A Perspective on Inflation
This article is a (possible? viable?) response to one of the few criticisms against UBI that actually holds water. My training is not as an economist and so this intended…
You do not need to adjust your computers. The following video is not parody. It comes straight from the black soul of capitalism without filter or irony.
This video is Coca-Cola spreading the message that they care for the workers they have systematically exploited – and murdered with para-military assistance – across the Majoritarian World. Not only the workers but, ironically enough, probably some of the places the workers are calling back home to have also not been left unscathed by the claws of coca-cola. In India, for instance, Coca Cola have been sued by the Kerala state government for having caused widespread environmental damage.
Not to mention the fact that it is basically 8 teaspoons of sugar mixed with other shi* no right-thinking person should put down their drain let along their throats.
If we do not want battalions of conscience laundering psychopaths dishing out to people as gifts what should be theirs by rights, change has to be made in the very understanding of what we are owed and by whom. The idea that corporations are there so that the most vulnerable can be empowered and enabled to fulfill their deep human need for relationships and purpose is revealed here for what it truly is: a marketing ploy aimed at duping and stifling, for getting us on board with something directly opposed to our most fundamental interests. The ability of corporations like Coca-cola to avoid paying the tax that could truly transform people’s lives is something left unmentioned when their philanthropic business practices are being lauded to the rafters. These are not the guardians of anyone’s welfare but their own.
Basic income is that by which corporate largesse becomes unnecessary, and we are made our brother’s and sister’s keepers… whether we like it or not.
Postscript: This seems to be part of a more general trend. It seems advertising is getting sloppy, unable to cover up the cynical muck of its own workings, losing the finesse of suggestibility and the ability to exploit gullibility (one hopes!). Check out this post from Mark Engler on a bizarre Cadillac advert playing in the states. Are people buying this kind of trash?
Photo courtesy of vgm8383
Pingback: Fight For 15: Fast Food Wage Strikes Revisited | Traditionalist Youth Network
Love the anti-corporation tendency on this site. I wonder how much of a UBI we could afford if you had your way and there were no corporations, good luck funding a UBI with taxes on Mario’s Fish and Chips shop. “Oh but, Adrian corporations don’t pay any tax!” Grow up, and stop reading Guardian.
UBI is perfectly compatible with Capitalism, you might want to consider your juvenile anti-capitalism nonsense might be alienating people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your cause.
First, I find it strange you think the Guardian is somehow a bastion of radical, anti-capitalist thought! That reveals more about the origin of your own political orientation than it does about the content of my own antipathy toward capitalism.
Two things to be said: Corporations come in many forms. There are the type that existed before massive financial deregulation which were forced into long political battles with unions and governments. This was prior to the financial system we have now which begun some time in the late 70’s and cemented by the mid – 80’s. There are then corporations that exist now – fully globalised, operating with incredibly fluid and mobile capital that means they no longer have to worry about govt./trade union involvement. So when you accuse me of beinganti-corporate, I think it is incumbent upon you to specify the species of corporation you mean. A great many capitalists are against the predatory corporations we have today.
Having said that, I agree a UBI is compatible with capitalism. There are two main strands to this compatibility: one which will secure capitalism, prop up consumption and increase economic activity. This could also see, as some fear, an increased marketization of important goods and services.
The other is an example of short-term compatibility. That is, we have UBI as a transitional tool to move us beyond capitalism to something else – whether that situation be market socialist, anarchist or communist. This is the one people describe as utopian, infeasible against human-hard-wiring. I think such talk is usually the sign of an ahistorical political imagination but whatever the case, it remains to be seen.
However, make no mistake. Yes, money will come from things like closing the loops on corporate tax-evasion. But it is also a tool to re-energise battles against capital. To create for individuals and communities a protected position from within which to renegotiate what is at present an all-our assault on the welfare of the many. We should not retreat from this ‘us’ and ‘them’ stance, because they haven’t the inclination, either… and they can feed us all the guff they want about the conscience laundering “philanthropy” they engage in.
Hope that is of some interest – apologies for being long-winded but your short-comment was both provocative and ill-thought.
David,
First, thank you for the video, an incredible demonstration of the psychopathy underlying corporate corruption.
But my comments here are directed to your response to the comment by “Adrian” which attacked your supposed “juvenile anti-capitalism”. While I am in complete sympathy with your critique of capitalist corruption, I think Adrian made an excellent point, and forced me to look deeper into your perspective on the universal unconditional basic income.
Clearly, Adrian is one of those people alienated by your “anti-capitalist” stance, but otherwise inclined to be sympathetic to the UBI. As he states, and you then concur, “UBI is perfectly compatible with Capitalism.” Because this is such an extremely important point, I think it deserves further reflection.
In your response to this critique, you first seem to notice that Adrian equates corporatism with capitalism, so you move to distinguish two types of corporations: -1- those which achieved their power through battles with government regulation and labor-union negotiations (up until the time of Ronald Reagan), and -2- those corporations arising after deregulation and the demise of labor-unions. Your implication here is that there are “good” and “bad” corporations, and that your “anti-capitalism” is only directed at the “bad” corporations.
However, the next turn of your logic reveals that you are being somewhat disingenuous here. Upon first reading, I assumed you were among those “…great many capitalists [who] are against the predatory corporations we have today.” But when you attempt to distinguish two types of “compatibility with capitalism” for UBI, one long-term which stabilizes the capitalist-based economy, and the other short-term that merely provides a bridge to some non-capitalist economy, I begin to suspect that Adrian’s “juvenile anti-capitalism” may not be far from the mark.
I find this disturbing, because in all of the noise now being generated in the debate about basic income, I have encountered few people able to articulate anything useful about the idea, other than their unexamined opinion, while your ideas regarding the impact of UBI on corporate behavior go right to the heart of the matter. So perhaps you can see why it is unsettling to see someone whose eyes are open to the real issues involved with a move to basic income who, apparently, fails to appreciate that the basic income does in fact solve the problem of corruption within capitalism, and precludes the necessity of any transition to the various and disguised forms of socialism.
So, David, I would urge that you take Adrian’s criticism to heart, abandon the “juvenile anti-capitalism” so rife in “progressive” circles, and focus on the mechanism by which a universal, unconditional basic income guarantee can eliminate the corruption currently so entrenched in the corporate world. You seem to know this is the solution we are seeking, for you state in your article: “Basic income is that by which corporate largesse becomes unnecessary …”. But why follow this with a statement that suggests some sort of socialist or communist solution: ” and we are made our brother’s and sister’s keepers… whether we like it or not.”?
I hope you don’t think I’m splitting hairs here. The real battle for the basic income will come down to this: is it charity or is it emancipation? While you have seized upon the central argument for liberation, I suspect you may really see the basic income as a charity program to get us through until the rise of a new Karl Marx. I hope you will prove me wrong.
P.S. I recommend that you read, or re-read, Bucky Fuller’s __Grunch of Giants__, where he states in the foreword:
There exists a realizable,
evolutionary alternative
to our being either atom-bombed into extinction
or crowding ourselves off the planet.
The alternative is the computer-persuadable veering of big business from its weaponry fixation
to accommodation of all humanity
at an aerospace level of technology,
with the vastly larger,
far more enduringly profitable for all,
entirely new World Livingry Service Industry.
Francis Li Goodwins
[email protected]
I wish i had time to respond to this more fully as you have obviously put a lot of effort into it…. unfortunately I am in a rush and want to respond now. So I will ask one questions and then make one point: Can you clarify where the ‘juvenile’ part of my anti-capitalism begins and where a non-juvenile rejection of capitalism would end? The development of capitalism thru Neo-liberalism is not just a development it took but a form it necessarily took – the decimation of labour unions was not a side-effect but a strategy. Therefore, I do see capitalism as necessarily adversarial to moves towards justice, freedom and equality. So until you clarify what you mean by juvenile as opposed to just anti-capitalist, I’m afraid we are not really in conversation with one another.
UBI is instrumental because of what it introduces into a capitalist system as a means to overcome the logic of that system. G.A. Cohen is interesting on this front – where capitalism sees gains in productivity to increase profit, other forms of organisation (including something like market socialism, which i am not averse to) can translate them into other meanings. So, perhaps where I am unclear is that I retain the idea that markets have a function but a limited one. UBI is absolutely emancipatory – and it is an emancipation away from market logic and economic rationality not a means of providing charity (I don’t really see how you got from my arguments to this notion that I endorse charity as an answer to injustice – only the most rabid libertarian could entertain such notions… It is the move beyond mere compatibility with capitalism that I think is where we differ (and again where is the ‘new Karl Marx coming in, what do you mean by this – do i strike you as needing a vanguard or a demagogue?)
However, all this being said, if we got to the point where UBI civilizes capitalism and goes no further, we would have still made a great stride toward justice.