L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan, I can see the articles: and it would lift those who struggle out of near hour to hour living. However it would be week to week, or year to year subsistence. It would be a granted, apex whim.
By apex, the hierarchical distributions of power.
What if basic income demands was direct democracy demands- democratic socialism- and that the vertical relations of power could be deconstructed into horizontal ‘power-with’ relations, local to global… then there would be no basic- no abundant relations. Okay, Marxism can focus too much on the economic relations, a non discursive thing, but it is discursive, and it can expand to the biopsychsocial.
Some UBIs may seem wonderful, but they should include the social, the political, the biology of who we are: and more, the totalising egalitarian and the ‘dream of democracies to come’.
I am trying to tame the post modern in me, as it is still a contentious thing, even after so long.
ALB, I see those concerns about basic income as a subsidy to the wealthy too. And the link is sobering- but I also see it as lifting those who are the most marginal out of death and subsistence- and this is what capitalism gives us as a solution! Do we choose life over subsistence wages- In the West this is under threat- with more casual, precariat employment, and where I currently live: the ‘cheap casual’! Basic is less, limited, and putting workers out to pasture- like a blind horse who survived the mines.
Basic income and direct democracy? Direct democracy gives us shared abundance- who would vote for basic?
Basic income is a life changing thing for many- but it does not change the relationship between the one who grants it, and the one who receives it. The thing is, direct democracy changes the whole thing. It is not a grant, a thing that can be given or taken away; but a thing that is, and just is!
The prize is- total inclusion in wellness: biopsychsocialpolitcal- all the rest is misdirection/mythdirection!
L.B
I am late to the debate.
Basic income, or basic participation in the collective means of production: oh there is a sting.
I am reminded of a better welfare payment. And then we ‘manage’ our own health, security, housing, and means to survive with it. It is a individualisation/ responsibilisation trope. The means continue, and the old binary continues under it: capital over labour, centrality over dislocation, active over dormant, and so on…
If I had a basic income under a capital controlled social formation: would I be set aside, paid to be dormant? If I relied on welfare, am I not divorced and alienated from the power/productive means- perhaps.
Why not a power with relation to production- and the means of it activity supporting all, for all, with all- the ideal social- made real.
I like the idea of unconditional basic income- but it is giving itself away in the dichotomous term: basic. The other is abundant.
Abundant over basic is more of the same, and ethical differential into have/ have not, control/ controlled.
It would be nice not to struggle, but it would be nice not to know struggle!
Thank you all,
Thought I would just make a quick minded contribution,
L.B
Hi all, Thanks for your comments:
robbo203: I am warmed by your concern, and the recent reports in the Spanish media. It is about time it becomes an international concern. Every day I work in this field: and I am glad to hear there are other men who challenge the ‘macho’ culture that has brought so much harm to our societies. I spoke as a man concerned about male privilege- however, women occupy this space, and own it- and women do… but is it being heard?
What can socialism do: well, I joined a women’s group- and was invited into the space (a joined up movement) to challenge men who use violence. It also encouraged me to focus on patriarchy- and how to challenge the men I might work with.
In this challenge, I deconstructed and rconfirmed: systems set up by men, centre (men in their attitudes to responding to family violence) women on holding to account for their own safety, and the safety of their kids.
Why should women be held to account, or change their behaviour to avoid male aggression? Why not hold men to account, and the state apparatus focusing on men who are a risk to women and children- it appears dichotomous- male over female. The idea appears liberal: seek your safety against the male main: individualised, responsibilsed and pre-social (capital forms of owning your own safety).
It is good to hear of the protests Robbo- I wanted to alloy my socialism with a course of action: theory in action. I have done this through work, through joining local action groups- it is everything socialism aspires to- thank you for encouraging me to think of it.
Alan: you are so helpful, and deep in the social walk- I could unpack all your points- but they speak right to the points that are before the next meeting.
Capital control is part of coercive control used in patriarchy/ male privilege: it is the entitled ownership of the other.
I would love to be there, and participate, and thank you for the opportunity- but can I say:
Single issue politics cloud things. We are about the whole issue. Do we focus (like the Joined up Movement) on bi-partisan liberation of gender- or radical gender liberation? Do we go with something that is global? But there is so much- and this is a matter close my heart…
Alan: more women’s narratives should belong to this space and at the conference… Thanks, you have helped me.
Marcos: thanks. I see it is a class issue. What I struggle with is men in a class, use violence against their class or other classes. They could be socially constructing their response to the main in capital hegemonic formations- ownership over… I have yet to locate the material you provided, and hopefully I can. But family violence seems to cut, and cut right through social strata, and through so much more
I would like to hear from women on this.
Be kind to your good selves
L.B
Family violence is a political crisis. More women are killed in family violence than in acts of domestic terrorism. Yet the world budgets of OECD nations spends more on the ‘terror threat’. I posted earlier on male violence centring on women’s protective behaviours: holding women to account for their own safety. The lefty in me is tired.
Spend more on women’s resistance to male violence- do not blame them for seeking why women have causal factors- seek instead accountability for violence… Yes a tough day at work you may ask: but I must ask.
Spend more on the very real risk of family violence- a political arena, and not just a social concern.
I added this to reflect the political, gendered reality of violence that seems secondary to ‘otherness’ threats.
Family violence is political
