ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Party used to refer to the so-called “Communist Party” in the late 20s and early 30s are the “Commotionist Party”.
I think (hope) it’s a one-off just for 75th anniversary. But still appalling, a re- affirmation that “We will do it again. Don’t know where. Don’t know when.”
It doesn’t follow that finding mobile phones useful, indeed very useful, means that you don’t value the things you list.
Anyway perhaps we should migrate this discussion to the one you started on digitalisation since it’s a bit off topic — though, come to think of it, what would lockdown be like for personal interaction without the internet? Lucky it got invented as there’d be virtually none.
I can’t see why it is the “nature” of a mobile phone to “replace” face to face conversation any more than it’s the nature of an ordinary phone to do so. It’s a useful tool for communication between humans. And how do mobile phones deprive you of the option of face to face conversations?
ps texting is a good innovation too.
What’s wrong with mobile phones? A great invention. Means I can respond to criticism of them from wherever I am at any time.
That’s what preliminary results had suggested and what you would expect — that with a hassle-free payment people would feel less stress in terms of financial security (relative of course) and not having to prove to the authorities that they were not looking for work all the time. It’s simpler and cheaper for the authorities to administer too.
The trouble is that, while paying the same amount to every citizen whether working or not avoids means testing for the unemployed, this would be hugely expensive and have a perverse effect on the wages of those in employment. It is also politically difficult as the unemployed are not a group that is universally popular ( which might explain why when UBI was put to a referendum in Switzerland 70% voted against).
UBI would only work if you took the U out ( or made it stand for Unemployment rather than Universal ) and so as a reform of the welfare system (poor law). To avoid means testing it would have to be paid to anyone not working even if voluntarily. The rate would have to be minimal (€560 is only about £125 a week) so as not to undermine the wages system by encouraging too much voluntary unemployment. £125 a week would seem low enough for that but nobody could live on that amount unless their housing was free or subsidised (and so back to means testing!). Such a reform might work if a government could get the political support to bring it in ( which is not automatically evident).
There is nothing wrong with the idea that everybody should have access as of right to something they need — that’s the basis for distributing goods and services in socialism — but is of limited applicability under capitalism. And even under capitalism doing this directly by providing something free is probably better than doing this via a monetary payment.
“Why should socialists worry about a surveillance state? We’re not conspirators.”
Agreed the Party has nothing to hide from anyone including the State except the membership list (some employers might not like to employ socialists). But I would have thought we were against the State monitoring the activity of its subjects, socialists included. Or do you like the DWP snooping to see if you are genuinely seeking employment? Or your personal life being tracked?
That article you say Mason is touting says there are three Marxist criticisms of UBI,one of which the author says is;
“They interpret economic support for citizens as a subsidy to employers, rather than seeing it as the means by which people can strengthen their negotiating position with employers.”
I don’t see this except perhaps for the lowest paid who wouldn’t have to take the first shitty job on shit pay offered. In most cases the employer will be able to say : you don’t need a pay increase or so much as the government is already paying you £5000 or whatever it is a year, and this will be enforced by the play of the law of supply and demand in labour markets. This would also be taken into account when increasing and fixing the legal minimum wage. It just a pipe dream to imagine that it would be paid in addition to existing wages or benefits. The economic laws of capitalism don’t work like that.
I read that it’s not going to work properly on iPhones anyway. Another government cock-up by the sound of things.
MeanwhiIe I see from today’s Times that Liberty, the former National Council for Civil Liberties, thinks that “for our freedom of movement to be possible only by submitting to mass surveillance is a step too far.” A bit ambiguous as I don’t think the government is thinking of saying you can’t move freely unless you download the app. Or are they? If they are, what about those who haven’t got a smartphone?
I see that his opponents have brought down professor Neil Ferguson and completely humiliated him. It can’t be accidental that it was the Daily Telegraph, which favours putting the health of the economy first which he got the government to abandon with his criticism of the herd immunity policy, was the one wot did it. Dave B should be pleased too.
Incidentally, although he was not found out (as far as we know) via his smartphone but the usual methods employed by scumbag journalists, finding out that you had visited your mistress or vice versa is another reason (warning irony) why I don’t want my movements and meetings tracked.
That’s what I suspected but thought I had opted out of that. Apparently not:
https://www.wired.com/story/google-location-tracking-turn-off/amp
They don’t know who I meet. Or do they?
I don’t know about the rest of you here but I’m not going to download that app allowing my movements and who I meet to be tracked. It is just completely unbelievable that the intelligence services won’t be able to access this information if they need to.
If I catch it or anybody I’ve met does I’m prepared to disclose this of course and I’m not going to discourage others from downloading the spy app but I’m not going to.
So, ironically perhaps, I’m an Obstinate Refuser on this.
Here’s Bregman’s new book, Human Kind. It’s about “human nature”:
