Uni Brainwasher

semitics:

The thing that I hate about atheism as a movement is that it doesn’t just want to critique the hegemony of Western Christianity, it wants to kill spirituality. There is no joy, there is nothing about it that isn’t founded in a pessimism that sees itself as so self-important that it cannot exist outside of destruction. The face of atheism is a white male disgruntled ex-Christian who decided that if he can’t find joy in religion, then nobody else can. There’s a leftover missionary sensibility to “enlighten” people to atheism that exposes itself as racist, antisemitic, and islamophobic, that’s ultimately not unlike the dominance exerted through colonial Christianity

(Source: soloveitchik, via cinnymoon)

controversìal oniòn

un1col3:

sudosuccess:

carpetmunchies:

lexaproletariat:

leftist-daily-reminders:

taxloopholes:

emperxdeleuze:

taxloopholes:

taxloopholes:

UBI is not socialist and it’s repackaged corporate welfare.

ok I’ve posted this before but…

UBI is supported by ultra-wealthy capitalists for the following reasons:

• First, UBI subsidizes disruptive technologies. “The motivation behind the project is to begin exploring alternatives to the existing social safety net,” Elizabeth Rhodes, the research director for Y Combinator’s UBI project, told Quartz. “If technology eliminates jobs or jobs continue to become less secure, an increasing number of people will be unable to make ends meet with earnings from employment.”

• UBI becomes a consolation prize for those whose lives are disrupted. Benefits still accrue to the designers and owners of the technologies, but now with less guilt and pushback about the collateral damage.

• Rather than steer technology towards social progress by promoting projects that contribute to public benefit and human flourishing – not just reflect the desires of privileged groups – Silicon Valley elites can shake off critics by pointing to UBI as the solution, and one that does not restrict their profit motive.

• UBI can, in some ways, be seen as welfare for capitalists. Now, more people can drive for Uber and work for TaskRabbit – at even lower wages! – because UBI subsidizes the meager paychecks earned by hustling for the sharing economy. The tech companies take home the profit and face even less pressure to pay a living wage to their non-employee employees.
  

The capitalist ideal of a “sharing economy” is simply an excuse to brush aside criticism while still disenfranchising workers and maximizing profits. The long term solution is socialism. Capitalism still allows for worldwide exploitation and suppression of the working class (see: globalization). Mixed economies certainly provide more than laissez-faire, but they’re putting a band-aid on the problem, which is capitalism.

Also check out Basic Income As A Neoliberal Weapon.

It’s also worth noting that it’s preposterous to assume that the bourgeois state would implement ubi in a way that would actually help people. It’d be an excuse to slash or privatize other welfare functions.

Exactly. Like you really think they’re gonna be generous with this? No lmfao they’ll try to cut costs like they already do with welfare.

This is why I supported a UBI when I was as a libertarian. It’s about keeping the capitalist ownership structure in place (the rich get to hang on to the wealth-producing means of production and machines), slashing other social programs, and outsourcing the “living wage” to the government (so that the capitalists can pay their employees even less and pull in more profits).

Libertarians have been pushing this for a long time (i.e., Friedman’s “negative income tax”). UBI is just the latest iteration.

My libertarian brother mentioned this the other day out of no where, and then he explained it as a way to prevent revolutionary action from the poor and working classes which would lead to the likely destruction of capital so like there’s a fucking motive I can believe coming from capitalists.

Government wouldn’t have to redistribute wealth if capitalism redistributed it correctly on the first place. UBI wouldn’t be necessary if the people (as in actual living people, not the state or a legal entity) owned the means of production.

UBI is the inevitable future, we just need to figure out how to implement it in a healthy way where all of these concerns are met. I think it would be best paired with a redistribution of all wealth.

(Source: jeffbezosdivorcelawyer, via un1col3)