[GPerson]

Why are you correct even though the early Marxists (who posited that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism) were wrong? We have had mass production for a hundred years without any hint of socialism.

And I would like you to be right, by the way. But why should I believe you?

[qzw]

Doesn’t most of the developed world already have various forms of socialism? The U.S. is an outlier here, which is due a number of factors unique to this country.

[GPerson]

Fair, but as an American I’m still interested in this more limited question. Why were the early American Marxists wrong and why are the new Americans saying similar things right this time?

[nuancebydefault]

There will be a form of UBI, because of the need for it, eventually. It will probably never be a 'fair' system (there probly will still be 1000xUBI people) but it will be necessary to prevent a lot of problems.

Think of it this way. The percentage of the population that will not have enough skills, 'smartness' and or knowledge to serve the community in a profitable way, increases over time. Today the group includes mostly the very young, the elderly (which in a way already have a 'kind of UBI', but not the complete lifespan) and people with a severe illness. Tomorrow new groups of people will be included, like people who stopped going to school at 17,18yo or so, and so on.

Suppose society provides those people with only the very minimal money to survive and no entertainment, traveling, proper housing, life choices etc. In that case not only those people, but the society as a whole will suffer because of unrest, riots etc. At a certain point in time, UBI can easily paid for by the wealth that automation will bring. Today probably as well, but the pressure of unevenly spread wealth is still able to keep it from happening, rich people still need enough poor people to work for them directly (house/boat personnel) or indirectly (mine coffee, chocolate, soy, battery minerals, ...)

[malloryerik]

I'd suggest we already have a some UBI, but in the form of education, health care, disaster relief, food stamps, and so on.

[GPerson]

Why are you so sure UBI is the most efficient solution to those problems? Another solution is for the wealthy to let the poor live miserable lives and to use technology to oppress them. A protest can be put down with drones, robots, and chatbots.

[Chu4eeno]

OWS showed that you don't even need drones and robots.

[malloryerik]

We have state supported pension plans in most developed countries, unemplyment insurance, these large welfare states with extensive public education, national health and so on, so while the means of production mostly haven't been socialized, the fruits often have, through taxation. Now, some of this existed before the Industrial Revolution -- I wasn't aware how much until I read Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, which is a more important book now than ever, I humbly propose, but the scale is dwarfed by what we have now. And as Polanyi points out, we did get socialism as a response, as well as fascism, which was often btw called corporatism (as in the nation as a single body, not having to do with companies). Liberal democratic capitalism won out, for a while, and in large part because it became social democracy, or so goes a claim to which I subscribe. Without the social welfare aspects of modern democracy, the system would likely have broken politically.

[tossandthrow]

> without any hint of socialism.

You don't seem to know your history.

The US was on track to enact UBI. The US was socialist directly after the great depression.

Some of the most successful capitalist societies (the Nordic countries) have socialist elements.

[GPerson]

I do know that history actually. The UK went for it and we did not.