Isn't Universal Income a Key Principle of Communism

Shared misery.

communism is a political ideology and has nothing to do with economy. the education in america is really bad. you guys should invest

No.

You know who *did* suggest something very close to Universal Basic Income? That well known communist, Milton Friedman (he proposed a Negative Income Tax, but that's more of an implementation detail than a true difference).

fakeasfake wrote:

communism is a political ideology and has nothing to do with economy. the education in america is really bad. you guys should invest

Wow!!!

No. The ignorance on this board is astonishing. There are lots of versions of communism but the defining characteristic is that the means of production are owned in common.

Ownership in common is an easy concept to understand, such as stock ownership of publicly traded corporations you would be born with or get at age of maturity.

As for means of production, that does not mean all material goods, just those goods that are instrumental to production of goods, such as coal mine ownership, auto company ownership, wheat farm ownership, etc. Note that Communism developed in an industrial age and is not fit for today's industrial/professional service mix economies. Communism as a theory has its problems and as a practice, would prove terrible, but at least you have to understand it. It has nothing to do with equal income.

Guaranteed income is probably the better descriptive phrase for it. Milton Friedman was a proponent of it. So, no. It is not a key principle of communism.

If silicon valley leaders feel they have too much money, they can donate it, not force this upon others..

This removes the incentives people need as motivation to better themselves, and do for themselves.

Terrible idea.

A wide social safety net is a hallmark of most highly successful capitalist economies. It's a catch-all for the rare cases of market failure or other edge-case inefficiencies.

Safety net already exists. This is paying anyone not to work. It is madness.

bad idea wrote:

If silicon valley leaders feel they have too much money, they can donate it, not force this upon others..

This removes the incentives people need as motivation to better themselves, and do for themselves.

Terrible idea.

Most people want lifes far beyond what any basic income proposal suggests paying. You aren't going to have a lot people choosing not to work 60k/year jobs so they can live on 15-20k of basic income. Unlike in communism there is still the incentive to work.

I have no clue if it is a good idea or not. The current system of people where people can't get jobs become disabled isn't exactly awesome either. And the overhead of adminstering snap, TANF, and the rest isn't tiny.

It is the type of disruptive thing that I find hard to imagine implementing.

bad idea 2.0 wrote:

Safety net already exists. This is paying anyone not to work. It is madness.

You too could be paid not to work

Capitalism is a form of slavery in which the slaves are given currency to facilitate the distribution of the goods produced. The currency has no intrinsic value of its own. After receiving the currency for his labors, the slave goes off and labors further to procure and transport goods for himself, thus supporting the distribution process and performing its final phase himself.

This system has broken down for several reasons. Primary is the fact that in an overdeveloped economy of frivolous luxuries, labor loses value and the slaves are no longer given enough currency to grease the gears of the machine properly. This presents, for the slave-owning caste, the problem of reconciling the false work ethic it promotes with the desperate need to get things moving again. Already for years they've been trying to give away money, but all the middle-class charlatans whom they've brought up on business virtue will have none of it.

Communism is, indeed, public ownership of the means of production. Currency is still used, but issued by the public's representative government rather than private slaveowning entities like the Federal Reserve.

commie wrote:

No. The ignorance on this board is astonishing. There are lots of versions of communism but the defining characteristic is that the means of production are owned in common.

Ownership in common is an easy concept to understand, such as stock ownership of publicly traded corporations you would be born with or get at age of maturity.

As for means of production, that does not mean all material goods, just those goods that are instrumental to production of goods, such as coal mine ownership, auto company ownership, wheat farm ownership, etc. Note that Communism developed in an industrial age and is not fit for today's industrial/professional service mix economies. Communism as a theory has its problems and as a practice, would prove terrible, but at least you have to understand it. It has nothing to do with equal income.

Ummm . . . neither does universal income.

bad idea 2.0 wrote:

Safety net already exists. This is paying anyone not to work. It is madness.

I agree that it is probably a bad idea.

On the plus side it does seem to be something that can be run as an experiment with small segments of the population to see how well reality conforms to theory.

Auntee Commie wrote:

bad idea 2.0 wrote:

Safety net already exists. This is paying anyone not to work. It is madness.

I agree that it is probably a bad idea.

On the plus side it does seem to be something that can be run as an experiment with small segments of the population to see how well reality conforms to theory.

Go ahead, but please don't do it with my State or my country.

Everything has been tried, the results are in, hundreds of millions of people died in the process of testing, and the clear winner is this combination:

1. Laws protecting individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property.

2. Free markets.

3. Limited Constitutional government.

4. Representative government where the government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

This describes the US as it was founded, but is not what we have today. This form of government proved to be the most effective at guaranteeing freedom, increasing prosperity, as well as creating the most tolerant societies in the world. It's the best way by far.

The very worst form of government and indeed the deadliest killing machine ever devised by man is this combination:

1. Laws putting the good of the government above the rights of the individual.

2. Any government which claims that all property is owned by the state or is collectively owned by everyone.

3. Any system based on "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."

This is communism, which killed more people in the 1900's than all the wars during the same period. We should avoid this.

Our schools should be teaching this and there should be no doubt at all which direction we should be choosing. Our education system will be the death of us.

DiscoGary wrote:

Auntee Commie wrote:

I agree that it is probably a bad idea.

On the plus side it does seem to be something that can be run as an experiment with small segments of the population to see how well reality conforms to theory.

lots of mindless propaganda

Good job!

Isn't it amazing how we live in a time where a job is easier than ever, but yet, we're having societal discussions about universal income?

How about get online, and create a job? Or, find a job? People are making money by simply posting ridiculous videos, instructional videos, etc.

There is a lot of internet-based work... and unfortunately, there is a growing number of helpless idiots.

Auntee Commie wrote:

On the plus side it does seem to be something that can be run as an experiment with small segments of the population to see how well reality conforms to theory.

It's being tested right now in Finland.

fakeasfake wrote:

communism is a political ideology and has nothing to do with economy. the education in america is really bad. you guys should invest

America has the best universities in the world by a long shot. Look at any academic rankings list. Way to make stuff up

Obviously, Oxford is a tremendous school but America has literally dozens of schools that are at or close to that level