One of the attractives of socialism for some people is the division of wealth in such a way that nothing is lacking to anybody (in theory). In that sense, UBI (or even social-democracy) replaces and surpasses socialism, as the latter in historical cases creates equal poverty under a rich dictatorship instead of equal subsistence.
Socialism has many points other than division of wealth however, being the fixation of prices, abolishment of class inequality (except government/population before the advent communism) and private property, prohibition of wealth accumulation by private entities, and seizing of the means of production.
If one is attracted to any of the aforementioned, UBI does not make socialism moot.

Socialism has many points other than division of wealth however, being the fixation of prices, abolishment of class inequality (except government/population before the advent communism) and private property, prohibition of wealth accumulation by private entities, and seizing of the means of production. — Lionino

You are specifying a lot of specific criteria which may belong to certain systems of socialism, but which I don't think can legitimately be said to be true of "socialism" in general. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would, in a sense, solve most of the problems targeted by socialism....

So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income? — Shawn

Socialism is a much broader project that just this. It's also about public ownership, democratic control and social justice. In short, the active participation of citizens in decisions made about them and the redistribution of wealth and resources back into community - education, amenities, hospitals, healthcare, etc. In theory, a universal, basic income might work well in a dictatorship - to help pacify a population.

So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income? — Shawn

We marginal lefties (like myself) "aspire to socialism" in this postmodern-identitarian, neoliberal-corporatist, reactionary populist era?

And no: "UBI" doesn't even begin to address (neoliberalism's) structural imbalances and social injustices which "socialists" critique and oppose with alternative (speculative) socioeconomic arrangements

What is socialism?

To me, socialism— and communism — aim for the same basic thing: freedom and democracy. That the production of a human society — the workplace, the corporation, the factory, whatever — should be run democratically, by and for the people, like the US professes to care about regarding its government— is a no brainer. No reason the same attitude we hold about government can’t be applied to production.

With that simple change — democracy at work — the rest will likely follow. No more 90% of profits going to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks, no more CEO pay of 400 times the median worker salary, no more stagnant real wages, no more key decisions placed in the hands of a board of directors, themselves chosen by (and members of) the elite group of major shareholders in the world.

So to answer the question: it doesn’t make it obsolete until you tell us what it is. By my thinking, UBI doesn’t solve the real problem, which is one of power: the decisions being in the hands of a self-perpetuating, small elite of private owners.

What country is close to being able to implement UBI? In America, we're piling on debt just trying to provide social security and medicare to old people.

By my thinking, UBI doesn’t solve the real problem, which is one of power: the decisions being in the hands of a self-perpetuating, small elite of private owners. — Mikie

:fire: :up:

By my thinking, UBI doesn’t solve the real problem, which is one of power: the decisions being in the hands of a self-perpetuating, small elite of private owners. — Mikie

But does it not stand to reason that implementing a UBI - globally - would have to be achieved through methods which, at the end of the day, would tend to act against the interests of the elite? After all, if the elite could guarantee compliance through UBI, they would have done so long ago. UBI in its essence is a contradiction of elitist privilege.

Sorry if anyone wanted me to address their posts individually; but, as some may understand, I usually start threads in an "ask and tell" manner.

Regarding socialism in the US, I don't think it would ever fly. However, I do have to say that when the core practical-not ideological, as some of you describe or mention-aspect of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, then what's to desire about socialism with such a bad reputation economically that have been demonstrated historically. It would seem as though that someone analyzed socialism, and cherry picked the only possible thing that people would be able to benefit from it without any change in the ideological landscape between the two party system in the US.

Politics aside, I was discussing this topic with several people who said that with a crushing defeat to totalitarian states, along with aspiring socialists around the world, UBI would prove to be a very soft power maneuver around the world towards promoting capitalism with some redistributive characteristics.

against the interests of the elite — Pantagruel

In the same way that Medicare and Medicaid do, or giving overtime, or increasing the minimum wage, etc. Social programs aren’t loved, but since taxpayers fund them— and they mostly avoid paying taxes (or pay a lower percentage than middle class folks) — it’s not such a problem.

If, in order to fund UBI, we increase taxes on the rich — then you’d see an outcry.

But even in that case (raising taxes on the rich), the problem I mentioned remains: the decisions (in production, and by extension in government [thanks in part to Citizens United]) still remain in the hands of a power elite. Roughly the kind C. Wright Mills discussed.

If, in order to fund UBI, we increase taxes on the rich — then you’d see an outcry. — Mikie

Exactly. But the hypothesis is that UBI is successfully implemented. So what happens as a result of that is at least in part altered by that. It would be one way to move things forward.

But the hypothesis is that UBI is successfully implemented. So what happens as a result of that is at least in part altered by that. — Pantagruel

I’m a little confused with your anaphors here.

If UBI is successfully implemented, the result is altered by its success? How does this relate to taxes?

What I'm saying is, assuming that UBI is successfully implemented assumes that it is successfully funded, through taxing the wealthy. Which in itself puts the previously marginalized masses into a better position to exert influence.

:up:

I won't list all the tidbits of how vested interests can make money from UBI; but I can give a hint... Namely the very nature of banking can allow tremendous profits for large conglomerates to make money from UBI. Think fractional reserve lending and multipliers in the banking system.

The economics is sound and a rising tide lifts all boats.

"UBI" doesn't even begin to address (neoliberalism's) structural imbalances and social injustices which "socialists" critique and oppose with alternative (speculative) socioeconomic arrangements — 180 Proof

Most intellectuals and academics agree on neoliberalism causing inequality. So, if UBI doesn't address this aspect of neoliberalism, then what socioeconomic arrangements would?

a rising tide lifts all boats — Shawn

A rising tide lifts all boats and drowns all those without a boat.

Just saying...

Getting rid of neoliberalism, heh.

In America, we're piling on debt just trying to provide social security and medicare to old people. — RogueAI

You may be very familiar with the points I am making here. Not everybody is.

The problem with entitlement spending is that Congress has not seen fit to keep these programs fully funded over time.

Federal entitlement program (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and others) comprise the biggest share of mandatory spending which is considerably larger than discretionary spending (too many programs to list). I was surprised that the pie charts displaying government income and expenses didn't include interest on the national debt. The interest is $658 billion per year, on a debt of $34 trillion.

US GDP is around $25 trillion, so the debt is larger than GDP. Not the end of the world, but not desirable either.

We have a national debt because the US Government has spent more money, year after year, than it collected in taxes. Could it have cut spending? Some of it could have been cut (discretionary spending). More taxes could have been collected. Moderated spending and a progressive tax schedule, especially for the corporations and wealthy individuals, would -- over time -- reduce the national debt. We have paid off the national debt before: We accumulated a very large debt during WWII, which (if memory serves) was paid off sometime in the 1970s. The post-war economy was booming and the tax rates were far more progressive -- that is, wealthy people paid a lot more taxes than they do now.

We are stuck on a treadmill at this point. We can dismount, but it will require some big changes.

I think we might be assuming a lot without looking around a bit. We seem to be equating “socialism” to entitlement spending (non-discretionary social programs, which equal more than half the budget), but we also “spend” money with the tax code in an attempt to manipulate behavior and redress inequities. We also spend money on government institutions which arguably are socialist, as they defend the best interests of the nation as a whole against the individual or corporations (even, in a sense, education). And we fund utilities that are basically “publicly owned” as their ability to capitalize on shortage and demand is decided by the government. And I don’t know if anyone would consider our discretionary spending (food, transportation, veterans, foreign affairs, etc.) as “socialism” although it is a 1/4 of the budget, which, along with the military and other spending, is half the budget, and thus would need taxes to be paid for by everyone else not getting a UBI (as @BC and @Mikie point to).

Nevertheless, if we are just discussing social programs, really what we are talking about (what all the fuss is over usually) is entitlement spending, which is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security Income. I assume the idea of a universal income is to equalize the bottom of the income bracket (and not to give everyone a certain amount of money), and so then isn’t SSI basically a kind of UBI already (except only for old people)? Which leaves us with Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. But in becoming an aggregate supplier for insurance, we are attempting to strong-arm the market through collective bargaining. Now, aside from the argument that that might not be effective, just giving everyone money to pay for healthcare insurance is not being involved in the market at all and would basically amount to paying for universal healthcare insurance, which seems very “socialist”.

Democratic Socialism (e.g. the Nordic model).

My preferred version is economic democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

plus demarchy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

socialism moot through Universal Basic Income? — Shawn

Not only socialism but also capitalism exploits the fact that we need a sufficient income or outcome for living.

A universal basic income means that there will be no more starving, homeless, uneducated or uninsured individuals to exploit.

However, there will still remain plenty of inequalities for the political interests to exploit in their pursuit of power.

The welfare state, too, largely began as a conservative project. These and other examples lead me to believe conservatism is often the hand-maiden of socialism. Conservatives oppose radical change, sure, but they can never offer a direction different than the socialist one, so they must be content being dragged in the socialist direction. In my opinion this is because both are founded on similar attitudes.

Two attitudes immediately come to mind. First, rather than concerning themselves with limiting government power and scope, the socialist and conservative are mostly concerned with who holds that power. Both desire the presence of these institutions of power and wish the anointed to wield them in order to support and enforce a theoretical order of their choosing. Second, both believe themselves to be entitled to force others how to live.

So I do not think policies such as UBI makes socialism moot; it makes socialism a reality.

A number of cities have tried UBI programs and the results have been quite positive. The amount recipients are paid is nothing close to a living wage, it's a supplement, maybe $500 a month, no strings attached. Recipients report considerably improved psychological health, in that the supplement lifts them out of the "not enough to live on, but a little too much to die" level. They can budget more effectively because the extra money gives them more financial agency.

The amount of UBI would have to be higher if the amount were individuals only income, and not a supplement.

Thrift-minded employed people who have not suffered a financial disaster are able to save enough money to provide an operating financial cushion--a savings account. It feels good to know that things like a tire replacement, dental care. new shoes, and the like are not going to result in a crisis. UBI accomplishes the same thing.

I don't believe that a UBI distributed within a capitalist economy is the same thing as socialism, not even close. It would be a good thing, but socialism requires much, much broader and deeper changes in the operation of society.

Paying taxes to pay your own income.

Genius!

Right?

It's like Social Security or a safety net program; but, for everyone!

So I do not think policies such as UBI makes socialism moot; it makes socialism a reality. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you're following here; but, socialism goes quite a bit farther than just redistribution of wealth. According to what others said; it seems that UBI is just a band-aid to an ill of capitalism's influence on inequities due to the very nature of the socioeconomics. Nevertheless, UBI addresses these inequities and distortions in perception of wealth being managed by the state, in a quite positive manner.

And we'll make the rich pay for it!

Where have I heard this song before? :chin:

I don't believe that a UBI distributed within a capitalist economy is the same thing as socialism, not even close. It would be a good thing, but socialism requires much, much broader and deeper changes in the operation of society. — BC

Yes, well UBI is not socialism according to what others have said. Yet, it seems to be an economic tool that helps the disenfranchised and poor from unhappiness and rebellions in seeking political change, and I think that was the original purpose of UBI (in accordance with the OP).

In a sense to state this in stronger terms, Universal Basic Income would in essence pacify the poor and disenfranchised.