What If We Just Gave Poor People a Basic Income for Life? That’s What We’re About to Test.

[malthaussen]

186. Control of the means of production is no part of UPI...

... which is, after all, what this thread is about.

We can argue about the failures of socialism in the real world, but I expect that we are closer to the same page than otherwise. If we stipulate that the soi-disant "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" or whatever is really not particularly socialist at all, in that it leaves most production in the hands of individuals (except for utilities, which is another thing we could fight about), and only regulates the hell out of them. But when speaking of the "failure" of socialism world-wide, I often wonder if some points are being evaded or downplayed. For instance, the most spectacular economic failure of socialism, the USSR, was subject to the die-off of some 20 million people, most from the youngest, most productive demos, and the destruction of a huge percentage of its industrial capacity as a result of WWII, and then diverted an unsustainable portion of its GDP to keeping up in the Cold War with a country that had escaped WWII virtually unscathed. Yet this is never considered when denouncing the USSR (as an economic entity) as a failure. And the fact may be that the US wrecked itself in the process, just all the chickens have yet to come home to roost. How's your social security looking these days? Where would it be if our government hadn't pissed it away on guns and bombs, eh?

But the central thing wrong with the whole capitalist/socialist debate, IMO, is that they are really brothers under the skin, in that they both see humans in economic terms, and the good only in material terms. If making toys was all it was about, then unregulated capitalism is unmatched in its power, but it might just be that there is more to life than owning the latest iPhone. And our society in the US, in its pursuit of more and better stuff, has become poorer thereby. And then there's that Second Law, which makes one question if the old model is sustainable, even if it were attainable. Yet no serious candidate for high office in this country would raise that question, not if he valued his professional life.

Which leads us back, perhaps, to the UPI. Now, I've heard it said that socialism is nothing more than a way to spread the misery equally. Very well, then what is capitalism but a way of spreading it unequally? Traditionally, capitalism addresses this question by accusing the miserable of not being worthy. But as more and more become miserable because capitalism as practiced is becoming toxic, that argument loses some of its force. Ah, but one may protest that hard work should be rewarded. Setting aside, for the nonce, that most people work hard and are not rewarded, one inconvenient question remains: how much is "enough?" Given that the winners of the economic lottery have been squirreling ridiculous sums offshore, given that some of the most once-fervent advocates of "trickle down" are starting to admit that it doesn't work and never has, then what do we do to redress the balance? The whole shtick in the past 40 or so years has been to give the wealthy more, so they would share the wealth out of the goodness of their hearts. If that turns out not to have worked, actually, then shouldn't we stop giving them more?

Which leads us to the question of why, if we give that wealth to everyone indiscriminately, they would work (out of the good of their hearts) to provide for everyone else. One could be forgiven for being skeptical about that, although there is some evidence here and there that it pays off. But mostly it is a great unknown, because we have no record of it being done on a large scale. Truly socialist societies have only existed on a small scale, and are always rubbing up against aggressive societies that want to control or destroy everything. Whether or not their failure is a necessary consequence of the system, therefore, is still an unanswered question. After all, since the Cold War, any society that was more than marginally socialist has had to fight the Free World (tm). It's rather hard to see how they could succeed under those circumstances.

Of course, Adam Smith was terribly uncomfortable with the "hidden hand" theory, and did some interesting things with it in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which should be required reading for anyone who hopes to understand him. One might say that his common sense and understanding of human nature inclined him to believe that the species was depraved, but because he actually did believe in a benevolent Creator, he had to apply himself to figuring out a way to balance that. David Hume had it so much easier in that respect.

-- Mal