasing minimum wage then the results are inevitable.

Unfortunately too many people have their head in the sand, look at Shorten and his pledge to protect penalty rates. I doubt that Bill is that stupid that he actually believes it's a good idea but he knows it plays well to the peanut gallery.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Not the old nationalization of the banks argument, you might like the sound of it but in reality it doesn't work well.

Suppose you have a great idea that would require you to apply for a loan via your nationalize bank (an artificial monopoly). You go in and in good faith fill in all the forms and then go away and wait for approval.

If your loan gets knocked back then there is nowhere else for you to go the bank, remember the bank is the monopoly. Then you wonder why your loan was not approved. Your idea could be against the philosophy of the government in power then you are stuffed. (How dare you create a machine that will do the work and make ten workers redundant.)

If you loan gets approved then you may be made to wait months for the bank to make the money available. Remember it is a large centralized bank (with built in inefficiencies) where it has to pander the ruling elite before it will deal with you.

This is one of the reasons Ben Chifley lost the 1949 election.

I agree with quite a bit of that. Thats why workers collectives and union banks woukd also be a solution.

Though you have to weigh that up against the current situation of predatory fiscal policy and undermining of the housing market.

I would prefer your scenario to what we have today personally.

 

[medusala]

And I havent evn touched upon the reliance on natural resources that are fast disappearing. The system is unsustainable.

Uber lol.

A Malthus fan!!

 

[VineyIsLORD]

"We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called 'socialism'."
-Vladimir Lenin, "To the Rural Poor" (1903); Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 366

Is that not a good thing? People working for their money?

 

[VineyIsLORD]

So what? Neither are most of the things modern humans do. Capitalism isn't dying, if anything it is accelerating.

That was my point, back off and get your own.

 

[coerced]

Automated or mechanised is somewhat of a moot point is it not? Take farming for example. Where once a farm may have employed close to 100 men it would be now down to 3/4.

As for the US, if idiot politicians insist on huge levels of unskilled immigration plus an increasing minimum wage then the results are inevitable.

Unfortunately too many people have their head in the sand, look at Shorten and his pledge to protect penalty rates. I doubt that Bill is that stupid that he actually believes it's a good idea but he knows it plays well to the peanut gallery.

It's not a moot point. We replaced humans with beasts of burden, then mechanised labour, but humans have always occupied - as labour - a unique position in our economy, due to our cognitive capacities. Even the dumbest among us can do things we haven't been able to train anything else for. We have always, in the end, required humans to monitor work and make decisions.

The progress of artificial intelligence shifts that. We can conceivably do without humans for almost all jobs, both high paying white collar and lower paying blue collar workers. The only winners in the end are the owners of (technological) capital - everyone else will get the shaft.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

It's not a moot point. We replaced humans with beasts of burden, then mechanised labour, but humans have always occupied - as labour - a unique position in our economy, due to our cognitive capacities. Even the dumbest among us can do things we haven't been able to train anything else for. We have always, in the end, required humans to monitor work and make decisions.

The progress of artificial intelligence shifts that. We can conceivably do without humans for almost all jobs. The only winners in the end are the owners of (technological) capital - everyone else will get the shaft.

That is of course, if you believe we will maintain a capitalist system whilst it overtly harms 99% of the population.

The harm capitalism does is far more subtle whilst people are working...

Idle hands and all that.

 

[coerced]

That is of course, if you believe we will maintain a capitalist system whilst it overtly harms 99% of the population.

The harm capitalism does is far more subtle whilst people are working...

Idle hands and all that.

I doubt it will matter. You won't need to worry about the hoi polloi rising up when you have drones at your service. The tension between the elite and the masses has always been because the elite need the masses to both work for them and protect them. When that pact is gone I doubt it will be pretty for the poorer majority.

 

[Todman]

I agree with quite a bit of that. Thats why workers collectives and union banks woukd also be a solution.
I would prefer your scenario to what we have today personally.

Collectives and union banks would be too small to assist you so you would be at the mercy of the Bank of the state.

Perhaps you should go to Trove and read the papers of 1944 of when John Curtin tried to nationalize the whole country in disguise of creating an 5 years orderly rebuild of Australia's economy once the war was won. The referendum was defeated.

 

[Todman]

The progress of artificial intelligence shifts that. We can conceivably do without humans for almost all jobs, both high paying white collar and lower paying blue collar workers. The only winners in the end are the owners of (technological) capital - everyone else will get the shaft.

Fearmongering.

There will always be a job for someone to deliver the goods you buy on Ebay to your door.

 

[coerced]

Fearmongering.

There will always be a job for someone to deliver the goods you buy on Ebay to your door.

Um, you do realise that companies like Uber, Amazon, etc are investing in driverless cars and drones for delivery and transport?

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Um, you do realise that companies like Uber, Amazon, etc are investing in driverless cars and drones for delivery and transport?

"Disruptive innovation" = employeeless businesses

I'm surprised more people don't understand the implications.