UBI would be a good bandaid for alleviating the problems of the working class. But in capitalist countries it would only be a means to an end because it does not change the political economy in any meaningful. The bourgeoisie still control the means of production so UBI would just be a concession that they can take away if they want.
Many UBI opponents SLAM it for reasons like it might cause inflation. I don’t know enough about the economy to know if this is true or if it is whether it can be reigned in via measures such as price control. These people to me always reek of being “rampant inequality enjoyers” that hide their viciousness under the veil of fiscal responsibility.
Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour, UBI would never exist as being unemployed has to be punishing. The working class can demand reforms but eventually these reforms will bring it into conflict with capital and it would be more likely than not before a livable ubi. The dole however is a thing in many places, but generally your still in poverty on the dole.
It’s better to struggle for winnable reforms that are won by building workers power, which then train the working class to become self determinate and change the face of society forever.
Ubi is only ever advocated for by people who wanna vote for some lib to hand it down, this does nothing to build the workers movement
UBI is a wonderful bandaid solution, probably the best bandaid solution that capitalism would ever consider offering, but it is ultimately just a bandaid. It would help with food insecurity, but would not do anything to directly address the reasons why people are denied food. It would help enable strikes by providing for striking workers, but would not directly address the abusive conditions which cause strikes. It would help cover the cost of housing, but would not prevent landlords from just raising rent to steal even more from tenants.
Its strength is giving people a foothold to demand more from. A population which can’t be dropped to absolute zero is harder to subjugate than a population that can have everything stolen from them on a capitalist’s whim. For this reason alone, I would vote for a democrat offering it because it represents actual and meaningful harm reduction.
Its weakness is indirect: America is the most propagandized nation on the planet. Getting people to actually use that foothold will be a challenge, and UBI alone won’t stop people from cheering on the capitalists driving them into poverty. I used to argue that people would riot if they got a $1,000 per month UBI and then landlords immediately raised rent by at least $1,000 per month. The response to covid has make that seem unlikely
Let’s say the government decides to start giving everyone $1000 per month as UBI. Congratulations! Your rent just went up by $1000 per month. Also food is now 5x the price! Why? It’s not because of some nonsense “inflation” or any other nonsense liberal argument against it (or wage increases, for that matter). It’s simply because capitalists are greedy and they want every cent of your money they can get. If you have more money in your pocket each month, they’ll take all of it and more.
UBI cannot work unless you also implement price controls on basically everything, which governments simply won’t do. Inflation isn’t real. Capitalist greed is. Capital controls the governments, and they’re never going to do anything that benefits you.
There are two different approaches to UBI.
One is conceptualized as a transition period to a fully postscarcity, post-money economy, giving workers the ultimate strike fund. This would be good, but can’t happen under capitalism, under bourgeois democracy because it would remove the reserve army of labor. Capitalists need a poor and desperate underclass living in desperation that they can use as a threat against their workers.
The other concept of UBI is as a lifeline for capitalism and as a way to marketize, privatize, and replace all other social services. This type of UBI is the only one possible under bourgeois democracy and could never be enough to live on. It would function only as a subsidy to landlords and to the businesses underpaying workers.
