Hacker News Reader

Comment by Miner49er | Hacker News Reader

UBI is interesting, because it isn't really socialist. It can easily be a tool of capital to retain power. If lots of things are automated, to the point where many don't need to work, who will own the robots (the means of production)? The socialist solution would be to find a way to collectively control/own these. Maybe vote on a board to decide what is best or something like that. They would find a way to distribute the goods produced. This could be called a UBI.

But UBI would also be the capitalist way to go about things. The capitalists will own everything, and just give the masses enough UBI to keep them happy enough to not fight back.

View on HN

OTOH, there's a lot of renewed advocacy for breaking off the naturally monopolistic "platforms" developed by existing tech firms, and making sure that they're run in the public interest via strong regulation. That's basically a residual argument for centralized collective "planning" in an economic context, even as part of a market-based economy. Based on the observation that, either way, a monopolized "platform" is not really subject to market discipline, so the government needs to step-in as a substitute.

UBI isn't socialist at all; socialism is about central planning – large bureaucracy making decisions. UBI mostly removes the bureaucracy and decision making power of how to spend government proceeds.

This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians.

Nor is "central planning" a socialist concept. The only remotely consisent throughline in the vast spectrum of socialist thought has been democratic ownership or control of one's workplace. In fact, many strains of leftism explicitly reject central planning of an economy, which they would see as a result of an unjustified hierarchy.

Democratic ownership is central planning. It means using votes to decide how the whole country will move.

The hierarchy is unavoidable at scale.

> UBI isn't socialist at all

It is consistent with socialism, but not essentially socialist.

> socialism is about central planning

No, it's not. Central planning may be part of some versions of socialism, though there are serious arguments within socialism that central planning in the strong sense is incompatible with socialism, and instead a degenerate single-capitalist form of capitalism.

Socialism is about common/worker ownership and control of the institutions, means, and proceeds of economic production (each of these is a goal and a means to the others.) UBI, especially when funded from taxes on wealth, property, or income where capital income is not excluded or favored, is a mechanism for common participation in the proceeds of production.

> This is why in the 21st century the most prominent promoters of UBI (sometimes called negative income tax) were libertarians.

I think you mean the 20th Century and right-libertarians, though as you state it jt is, in fact, also true of the 21st Century (but there it is libertarian socialists at the fore, who aren't the libertarians you seem to want to refer to with your “UBI isn’t socialist” line.)

I did mean 20th century.

I still contend socialism is about central planning. Common ownership and participation in the means of production via democracy is central planning in practice, since people end up pooling their decision making power.

Representives then implement policies decided by the collective, which all people are subject too.

It's opposed to the libertarian vision, which would be for each person to make more of their own decisions individually, with voting less relevant.

> I still contend socialism is about central planning.

Actual socialists, for the whole history of socialism, disagree, but please, don't let that distract you.

> Common ownership and participation in the means of production via democracy is central planning in practice,

When the common ownership is done through the state which directly controls industry, sure, you get central planning. When it's done through democratic worker control of firms, it is no more central planning than when firms are jointly controlled by their capital owners. And there are lots of variations of socialism besides those two.

> It's opposed to the libertarian vision

The idea that socialism is opposed to the libertarian vision is news to libertarian socialists.

Libertarian socialism is a synonym for anarchy, which gives a clue how compatible they are.

I would call what you are describing communism, not socialism. And it's nothing like any major socialist society in existance, because it's unobtainable in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com