So, I finally had an interesting discussion today with a "socialist" type who was willing to discuss UBI vs a more traditional Bernie style "democratic socialist" platform like we often see proposed. I was thinking of doing a video about this after reading that the DSA released a new platform which mentioned "decommidification", which is something I see referenced a lot among socialist types, but I figured it would be best just to discuss the topic more generally as I really don't want to discuss the ins and outs of the DSA's proposed platform.
Generally speaking, "socialists" have doubts about UBI, and especially Yang. They see UBI as a trojan horse that will preserve capitalism and undermine "welfare", whereas the yang gang and people like me question if bureaucratic and authoritarian government solutions will really solve our problems as well. I know I kind of sound conservativish in my framing there but it's a discussion to be had, and we're having it.
Here's how I see progressive platforms. I see a lot of "we're doing this and we're doing that", but not a lot of impact on how things actually work, for the most part. Progressive solutions seem to be reactions to solving problems endemic to capitalism, often within a piecemeal way, but don't solve the core issue of wage slavery and coercion which is, in my opinion, at the heart of my issues with capitalism. Socialists tend to go a bit further, basically wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater, saying capitalism and evil and we need an entirely new system. And in practice they propose more of such programs.
On the other hand, at the heart of the progressive reluctance to embrace UBI is a skepticism of capitalism and markets. Here's the thing. I've always been for markets. Even when I was somewhat socialism curious in 2018-2019, I was only interested in say, market socialism. I don't care as much if we have a few dudes own the means of production or if they're owned more broadly. I think that socialism is aesthetically nice, but I kind of have to wonder about the logistics of forcing it on society, such as how it would impact the creation of new small businesses, or innovation in general. Often times these ideas are great for workers, but they might also stagnate the system hard, as no one wants to start a new business or try a new idea because the workers will just reap the rewards anyway, I kind of understand the need for incentives in society to encourage people to do things that have a positive impact on society. Although I prefer carrots and not sticks.
But socialists, they look at UBI, and they just see market relations as so broken, and so flawed, that rent will go up, everything will go up, UBI won't solve anything, blah blah blah. Honestly I think this is ideological and dogmatic. Markets aren't always bad. They can be coercive yes, but they think all markets are coercive or uneven and that simply isn't true in my opinion. Now, I'm also going to basically reject a position that socialists and progressives use against UBI, that the proponents want ONLY UBI and nothing else. No one is proposing that. Not even yang, despite the criticisms about him destroying UBI. We need, at minimum, healthcare and education done separately.
That's the thing. i acknowledge market failures exist. I'm not an ideologue. I hate the idea that markets are always good and that everything should be done by markets. No, socialist critiques are actually valid in certain markets with certain horrid dynamics in them, like healthcare. But at the same time, markets aren't always bad, and I'd rather have money I can spend at grocery stores, than to have the government provide food.
Which is a huge issue I have with socialists. Socialists often talk about "decommodifying" basic needs, which is to say, they want to make it where basic needs are provided directly by the government. They want the government to give you food. They want the government to provide you housing. But what if I don't want the food government provides? What if it gives me cheese that was sitting in the hot sun and has worms in it? That's happened to people before. Theresa Funiciello's book, "the tyranny of kindness" covers the fact that governments and charities do that. And it's gross. It would be very easy for the government to decide if you dont work you eat nothing but gruel 3 times a day, saving real food for people who get paid, ya know, with money. Often times the point of NOT providing cash isn't to really help the poor, but to save them from themselves. People often have degrading and patronizing attitudes toward the poor that they dont know what they want and arent responsible, so we need to tell them what they need. The purpose of UBI is actually to liberate the poor and get rid of degrading patronizing paternalism. To destigmatize welfare and put it on the same level as, you know, having cash from a job, since it's cash. It's not intended to screw the poor or make them worse off, it's intended to help them.
But that's what I have against the idea of the government providing services directly. You dont have a choice in what the government gives you, if it sucks it sucks. I'd rather have money to buy what I need for the most part. I only really want the government to run stuff themselves when the markets are so broken no one can reasonably afford it.
Housing is interesting as I do believe the market is broken, but at the same time I don't want the government to give housing directly mostly, as that would imply the government tells you where to live, nor do I want say an LVT, which i see the government as becoming the ultimate landlord, and thus undermining the very idea of UBI.
I don't really have comprehensive solutions to that since the market system sucks and I can't see the alternative working either (whereas public schools and healthcare seems to work). I know government housing exists, but I kind of believe it should supplement the market, not replace it. So I have nothing against maintaining those programs on top of UBI.
Generally speaking, I just dont want the government to "decommodify" stuff where it runs entire industries more than it has to. I'm not a socialist. I grew up a conservative in post Reagan America and the idea of the government running everything and telling me how to live my life is everything about "ciommunism" I used to hate. And while I've warmed on the left since, i still can't support the same literal strawman that I grew up with. I'd rather support UBI and have some level of capitalism. That's not to say it's UBI only. I'm not an ideologue who has an obsession with markets. If anything I wish the whole capitalist socialist divide would just die already. people are way too polarized on both sides and neither side has all the answers. Markets work sometimes, government works other times. The question is what should each do, and I say, what they do best.
So i say we should have UBI, but I also support some bernie style proposals on top of that. Keep in mind despite how much I like yang, he doesnt represent my views entirely and is to my right on economics somewhat.
At the same time, I have gotten to the point I can't NOT support a UBI. i was willing to compromise on it through the "bernie" years of 2015-2020, but UBI is an idea that I believe its time has come now, and I can't hide that view any more. UBI has always been an end goal for me. I just didnt believe it would be popular enough pre 2020 to get anywhere.
And given I did the work this year to decide if I would rather have UBI + moderate proposals or more extreme proposals - UBI, I choose UBI + moderation. We absolutely can have UBI and other stuff. Medicare for all is tricky but I believe it can work. If not there are some public option routes available that would effectively provide universal healthcare while eliminating/reducing benefit cliffs. Free college and student loan forgiveness are cheap enough that they can work. Housing can be done. CLimate infrastructure can be done, although not a green new deal.
But yeah. I'm just not a crazed ideologue on this. We should have UBI and then some other stuff, based on what we can afford. I dont want the government to provide all needs directly. I also don't want markets to dominate everything. Socialists argue UBI supporters are all right libertarians who are die hard free marketeers and that's not true. Keep in mind yang was a democrat. he might be a more moderate business friendly democrat on issues outside of UBI and some other proposals compared to say, sanders, but he aint a corrupt establishment figurehead who has secret relations with elon musk and jeff bezos to push UBI at the expense of the working class. He simply realizes that hey, capitalism and its job creation nonsense isn't about providing for workers, so let's have the government providing for them instead. Whereas socialism has a weird obsession with work and workers getting the value of their labor. Okay, it's not weird, but it is dogmatic and strangely comes off as more conservative than the yang position in some ways. I'd rather have human centered capitalism than socialism. No, I dont believe it would lead to serfdom, and if it does, well there would be nothing left to try but socialism so we can take up that debate then. At the same time, socialism just seems to be a way to keep the old ideologies of jobism and traditional but dated solutions to issues that i find lacking going. Like really, for as much as they fear people languishing under human centered capitalism and how we'd all be poor living under UBI, I fear a socialist utopia where while needs are met people have no freedom, and are essentially forced to work long after scarcity has been solved. Of course, I ain't going to get in a slap fight with a socialist over this until they take the first shot. Tbqh I believe both of us are getting so screwed by the establishment neither of us have a chance to have our ideas known, and I believe that this debate is one that should be had once we defeat them. So before we can even debate whether socialism or human centered capitalism is better, we need to break the two party duopoly and defeat liberalism, so i really don't know why the yang gang and the bernie camp have to fight each other so much. We both wanna provide for people, we just differ on how.
Again, this is the political battle of tomorrow, not today.
No comments:
Post a Comment