How could coronavirus remake our economy and society?

[MissActualKitty]

Hippy shit

Gosh you are so astute... I am amazed at your ability to read!

 

[LDC]

do one!

Reported again, please ban editor

 

[Kaka Tim]

all rail franchises suspended for six months and all services under government control - cos they were all about to go bankrupt as passenger numbers plummet. Effectively an overnight nationalisation. Described as a "temporary measure". Lets hope not. Cant see handing them back to cunts like branson will be a popular - or even a feasible - move.

Air lines next?
then wetherspoons ...

 

[Smokeandsteam]

all rail franchises suspended for six months and all services under government control - cos they were all about to go bankrupt as passenger numbers plummet. Effectively an overnight nationalisation. Described as a "temporary measure". Lets hope not. Cant see handing them back to cunts like branson will be a popular - or even a feasible - move.

Air lines next?
then wetherspoons ...

In respect of Aviation the FT and others are demanding firm action this time around from Government in return for bailouts. No director bonuses, no shareholder dividends etc. For a bit anyway.

In other words, a ramping up of a rearguard campaign to oppose nationalisation and provide breathing space for the free market.

 

[GarveyLives]

For information:

"This storm will pass. But the choices we make now could change our lives for years to come ..."

Yuval Noah Harari: the world after coronavirus

‘Irresponsible politicians have undermined trust of public in science, in experts’ – historian Yuval Noah Harari

 

[Humberto]

They've all been shown to be wrong-footed. Their authority is held only by long tradition. It all means nothing. They are not on our side. That's why I'm still a socialist. They are 'bailing out' the rich to the tune of £300,000,000,000 because they can't run without it, but we get nothing for it. That's not on at all. It's sick. And we've given them ample chances, yet they rob YOU to pay themselves. It's completely unfair. That's 300 billion. It's scandalous.

This is what is wrong with our country. Decades of free market idolisation, self-worship and selfishness. This is why truth is important. Culture wars don't mean shit, apart from exposing the lack of decency, honesty and sanity of the whole shebang.

Truth, morality, justice are important. Life and death vital. Always will be. The opposite is barbarism, fatal delusion and 'the blind leading the blind'. And 'morality' isn't sad fuckwits exposing 'lefty hypocrisy', its remebering where you came from in the true sense, and who is ruining your lives and your world.

That's why we are struggling. We'll get past this, but; ask your own questions. Don't let me or anyone else speak for you. Me, I listen to Jesus. Always have done. That wasn't the objective of this message, merely openess. Before I get too self-indulgent I'll leave it there.

 

[extra dry]

all rail franchises suspended for six months and all services under government control - cos they were all about to go bankrupt as passenger numbers plummet. Effectively an overnight nationalisation. Described as a "temporary measure". Lets hope not. Cant see handing them back to cunts like branson will be a popular - or even a feasible - move.

Air lines next?
then wetherspoons ...

pound fares and discounts?

 

[Anju]

I like what these people are doing. There won't be any change if people aren't aware of possible alternatives to the current system and are able to get involved during rather than post crisis. Would imagine that a lot of people will be more open to considering radical ideas at the moment and a lot of the infrastructure for providing support to people will already be in place. It would be like having a revolution but capital has done a lot of the preparation work.
Self-Isolate, Self-Educate! Political Education in the Pandemic

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Capitalism took how long to collapse? A week, two, tops.

The government is now paying our wages. In Soviet Tory Britain...

There is a magic money tree.

Stelios takes £60m dividend to his Monaco lair, not giving a single penny towards the NHS and other services in the country that enabled him to become wealthy. Then he asks for a government bailout for the business he founded.

Branson does the same.

We need to ensure this crap ends. No Americans live in Monaco, they’d be taxed regardless. French people can’t benefit either. So why can British?

 

[redsquirrel]

Regarding the line that Starmer is pushing and the possible "temporary revival of mildly redistributive social-democrat managerialism" discussed on other threads you have this crap in the Guardian today The British state has long been unfit for purpose. Now everyone can see that

Third, the exit strategy needed much greater clarity, for all the difficulty of achieving it with the evidence still evolving. An extension to the lockdown is expected to be announced on Thursday, but Labour leader Keir Starmer is right to press for more detail to allow households and businesses to plan.

The civil service is far less at fault than are the politicians. So how can we have a government fit for purpose as we approach the mid 21st century?

Ministerial leadership has been generally not good enough for many years. The giants of the Attlee, Wilson and Thatcher governments are nowhere to be seen. Too many top ministers know little about how to run their departments, which is why they blame their officials. They need to see the period as shadow ministers in opposition as vital training, when they are taught, perhaps by the Institute for Government, about how to be a minister. Special advisers often know little about their specialist area, are brought in for personal or ideological reasons, and can do immense damage. Iain Mansfield, a former official and specialist in higher education, is an exception at the Department for Education. More like him are needed.

Specialists and experts need to be embedded far more at the heart of every government department. That was the great lesson of the second world war. Universities, the intellectual powerhouses of the country, should be plundered for their top scientists, medics, technicians and economists. Every department should have a historian – another lesson from the crisis. Governments can arrive ignorant of the past, so repeat the same mistakes.

Appalling anti-democratic garbage.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The giants of thatcher.

Straight out call for technocracy that, it'll be better for the thickos if the nice experts who incidentally all went to fee paying schools and red brick unis make the big decisions for them

 

[Proper Tidy]

Christ

 

[redsquirrel]

Straight out call for technocracy that, it'll be better for the thickos if the nice experts who incidentally all went to fee paying schools and red brick unis make the big decisions for them

Red brick PT! I don't think we want too much red brick

 

[Proper Tidy]

Red brick PT! I don't think we want too much red brick

That's how little I know, I thought red brick just meant russell group, now I know that they're a sub tier of twat schools

 

[ska invita]

I don't know if anyone thinks austerity is ending because of this situation, but "end of austerity" was mentioned in this thread: I don't see anything that is happening as an end to austerity - the opposite if anything. Apart from Jeff Bezos and some shrewd traders no one is better off financially, and many have lost significant income.

Councils and their services don't have any more money, in fact i'm still not certain what money they will be getting considering the suspension of business rates etc (<when will full business rates return considering the collapse of the high street?). At best councils will currently be getting the same amount, though a reduction in money from central government is I gather earmarked for years to come. The charity and volunteer sector, plus person to person mutual aid has had to kick up yet another gear to keep heads above water. There's nothing to suggest that that will change, and a lot of reasons to worry that payback for state spending will yet be thrown at us.

With all the state spending I've been trying to get my head around inflation. One thing I read suggests we would be seeing inflation now but its kind of evened out by economic depressive forces so appears flat? Another thing I heard suggests now is a great time to print money as it wont have an immediate inflationary effect, so should be done as much as possible. I think that will happen and there'll be more helicopter money, and it will be very needed, but it wont be improving life standards, at best it might keep them on a level (for some).

There is the suggestion that in coming years there will be a deliberate attempt to create inflation so as to shrink state debt - not sure, but this can also potentially reduce wage value unless wage increases keep up properly with relatively high inflation < so potential for further drop in living standards there. Then there's the economic impact of Brexit. And on top of that the general impact of a global depression to reckon with.

All of which suggests a whole lot more 'war communism' . I think there are many potential good things about basic income, but perhaps the most important one in my opinion is that it fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and the citizen in a way that is irreversible. The thread on basic income we had here was long, and I don't want to restart those arguments here. But the one positive here that I see is the possibility to fundamentally and permanently change the relationship between the state and us, the thin end of the wedge carried out out of necessity by the parties of capital, and then the wedge struck in deeper by us (once lockdown is lifted ).

All that is from a UK perspective...a lot of the above will be playing out even more dramatically in other countries, which in turn will have an effect on UK politics and possibilities.

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't know if anyone thinks austerity is ending because of this situation, but "end of austerity" was mentioned in this thread: I don't see anything that is happening as an end to austerity - the opposite if anything. Apart from Jeff Bezos and some shrewd traders no one is better off financially, and many have lost significant income.
....
The charity and volunteer sector, plus person to person mutual aid has had to kick up yet another gear to keep heads above water.

What do you mean by austerity? If austerity means an decrease in the relative income of workers there has been austerity for a long time, does austerity mean anything different from neoliberalism? Likewise I'm not sure the connection between mutual aid and austerity.

Personally I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that austerity post-2008 was a change of tendency from pre-2008 rather than a significant break. However, I cannot agree that there is no difference between the budgets of 2010/2015 and 2020 (here I mean the first budget, "prior" to the COVID-19 crisis).

All of which suggests more 'war communism'. I think there are many potential good things about basic income, but perhaps the most important one in my opinion is that it fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and the citizen in a way that is irreversible. The thread on basic income we had here was long, and I don't want to restart those arguments here. But the one positive here that I see is the possibility to fundamentally and permanently change the relationship between the state and us, the thin end of the wedge carried out out of necessity by the parties of capital, and then the wedge struck in deeper by us (once lockdown is lifted ).

Well you keep making these claims for UBI but have not provided any arguments for this. Has the minimum wage "fundamentally change[d] the relationship between the state and the citizen"? If UBI is such a game changer then why is it being supported by conservatives, liberals and social democrats as a means of supporting capitalism?

A democratic, capitalist state regards the economic roles of its subjects as something given. It does not decree who engages in which production process or assigns roles in the capitalist economy. Instead, its law merely defines that citizens have particular rights and duties if they happen to be in the situation of being workers, bosses, landlords, tenants, lawyers, bankers and so on. To the state these figures are given and they do their thing anyway. The proponents of a Universal Basic Income accept this relationship between capitalist state and capital as given and ask the capitalist state to react to a new economic development whose reasons are of no concern to them.

After all, the capitalist state does maintain the working class. By paying in and out of work benefits the capitalist state recognises that the economy it watches over does not provide for those who produce the profits. Yet, it is not some socialist sentiment which explains the welfare state but harsh necessity. Left to its own devices, capital would eat workers and the earth, in a word, it would eat what it needs to exist and thus itself.

 

[redsquirrel]

I think it is worth noting the below, from the preface of Guy Standing's Pelican book on Basic Income

The shares of national income going to ‘capital’ and ‘labour’ used to be roughly stable; that old consensus has gone. We are in a Second Gilded Age, in which more and more income is going to a minority of ‘rentiers’ who are thriving from the proceeds of property – physical, financial and ‘intellectual’. This has no moral or economic justification. And the inequities are multiplying, as is the resentment. The mixture of anxiety, anomie, alienation and anger is creating a ‘perfect storm’, enabling populist politicians to play on fears in order to build support for agendas that have echoes of the ugly aftermath of the First Gilded Age.

Unless a new income distribution system can be constructed – or at least the firm beginnings of one – the drift to the far right, which underpinned Brexit and the triumph of Donald Trump in 2016, will only grow stronger. I would argue that, as the anchor of a more egalitarian and more emancipatory system, basic income has become a political imperative, which is one of the reasons for writing this book.

And from one of the first paragraphs in the book proper

So, how high should the basic income be? Some advocates believe it should be set at the highest amount that is sustainable, and as close as possible to an ‘above-poverty’ level. This is the libertarian view, discussed in Chapter 3, which is often accompanied by claims that a basic income could then replace all state benefits and welfare services.
Others, including this writer, believe that a basic income could start at a low level and be built up gradually, determined by the size of a fund set up for the purpose and the level and change in national income. Whatever level is set, however, a basic income need not – and should not – be a calculated means of dismantling the welfare state.

Whatever you may think the above it should be absolutely clear where Standing, a long time proponent of UBI and "a founder member of BIEN and currently its honorary co-president" is coming from (BEIN=Basic Income Earth Network). And it's not a socialist position.

 

[Anju]

What would a socialist UBI look like compared to what Standing favours? Is it the implementation or just the desired outcomes that differ? I can't work out what the issues are with the type of UBI described by Standing here.


Coronavirus has made basic income not just desirable but vital

 

[redsquirrel]

Well the first paragraph makes clear the gulf between Standing and any "socialist" UBI

A basic income would increase the incentive to take whatever jobs become available.

Having advocated and tested it for over three decades, I have always regarded basic income as mainly justifiable for ethical reasons, for a good society, although the economy could survive without it. Now, in this pandemic, the economy will not survive without it.

It had become rentier capitalism, not free market capitalism, disproportionately benefiting those living on income from property or investments.

As for what a socialist UBI would like like that is a harder question, and one that it is for those who are advocating a socialist UBI to make clear. However, the Gegen Kapitol und Nation piece linked to above provides a reasonable starting point.

However, what each of these proponents actually mean and want with a Universal Basic Income is wildly divergent. Centrally, the Marxists want an end to the “compulsion to work”, liberals and libertarians rather want to provide “incentives to work”.

Yet, despite these differing and at times opposing aims, these proposals share more than just a name: they share wrong premises about the capitalist mode of production and the state which watches over it.

 

[Anju]

Well the first paragraph makes clear the gulf between Standing and any "socialist" UBI


As for what a socialist UBI would like like that is a harder question, and one that it is for those who are advocating a socialist UBI to make clear. However, the Gegen Kapitol und Nation piece linked to above provides a reasonable starting point.

Thanks, I can see how the article you linked to relates to some of what Standing says but he doesn't seem to fit the conservative UBI group and while he's going a little way down the libertarian road with the incentive to take work line the main reasons he gives are in line more with the third group of anti capitalist UBI people.

Standing is proposing a UBI that will takle "the combination of rentier capitalism, a technological revolution and rampant globalisation has created eight modern Giants – Inequality, Insecurity, Debt, Stress, Precarity, Automation, Extinction and Neo-Fascist Populism".

The Gegen Kapitol und Nation article dismisses this because it would require capitalism to work. My problem is that I don't see anything in that article offering a route to action of any sort. It's just saying that an as yet undisclosed capitalism free form of UBI should designed, capitalism destroyed and then the new UBI brought in. Seems like it might be a lengthy process.

 

[redsquirrel]

Thanks, I can see how the article you linked to relates to some of what Standing says but he doesn't seem to fit the conservative UBI group and while he's going a little way down the libertarian road with the incentive to take work line the main reasons he gives are in line more with the third group of anti capitalist UBI people.

Standing is proposing a UBI that will takle "the combination of rentier capitalism, a technological revolution and rampant globalisation has created eight modern Giants – Inequality, Insecurity, Debt, Stress, Precarity, Automation, Extinction and Neo-Fascist Populism".

The Gegen Kapitol und Nation article dismisses this because it would require capitalism to work. My problem is that I don't see anything in that article offering a route to action of any sort. It's just saying that an as yet undisclosed capitalism free form of UBI should designed, capitalism destroyed and then the new UBI brought in. Seems like it might be a lengthy process.

You've misunderstood both Standing and the GKN piece.

Standing is not articulating UBI as any sort of anti-capitalism, quite the opposite, he is proposing it as a mechanism to save capitalism, to go back to free market capitalism from "rentier capitalism". (NB on this point I think it is worth pointing out that Standing seems to be viewing the period 45-75 as business as usual and post-75 as some outlier of capitalism. I'd almost reverse that position).

GKN on the other hand are not proposing that "capitalism free form of UBI should designed" they are dismantling the idea of the UBI proposed by socialists/Marxists being in any way compatible with the UBI articulating by conservatives/liberals/social-democrats. They are not seeking a better "anti-capitalist" form of UBI.

 

[Anju]

You've misunderstood both Standing and the GKN piece.

Standing is not articulating UBI as any sort of anti-capitalism, quite the opposite, he is proposing it as a mechanism to save capitalism, to go back to free market capitalism from "rentier capitalism". (NB on this point I think it is worth pointing out that Standing seems to be viewing the period 45-75 as business as usual and post-75 as some outlier of capitalism. I'd almost reverse that position).

GKN on the other hand are not proposing that "capitalism free form of UBI should designed" they are dismantling the idea of the UBI proposed by socialists/Marxists being in any way compatible with the UBI articulating by conservatives/liberals/social-democrats. They are not seeking a better "anti-capitalist" form of UBI.

Just read GKN article properly, though it's something I wouldn't normally read so my understanding is probably a bit basic / naive, and while they draw a distinction between the different groups and how they view UBI I don't see support for the approach of any of the groups.

UBI proponents from the left are accused of trying to gain support and legitimacy by aligning with those who support UBI from a capitalist perspective and this means them conceding that UBI will exist as part of a capitalist society, so their proposal is by default not socialist, Marxist, from the left.

"The radical supporters of a Universal Basic Income notice this contradiction. For them, it is the start of a debate on how to “strategically” deal with this situation; how to keep a radical profile while campaigning for this reform. However, by the time they “problematise” that their realistic policy suggestion also finds support from their opponents (but whose support makes it realistic in the first place) it is too late. They have already accepted that this society can be for those subjected to it, when they encounter that it is in fact not: when it gets easier to produce stuff, more poverty is the result."

On Standing my understanding is that he's proposing UBI can save capitalism but that's not the primary reason given, just an, admittedly from his and probably most people's perspective positive, side effect. He seems to be doing exactly what's described in the GKN article by including pro capitalist beliefs about UBI to widen it's appeal. I do get that he isn't advocating for the end of capitalism but he does seem to approach UBI from a society first position, at least in the article I posted.

It seems like the only practical difference between Standing's and a Marxist UBI would be the level at which it's set. Personally I would prefer something achievable, which I know isn't a popular position here.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It isn't just about the level. UBI if used to prop up capital can be retrograde eg UBI of 7k a year for everybody aged between 18 and state pension age. Great. But we'll get rid of child benefit, child care vouchers, housing benefit, free prescriptions (in those parts of UK where free or for those who qualify in england) etc - after all, everybody gets UBI, they can pay housing or childcare from that.

UBI sounds sexy but within the existing framework its nothing that can't be achieved through tax. Double the personal allowance but then taper it down to zero from 50k a year or something. A lot of UBI calls from right/capital are more about undermining remnants of welfare state by replacing with a universal income - which can then be eroded anyway

 

[Chilli.s]

I can't see UBI ever happening, not from politics that won't even pay decent rates of benefits to people who need it.

All I can see is a deepening wave of austerity that makes the last 10 years seem like golden times.

I'd love to be wrong on this.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I can't see UBI ever happening, not from politics that won't even pay decent rates of benefits to people who need it.

All I can see is a deepening wave of austerity that makes the last 10 years seem like golden times.

I'd love to be wrong on this.

I can absolutely see it happening, in fact I think it will become a feature of govt globally, and I can see it happening as a means for govts to withdraw from any social provision beyond UBI. Tbh it works perfectly from the perspective of capitalist ideology - everybody gets the same start, everybody gets the same help, those who thrive are because they work hard and those who don't...

 

[Chilli.s]

I can absolutely see it happening, in fact I think it will become a feature of govt globally, and I can see it happening as a means for govts to withdraw from any social provision beyond UBI. Tbh it works perfectly from the perspective of capitalist ideology - everybody gets the same start, everybody gets the same help, those who thrive are because they work hard and those who don't...

Yeah, I suppose so... Sounds like people would pay most of it back in tax and insurance, other than the really poor who would probably have the same as now.

 

[redsquirrel]

On Standing my understanding is that he's proposing UBI can save capitalism but that's not the primary reason given, just an, admittedly from his and probably most people's perspective positive, side effect. He seems to be doing exactly what's described in the GKN article by including pro capitalist beliefs about UBI to widen it's appeal. I do get that he isn't advocating for the end of capitalism but he does seem to approach UBI from a society first position, at least in the article I posted.

I'm not sure what you mean by a society first position, yes Standing is advocating UBI as a measure that will benefit society, but as one the will benefit society because it will turn back rentier capitalism to good old free market capitalism. Standing is in no way, shape or form an anti-capitalist, he'd like a more equal society where the % of share of the wealth taken by labour is higher because he feels such a society is more stable and just but he is advocating UBI as a way to support capitalism.

It seems like the only practical difference between Standing's and a Marxist UBI would be the level at which it's set. Personally I would prefer something achievable, which I know isn't a popular position here.

No it isn't just about the level that UBI would be set. I appreciate that the GKN article may reference ideas/terminology that you are not familiar with but it is worth trying to get to grips with because it really does do a good job at looking at the fundamentals of UBI and work. Re-read the Social security section of the GKN article where the purpose of poverty and welfare is discussed

When left-wing supporters of a Universal Basic Income see Universal Credit in the Uk or social security changes in Cyprus as a first step towards realising their aims — except, of course, “details” like conditionality, compulsion to work and the amount of money actually paid out — they are ignorant as to why the capitalist state attaches conditionality and compulsion to work to its benefits, and why these benefits are so low.

And the final section

In the name of realism these radical supporters of a Universal Basic Income want to end capitalism while presupposing its continued existence. If people are free from any compulsion to work for a capitalist company, this would destroy the capitalist mode of production.

The above does not necessarily mean that UBI is bad and should be opposed. UBI might be a better means of protecting those with the least/securing a greater share for workers than the alternatives Proper Tidy outlines (thought personally I am skeptical), that's a separate discussion and becomes more technical. But it does not change the fundamental purpose of UBI, to incentivise work. A good comparison is the minimum wage, it may be an excellent thing and the level of the minimum wage should be raised but it would be daft to see the min. wage as a way of doing away with work.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It isn't just about the level. UBI if used to prop up capital can be retrograde eg UBI of 7k a year for everybody aged between 18 and state pension age. Great. But we'll get rid of child benefit, child care vouchers, housing benefit, free prescriptions (in those parts of UK where free or for those who qualify in england) etc - after all, everybody gets UBI, they can pay housing or childcare from that.

UBI sounds sexy but within the existing framework its nothing that can't be achieved through tax. Double the personal allowance but then taper it down to zero from 50k a year or something. A lot of UBI calls from right/capital are more about undermining remnants of welfare state by replacing with a universal income - which can then be eroded anyway

The other danger of UBI under capitalism - often not considered - is that it is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the cost of living. After all, if everyone’s got a spare £7k or whatever, why not put the rent up? Even leaving aside worries that it could be accompanied by the abolition of existing universal services or the stagnation of labour wages, it could well lead to a form of upwards wealth distribution.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The other danger of UBI under capitalism - often not considered - is that it is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the cost of living. After all, if everyone’s got a spare £7k or whatever, why not put the rent up? Even leaving aside worries that it could be accompanied by the abolition of existing universal services or the stagnation of labour wages, it could well lead to a form of upwards wealth distribution.

Defo. UBI as part of a model to change how capital operates (some sort of social democracy or whatever) could obviously be a progressive instrument that distributes wealth downward, although its no different to tax really, but as something introduced within the existing framework then it would inevitably lead to withdrawal of support elsewhere or rising costs (private & social landlords, no HB etc) or whatever because that's the logic of capital.

I can't find it now but I read something a few years ago on UBI which quoted somebody in favour coming at it from the economic right, they talked about homelessness and sure they saw themselves as being quite right on for their politics but it highlighted how it would be used. Not doing a good job of explaining it, but it was this really individualised stance of if we give homeless people a few grand a year there will be no (excuse for) homelessness. Without other change around UBI, with UBI just being one small and pretty unimportant part of it, then that's how it would be used

 

[SpookyFrank]

The other danger of UBI under capitalism - often not considered - is that it is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the cost of living. After all, if everyone’s got a spare £7k or whatever, why not put the rent up? Even leaving aside worries that it could be accompanied by the abolition of existing universal services or the stagnation of labour wages, it could well lead to a form of upwards wealth distribution.

Yes it does nothing for structural factors like the hoarding of property and land.