Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

7 Comments

  1. Good blog there Dave,

    That is why the egalitarian system was devised during the mid 1950’s to give the masses an even distribution of our common wealth so everyone has money to spend on consumer goods other than essentials so these “captains of industry” need to wake up and return to egalitarianism before we do crash again.

    If we don’t we will all suffer the worst economic crash/depression we have seen to date.

    1. The Captains of industry are wide awake.
      The do not control events but they try to stay on top of them.

      Thus the ‘egalitarianism’ of the ’50s was not planned it was based on the short boom created by the massive defeat of workers by more than a decade of depression and world war.

      This time round the global depression and war will be totally destructive and global warming removes the basis for a boom that workers can momentarily share.

      The bosses know they are doomed without the state to pacify workers by economic, political and military repression.

      Therefore our answer to the bosses terminal crisis has to be to remove the source of the problem – the capitalists – and sort out the problem ourselves.

    2. Why? The entire economy is based on moving resources and money from every conceivable area to further inflate the property bubble.

  2. Why couldn’t a UBI or social wage be a transitional demand? I mean a demand articulated by the working class including those who are currently jobless . This includes single parents and the disabled for whom the demand for full employment is not sufficient; they need living incomes without being required to be employed. Such a demand can be backed by workers taking control of their workplaces, but why shouldn’t workers do this?

    1. It’s not a transitional demand because it does not activate workers to fight on the basis of building an independent movement against the employers and the state.

      It is the opposite of transitional because it traps workers as individuals in the mentality that the bosses state can be neutral and resolve class struggle by means of parliamentary reforms when history proves this is delusional. It demobilises us and weakens our ability to challenge the ruling class.

      ‘Transitional’ means workers developing our capacity to struggle for basic needs such as jobs for all (who want to work) on a living wage that cannot be met by capitalism, and go all the way “across the bridge”, as Trotsky called it, to take power and build socialism.

      Only then will the basic needs of all be met by sharing work among all those who want to work, where work is redefined as socially useful work, on the basis as I said of “from each according to ability, to each according to need”.

  3. theory and practice on specific reforms as well as “reformism” as an ideology has long been the bane of class strugglers the world over

    grants from the bourgeois state are unlikely to be refused by many in need of material assistance on principled grounds–“no thanks you can stick your paid parental leave because it impedes the class struggle”; another snag with gains made via parliamentary means is that they will always be rolled back eventually and have to be re-fought for

    UBI does hint at the ‘new society’ in some form though, where work will be what is useful and necessary rather than wealth generation for the corporate owners and in NZ particularly, petit bourgeois SME operators

    social democrat tops considering a UBI probably see it as another pressure relief valve to put off the day when a majority of people do see a change in class power as necessary

  4. I normally don’t agree with you Dave but you have nailed it: UBI is a fine idea BUT as you say a distraction from the real issue of ownership. Its a fine idea to give everybody a living wage, but that is what we would all get anyway in a socialized system. Any UBI is merely a sop to capital, maybe it is best seen as the latest version of the Keynesian accord of paying workers well to stop them revolting whilst priming the market. That was for that time and saved capitalism, the real question is whether we want to save capitalism from itself again? I would go a step further and declare the fossil fueled industrial experiment delinquent, which subtly changes the question to what we do next to provide for all on the downhill slope?

Comments are closed.