[otini]

I think Varoufakis is profoundly misled in thinking that basic income can be a left-wing policy.

It is a well-known fact that there are two versions of basic income out there: the right-wing version, where welfare is removed and replaced with a single allocation that isn't high enough to live of it; and a left-wing version, where the distributed amount is sufficient to live a decent life and thus gives "real freedom" to people.

Here is why I think the left-wing version is a fantasy: I start from the assumption that capitalistic economies like ours mainly relies on coercion. In other words, critical parts of production depend on people who would rather do something else, if it wasn't their only way to eat. Under that assumption, any policy that gives people a real choice between being employed in a factory and doing the things they really want to do removes in fact the coercion — making the economy collapse.

The form collapsing would take could for example be the following: low-paid, exhausting and low-considered jobs are not taken anymore, and yet society depends on them. The only way to make the workers come back is to pay them much better. But this can only lead to a combination of dramatic price rises and cuts in shareholder profit (and I am not an advocate of capital income, but sadly it is currently one of the main incentives for investment).

For these reasons, I am convinced that any attempt to implement a left-wing basic income will inevitably result in the right-wing version taking over, meaning less rights for the workers and a destroyed welfare.

[MacsHeadroom]

That's clearly a faulty assumption. If production depends on a job and supply is short, then the value and pay will rise until supply meets demand.

The assumption also ignores advances in automation. Factories of the future may not need a single human, except the capitalist to sign papers.

[otini]

> That's clearly a faulty assumption. If production depends on a job and supply is short, then the value and pay will rise until supply meets demand.

I don't disagree with your statement about supply and demand. But as a matter of fact, the supply is never short, because structures of society force a large fraction of the population into jobs they cannot let go, whether they like it or not.

It is common knowledge that people of low social status are given a choice between shitty jobs and starvation. Saying "if the job is not good enough, supply will fall and wages will have to rise" does not take into account the highly competitive character of the job market, especially for those with low educational capital.

[jhayward]

Our economy relies much more on consumption than on production. The current top-down, militaristic control structure of most companies is more a result of path dependence than any fundamental requirement. There is no reason to believe that not forcing people to do certain jobs would be fatal economically.

[otini]

> The current top-down, militaristic control structure of most companies is more a result of path dependence than any fundamental requirement.

I strongly disagree. In a corporation, the relation of the employee to the employer is intrinsically one of subordination. It is defined as such in the labour laws of most countries.

Of course, this subordination is not necessary militaristic — but it can be, and naturally tends to be in a context of financial pressure on the company.

The point I want to make is that an employment relation is not symmetric (although it may be experienced as such by those of middle- or upper-class position) but happens on a background of economic depencency, and that is more and more true as the job is less paid and less considered.