this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
5 points (56.8% liked)

Flippanarchy

1250 readers
138 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules

  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
5
Just sayin' (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Universal Basic Income can never happen under Capitalism. It's impossible. Were it to happen, it would literally collapse the system. Unemployment and the threat of such is the engine that keeps people in the wage slavery grind. Take that away and nobody would opt to be a wage slave as opposed to just coast on UBI and enjoy life. And even if not everyone took the UBI route, the remaining workers would have so much bargaining power, they would dictate terms to the bosses, and we can't have that.

Stop thinking UBI has any chance of happening in any large scale.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If UBI was only paying for housing and food, then why wouldn’t able bodied people seek at least part time employment to pay for luxuries? “Coasting on UBI” sounds like it would suck after a while considering that you would not be able to afford anything fun.

Personally, I have been happier in my life as a wage slave than I have been when I was unemployed and had my housing paid, but could never afford to do anything.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Because most people can have fun just hanging out with their friends instead of demanding constant consumerist luxuries, if getting the second would mean being a wage-slave and being grinded down by the bosses.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

After a few months of smoking weed and playing video games with your friends, surely you’d get bored and feel like going to, say, Tokyo or Machu Picchu or somewhere (or taking up skydiving, or building the house you always wanted, or anything else that requires money). So you’d find work during some of your free time to save up for that.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s what I’m talking about—how do you afford the weed and video games if UBI is only covering basic necessities? Those are luxuries too. Piracy? How do you buy the computer? If you want to play a board game, that is a luxury. D&D? Gotta get some dice. If you make art, you need paint.

It seems like some people think that luxuries are some sort of Django Unchained exploitative dinner party, but it’s really more like every item that brings joy that is not required to simply survive. I don’t want to exist in a world without luxuries, and I don’t think you have to reject them entirely to escape capitalism.

Don’t mistake this as a defense of the American capitalistic empire—I hate it as much as the next guy—but I also enjoy my cell phone, my bong, my computer, and the occasional drink. Those are luxuries that make my life enjoyable, and giving them up would equal a pretty bleak existence.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

your idea of “basic necessities” seems to be punitively spartan. Surely after rent on a small apartment, electricity, food that’s neither foie gras nor Nutriloaf and such, you’d have a small amount left over, which you could use to have a drink, buy some apps for your phone/computer (and one of those would be considered a necessity), rent a movie, or similar. It wouldn’t be extravagant, but it wouldn’t be some kind of puritanical dopamine famine either.

Unless, of course, the system is run by puritans who levy a tax on joy itself for ideological reasons, in which case living in any state above a sort of suspended animation without working would be a crime. If tabloid newspapers were responsible for the design of the system, we might see that.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago

Personally, I like foie gras, French wine, and/or a good cigar. There is a real level of artistry in making some of these things, and I enjoy appreciating it.

Once we start trying to categorize which luxuries are reasonable, there is bound to be disagreement. If I want rarer luxuries, I would want the option to be able to work for those.

I still very much agree that there should be a basic quality of life that is socially funded and assured for all people.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

My peep, after a few months of people chilling the fuck out at home, the capitalist system will have collapsed upon itself. Hell it almost collapsed in the 60s by the workers having slightly more leverage due to unions.

If people could just chill around without fearing for food and shelter, they would just help each achieve what they wanted without needing money.

And I assure you, there's plenty of people who would rather not go to fucking Machu Picchu if it required becoming subservient. We know this historically when capitalism first started, no people wanted to go and work in factories when they could just chill in their villages and their communal farms. It required enclosures and extreme amounts of violence to change this.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We usually agree on stuff, and I’ve enjoyed this opportunity to debate with you a little.

You may be right that nobody wanted to go to the factory, but it is incorrect to act like people just chilled in their villages. Before money and professions, people spent time surviving every single day. The weak died if they could not hunt. People created the idea of the village in the first place so that people could labor on tasks they are suited for and the group has a better chance of survival—if you have the strong man hunt and the wise man lead, then everyone benefits from more food and good decisions.

Money is an extension of that idea—that not everyone is suited to produce the exact same resources—allowing people to pursue different roles and get the necessities they need for life without literally carrying chickens around to barter with. It is a convenience that allows people to operate in a system where your entire survival is not dependent on your own labor, and you need to cooperate and trade with others.

I agree that people should have the fear of homelessness and hunger removed with socialistic or communistic programs, but I would hope that the end result would be that people could pursue interests that they are passionate about, including part time or full time careers, so that their labor contributes to something they believe in rather than just being something to pay the bills. Then, that extra money is where luxuries and entertainment come in—that is the incentive to choose a job over just a hobby. It incentives with the carrot instead of the stick.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Money is an extension of that idea—that not everyone is suited to produce the exact same resources—allowing people to pursue different roles and get the necessities they need for life without literally carrying chickens around to barter with.

Yeah that's a convenient myth. You should read Debt.

Separation of skill doesn't require capitalism or money. Improvements in life are the result of the scientific method. I'm not suggesting primitivism. I am pointing out that human psychology doesn't work the way you think.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 months ago

I’ll check out that book, thanks.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So get rid of capitalism, the real source of most of our problems. I disagree on your conclusion that UBI can only have one bad outcome, but you're right that the opposition would not allow such a move because it takes away their power. So let's go after the core problem.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 months ago

Who said that the outcome of UBI would be bad? Collapsing capitalism would be good for everyone, which is why UBI will never be allowed.