Inherently, the funding of social programs must be derived by taking value away from capital and redistributing it to the public. In general, social programs might not be socialist, but in the particular case of UBI it's literally a direct redistribution of (some) surplus value from capital accumulators to society. Just like how the term "capitalism" today doesn't describe a perfectly capitalist economy, the term "socialism" has been co-opted to refer more to progress towards socialism... In that regard, I think UBI programs are distinct from typical social programs (i.e. expanding universal healthcare further does not make a society socialist, nor does improving support for homelessness) in that they are direct progress towards socialism (i.e. expanding UBI further literally redistributes value entirely from capital to society and basically achieves the goals of social ownership).

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure you have literally no idea how taxes work.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Y'know what? That's fair.

My understanding has been that the entire point of a progressive tax system is to sap money from the wealthy and redistribute it towards the public good. Whether that system works is debatable, sure.

Point being, actual UBI would require significant tax hikes and closing of tax loopholes which predominantly target the wealthy. While that may lead to capital flight, it's not a bad thing. As a whole, UBI wouldn't be a small step but a massive stride towards achieving socialism.

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

I'm totally in favor of UBI it just needs to come with rent control, food price controls, healthcare, etc. And it needs to not be paid for by taxing the working class

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

UBIs can be a good part of socialism, but not necessarily an essentialist value of it, though it's not as well-utilized under capitalism...

If Feudalism means the rule of Feudal lords, by ownership of the land and thus crop rents, and capitalism means the rule of capitalists, by ownership of capital and thus profit

Then with socialism, it's the rule of society, by communal ownership (state or not) of our industry towards societal goods, such as food, shelter, etc. and avoid the crises that come with it

If you reform the system without changing its system, it will rhyme up its mistakes all over again (do the same action but with worse effect to society)

Btw though: don't most of the ideal Socdem countries, whom you call socialist, in the West rely on exploitative unequal "exchange" , and the Socdem countries of the Global South are slandered and sanctioned, the most extreme example being Venezuela?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a fair point, but I'd like to clarify that I'm not calling socdem countries socialist. I think there's a difference between socdem policy and UBI in terms of their impacts on the economy, on the social contract, and on politics.

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh ok... I think the main pt is that UBI and Socdem policies are similar in that, while not inherent in Socialism, they would be better executed under it, as a policy...

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yep, I see your point. UBI is inherently inefficient in a capitalist system, and so the comparison isn't really fair.