Why is leftypol opposed to UBI exactly...

Why is leftypol opposed to UBI exactly? Both our ideologies are fiercely individualistic and promise the end of the ruling class.

UBI activists simply believe that it is pointless to make the means of production public as we are rapidly progressing to a post-labour society. This is driven, ironically, by the capitalists' desire to drive down costs and we're already seeing the fruit of the labour:
theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/21/amazons-first-automated-store-opens-to-public-on-monday
youtube.com/watch?v=CbL_3le40qc
youtube.com/watch?v=uHbMt6WDhQ8

I just want to quickly lay down some answers to the common UBI questions so we don't spend all day establishing positions before we debate

Attached: UBI Society in a nuthsell.jpg (640x461, 84.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0
youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
youtube.com/user/reseausalariat/videos
hooktube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g[/embed]
youtube.com/watch?v=rbFuNjTjdiY
8ch.net/qresearch/catalog.html
youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A
subversionpress.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/free-money.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0

Not the society we live in, or will live in for quite some time (or really ever). Might even make the point that it becomes impossible to create surplus value in that kind of society, as that comes from human labour, and so all you do via UBI in stead of collectivization, is just instituting perpetual rents for the owners of capital, a useless giveaway to parasites. But anyway, it's a fantasy and you can't base policy on it. As the rest of your positions hinge on this you're not even worth engaging. You simply do not understand how actually existing production works. Whatever point exists for UBI, you are not making it.

Rude sage.

Going through some of the points he raised:

He seems to think that innovation has similarly stopped. What will happen to taxi / truck drivers once self driving cars hit the road? Uber, a company that owns zero cars is working on a self driving vehicle. He goes onto to claim that each facet of industry will need similar significant investment from R&D without realising that biped robots exit today and could easily be repurposed on a per-need-basis. youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Ridiculous no revolution is going to make everybody happy

This isn't our belief at all though. We believe that UBI will be funded by the same organisations that benefit from automation. Coke for example that has zero employee factories.
Because automation replaces the same workers that they're trying to sell to. If a company saves a billion on labour it makes no sense to pocket that money. Paying ~80% tax on it will fund the same people that spend 5 billion a year on your products. It's a numbers game.

Why are you getting so angry over a genuine question proposed to the board? You sound like a Zig Forumstard outraged that anyone might challenge or question their beliefs.

An idea is an idea you don't need all the foundations set to begin discussing the implications of a system. Claiming to know what isn't possible in the future simply isn't an argument against UBI.

And human labour is still required for a range of jobs that automation simply cannot do. Research and education being the most important of those. Simply put: in a UBI society 'Surplus value' in your terms is created by innovation rather than production.

Just as everybody else gets a "giveaway". As I said in OP inequality is hard to measure when you're considering the abundant disposable income of individuals.

Why not UBA or just direct democratic control of the means of production?

I'm not into reformism usually but UBI to prevent automation under capitalism is a desirable reform.
Under advanced socialism with labor vouchers, we could also imagine some kind of "basic vouchers" to accelerate even more automation and allow people to live from "non-work activities".

is still porky giving you only some of what he has taken from you so you dont kill him.

In full, complete, automation, where nobody has to do any work at all, then the correct solution is for every human to receive exactly even share of the whole of the wealth of humanity.
With UBI instead, in such a scenario, the fact that all needs are already met means you cant even have competition to occasionally fluctuate who is doing the providing of a certain good or service, as they are already operating at infinite supply and as efficient as possible, so unless some already existing capitalist has capital which would be better at producing something else, the entire industrial output of mankind will become locked in place, with the owners of it being the permanent eternal ruling class.

You could say, that if we go even further along this path, to complete post scaricity, why would it matter? Even if people are 'economically' unequal it is only on paper since everyone has access to anything and everything they can imagine. However in such a situation it is still better to have joint control over these things, to prevent some crazy capitalist from ruining everything out of boredom.

This.
imo, UBI is just capitalism on life support

Also, capitalism should eat itself.
Fuck giving people free stuff so capitalism can continue to function.

Research and education do not create commodities as such and can't create surplus value. Surplus value is not something you can grab out of thin air via something as nebulous as innovation. Technological change can certainly reduce the average socially necessary labour time to produce any one commodity, but that does not tell you anything about the surplus value generated out of the production process. You clearly do not have the slightest grasp on even the basic terminology.

But I'll leave you with a parting shot: if you reason from a position of private property, UBI is in essence a straight giveaway from the owners of the productive forces to the people receiving the UBI. Any political movement powerful enough to compel the owners of capital to give away enough of "their" products to sustain people at a reasonable level of material comfort, would be powerful enough to do away with private property entirely (and vice versa, nothing short of a credible threat off total expropriation will compel the owners of capital to these concessions). What exactly is the point of maintaining private ownership of capital at all? What goal is served by keeping a parasitic class of owners who just collect rent?

Universal basic income is the only way capitalism can survive automation. Why? Because every seller needs a buyer. Every billionaire needs his consumers. You really think people like Mark Zuckerberg supporting UBI is a good sign?

The only other option would be, from the POV of the bourgeosie at least, mass murder - maybe at some point rich folks would have automated work so much that they don't need the other couple billion humans on the planet anymore. But that would mean a mass revolt, so UBI is probably the safer route.

Imagine UBI existing and most jobs being automated: Do you really think you'll get enough money? Or do you think those greedy mfs will give you barely enough to survive, and the minute you complain about it they'll cut off your UBI for violating the conditions, which will in effect be your death sentence, because you as a proletarian never owned any means of production, meaning that you don't have any land to grow food on and no seeds to sow, meaning that having money on hand is the only way you can survive, money that you won't have once the rich and powerful turn off your handouts?

Once automation sets in more and more people will realize the downfalls of capitalism that mfers like Karl Marx have already pointed out to you in the 1800s.

But think about it for a moment: Humans have ALWAYS tried to produce as many goods with as little labor as possible. That's why we used fire in the first place, that's why we invented the wheel, that's why discovered metals, invented the book print, cars, telephones, the Internet. All those steps helped us produce more and better goods with less labor in the same amount of time. All those steps helped us go from primitive hunters & gatherers to city-dwelling modern folk. That progress is something humanity has always been striving towards, regardless of economic system.

But now, because of the way late capitalism works, humans innovating labor so damn efficiently that we don't even need to WORK anymore is seen as something BAD, instead of being the greatest innovation of all time, instead of being the moment humans finally passed into a post-scarciity world, a world where there is no need to constantly waste precious hours of our limited time on this Earth just to ensure our own survival. So is the mass automation of labor really so bad?

The sad answer is: Under capitalism, it is. The minute you were born, your life was measured in money, starting with the hospital fees your parents had. If you, like the vast majority of humans on Earth, belong to the proletarian class, then your entire worth is merely measured in wage labor. You don't own land. You don't own notable real estate. You don't own factories. You don't own patents, robots, machines, tools. All you own is your wage and the few things you can buy off of that - nothing much in the grand scheme of things. Your entire livelihood depends on your wage labor, on a rich man paying you enough so that you can go out there and buy other things from other rich men. If now robots replace your wage labor, then what are you worth to the bourgeoisie? You were never an owner, you were merely a worker. You would now be worthless within capitalism. That's the perverted thing about this system: The greatest innovation of mankind will be absolutely detrimental to the vast majority of mankind. Instead of rejoicing, we will be devastated. That isn't a given - it could all be different, we could let humanity benefit so much from automation, we could end world hunger, we could permanently end all poverty, everyone would have enough to survive. But it won't happen, at least not as long as capitalism lives on.

Once robots take labor over, UBI will be the only thing that keeps consumption running at that point - this is why I am against UBI as a socialist. Socialist are not interested in handouts, fuck your handouts. Instead of focusing on handouts, that means how wealth is distributed, we should focus on how wealth is MADE. Distribution won't mean shit to us once automation hits in. We will never be truely free until we own the means of our own production and enjoy the fruits of our own labor. Until then we will always be slave to the bourgeoisie, whether it's through wage labor now or through UBI later. We as a human race will only progress if those who work also own the means they work with, if we stop having to depend on selling our labor to rich folk to survive, and instead overthrow our bosses and become our OWN bosses. Fuck UBI.

Attached: dcc4d98.jpg (1440x1126, 144.67K)

Do you understand the Marxist critique of capitalism? I'm pretty sure you don't or you wouldn't be asking this question.

Ok, so why is the UBI problematic?
To answer this question we have to understand what the UBI means economically. From my understanding, the UBI would distribute money in the form of government spending, enough to sustain the unemployed. Where does the money come from?
Here we have two choices, either increase taxes or cut government spending in other areas.
In the latter case, you have just created a means to revoke worker's rights and social welfare as a means to pay for UBI and thus leaving the workers in a worse situation than before due to the privatization of the state sector that will surely follow.
In the first case, you have created a burden to the profitability of private business, something that the bourgeois will surely try to regain in the future as they have shown to have been doing in periods of crisis.

He immediately conflated you with a Zig Forumsyp for no reason, do you really think that he's capable of understanding your points? I mean fuck he ignored half of what Cockshott said as well. I think we should be welcoming to socdems fresh of the boat from reddit but not when they act like this, as if disagreeing with them when they as is a personal affront.

I firmly believe that there is value in trying to argue even with clods. I will continue to do so whenever I have the time and energy. Arguing even with seemingly dishonest actors will keep us sharp - do not be lured by the siren song of "it's not my job to educate you".

Never said you shouldn't argue with him, he's not dishonest though, just seems to have swallowed a bunch of MMT nonsense. As an aside he's also the same poster screeching in the Progressive Internationale thread, since he's used the same Zig Forumsyp well poisoning tactic there. I argue in youtube comments lmfao, I'm definitely not falling for that siren song, I just question the effort spent on someone who clearly jumped in out of their depth without even understanding the basis of any of the Marxist arguments against UBI and yet gets offended when presented with some of them as if his position MUST be the correct one. At least on Youtube there are neutral spectators.

I asked a question of the board and you immediately respond that I’m not worth engaging. Of course you’re going to get a defensive reply. You then proceed to jerk each other off which is adding nothing to the thread. I won’t be the first person to do a leftypol search for ubi. Now there is a thread, but instead of discussion you’re just shitting it up.

Why the fuck would you trust a bourgeoisie-controlled state to maintain this program the way you intend for it to exist, forever?

You could say the same thing for universal healthcare and welfare.

i understand my fantasy reality will never exist, so if i have to choose it is socialism for me- ubi just seems like a way for the capitalist parasites to give just enough to shut the working class up while they continue to destroy our Earth and souls

With an emancipatory UBI, more people can go fulltime revolutioner and initiate a qualitative change of society. Material dependency is one main reason why so many are detained and stay hypocritical in their political conviction.
However, material pauperization is one condition to proletarian revolution - at least according to Marx. The premise is that then satisfaction of commodities is more satisfied, resistance against the system declines. This might be true but only if existential fear disappears, too.
I think climate change upholds the ladder and therefore, an emancipatory UBI will unleash revolutionary potential.

Attached: LOGH politicians.jpg (500x500, 105.82K)

wouldn’t ubi just give the rich insects more control over our lives. do you really trust such a thing? eggshell skepticism… Why would they do such a thing if there was revolutionary potential? it won’t happen… like shoving a pacifier in a baby mouth

That is until the bourgeois state starts to punish "subversive activities" with a decrease in UBI payments

The question is not if I trust the hegemonial powers but if I trust the organization of progressive resistance. Scrutiny arises when I consider how to prevent rise of ecological footprint and exploitation with an emancipatory UBI. Even in the radical left, some people will rather pursue hedonistic values and probably become more reformist.
I don't believe politics strictly follows the orders of the rich pseudo-elites. They have an interest in keeping their wealth and an UBI (not an emancipatory though) will protect that. How does financial redistribution could empower the expropriated ones?


In German, UBI is called unconditional basic income. Punishments contradicts the essence of unconditional. This is not a futuristic scenario but rather today's reality. For example, in Germany, many social welfare recipients are not even allowed to leave their location without allowance of their Jobcenter.

Who immediately responded that you're not worth engaging? It certainly wasn't me and I don't think it was the other poster either since he defended engaging with you. The reason people don't think it's worth engaging with you is that you've come to a Marxist/Anarchist board without even knowing what the arguments against it are, "answering" common questions that literally aren't ours with idealist nonsense before the "debate" begins and then when you get told that your framing is entirely wrong, because you've made stupid assumptions, compared posters to fascists as if our "beliefs" are implicitly less valid than yours, and that people shouldn't be able to respond how they wish on an anonymous imageboard. And now to top it all off, you're concern trolling rather than responding to people because you've realised you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Can't organize workers if no-one actually is doing any work.

youtube.com/user/reseausalariat/videos

Attached: bernardfriot-par-cyrillechoupas-011.png (1200x600, 912.66K)

Yes I could. And I do!

Britain's probably gonna lose theirs.

UBI Is the final Social-Democratic Demiurge meant to stop the working class from achieving true Class consciousness and socialism / Communism

Not wanting to work shouldn't be a punishable offense

sure, but if you don't work and nobody needs you around, you shouldn't eat, or live in the woods.

Ignoring that
like some fucking Porky, I just want to point out that Aristotle, Plato, and Diogenes never worked a day in their lives.

lmao you have no idea how the economy works.

Tell it to the union, pincushion.

you can't have a diversified division of labor in your economy without education

Tell that to white rural America
No seriously please tell them, My grandkids might be the first people on the American side of the family might be the first to pass high school

...

If true, that would be why it is essential to make the means of production public. Private ownership and control over something so essential would place intolerable power in the hands of a few individuals.

The main fallacy with this line of reasoning is that the ruling class cannot maintain the power it does without labor to exploit. If they become obsolete, no one will give them any wealth, so they will do anything they can to keep themselves relevant, usually at the cost of societal progress.

...

Ubi would prevent the downfall of capitalism and make it a total slave society (even more than now)
Because automation would collapse capitalism and allow a new society to rise from its ashes.

So you're against universal healthcare and welfare under capitalism?

Not him, but I do not support rolling them back, though I would have been against them (privately) while they were being introduced.

Its simply going to kill any trade unions that exist today, especially in the lower skill bracket due to massive increase in labor reserve army. As for the science part I doubt that majority of current STEM field workers,students and specialists do it for the money and if they do I really don`t want to motivate people who are going for the job just due to their greed rather than love for the sciences itself. Then there is the thing that this would swift the economic burden of actually paying for wages from capitalists to state.

UBI is better for workers in the here and now but if you think about it for more than two seconds you realize that its just corporate welfare, a method for the government to step in with tax money (THAT THEY ALREADY MOSTLY COLLECT FROM THE WORKING CLASS) and compensate for the extremely low wages being given out by the bourgeois. Also you're a moron if you think 'post-labour' means anything wrt the means of production. We will probably never have replicators or whatever Star Trek bullshit, and even if we did there would probably be some kind of upper limit on how much energy can be spent synthesizing french fries and new fleshlights or whatever. So you still have one resource, which is limited in some way. Allowing private control of any resource is a foot in the door at best for the capitalists and at worst is allowing the system to continue in some post-labor hellworld where nobody has a job besides the rich and their servants

UBI is a twist on flat tax. As much as I like the sound of that, I know in my heart that it was put out by Capitalist-Marxist scum who serve The Hyper-Elites.

It has been argued several times that UBI need not take the form of actual currency, it could come in the form of free electricity/energy subsidies. How does that help porky?

Starving the lumpens is dialectical.

I'd rather have my money and benefits come from the government than from my boss because the government can't fire me. Corporate welfare is a liberal paternalistic meme riddled with protestant work ethic that has no place on this board.

If it does not take the form of actual currency, then it is, per definition, not UBI.

You're missing the point. Any form of UBI will lead to companies driving down wages, since your wage is basically being subsidised by the state. In other words, UBI will give you exactly nothing, while allowing companies to exploit you even more (which ironically will kill any growth in productivity for the foreseeable future).

I'm a student, I'd get cash and no company will exploit me more. People who don't want to work will get cash and a lot more free time. People who make minimum wage will get extra cash and won't see their wages lowered. The elderly, students, mothers of young children, the disabled all have a lot to gain from this.

You're right though that over time people who make a lot more than minimium wage won't be helped. Wages are inelastic though so there'd probably be a decade where everyone benefits

Yeah, except, you know, the next thing the neo-liberals implementing this are gonna do is slash the minimum wage, and all benefits as well. That's the entire reason why you see people like them advocating this. If you want to help students, the elderly, etc, you give them benefits specific to them. If you want to help workers, you raise wages. UBI is a great way to do neither.

UBI is one post labor possibility. The whole 'everyone gets UBI' thing is true but not as significant as people think since by the time we would possibly see UBI almost everyone would be unemployed.

UBI is basically a way of dealing with the problem, instead of everyone working 7 hours a week or something a few people work the standard 8/9 hour day which society seems incapable of ideologically letting go of, and everyone else just lives on UBI. Under these conditions UBI would in fact be livable because if it wasnt its job (keeping people from revolting) would be a failure.

Indeed in the short term it would probably result in wages being lowered to compensate. This would still potentially have the desired effect long term, however, since the real problem is just getting the system implemented and up and running.
Its not the favorable solution, but thats what UBI would be in practice, it would 'work' to keep people placated and not revolting. You would end up with a powerless underclass with out even any method of possible advancement. So basically current capitalism but worse, only nobody starves.

Under socialism I'd vote to give people who choose not to labor some section of the social product. It's a necessary part of the move towards luxury communism. Eventually technology will be advanced enough to only have those people laboring who'd do so voluntarily, while still maintaining a satisfactory living standard for the rest of us.

Basically this. we need to stop putting capitalism on life support with all the gibs

but why feed the people you don't need to have around? you'll have a much higher percentage of goods under communism vs capitalism, if you give it to your family and other people you want to have around everyone else will naturally do the same.
if there's a literal scum of the earth violent leach who's worthless and begging for handouts I see no problem with tossing him to the wild with other leaches to learn diligence.

kill yourself liberal
[embed]hooktube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g[/embed]

I'm not talking about under capitalism you spooked emotional idiot.

Is this person shitposting, or do they really not know history?

What you described is some kind of decentralized fascism. You're encouraging eugenics and attempting meritocracy.

holy shit

youtube.com/watch?v=rbFuNjTjdiY

No starving people to death and implying murdering them by throwing them into the woods based on your delusions of their inferiority due to social status is fascism.

no, fascism in practice is when you tolerate and promote mental illness, which is what you're suggesting.

Mental illness isn't an indication of value of a persons life, brainlette.

it literally is though, says all relevant political philosophy.

Eugenics isn't a valid political view. Mental illness is a spook. Look into the anti-psychiatry. Most of the prominent figures are leftists.

>youtube.com/watch?v=rbFuNjTjdiY

Attached: 1443964136496.jpg (330x319, 47.7K)

UBI does not grant self-governance, money is not power - it is a fiction. Only direct control of the means of production produces liberty in it's most real sense, not in any utilitarian fantasy.

Also, people like Ben Shapiro support UBI in the event of full-automisation of capital, it is clear that this is the end-game of porky. Marx also called social democracy 'social fascism' since it is in direct opposition to communism despite it's "left-leaning" nature - think of centrists as radicals in their own nature, since they will do anything in their power to deny the far-right and left respectively, so pertain to the absolutist ideology of moderation. This is why I consider centrists as complacent authoritarians, not level-headed rationalits.

Attached: 2e8syk.jpg (898x790, 53.04K)

I'm guessing utopians like foucault in all but name are what classify as left to you

no, that was a Comintern theory derived from Zinoviev.

It is mostly anarchist sceptics who see psychiatry as another bureaucratic mode of control revolved around the private pharmaceutical industry and the state.

People jumping to the conclusion that mental illness is "fake" or otherwise clearly have the bliss of ignorance though. Sometimes it is libertarians like Molyneux who cannot relinquish the concept of free will for his ethics to called into question. I have actually heard Stefan recently say that he doubts the legitimacy of psychology because it is an academic field dominated by Jews; not much of a solid argument imo.

Attached: Levine-1.jpg (1854x1536, 253.5K)

does the criticism still stand though?

Pretty sure that Marx predates fascism.

Liberals are trying to slash the minimum wage now they will always try to get rid of it, it doesn't matter if there's a UBI or not. You have no understanding of how power works.

The fuck does that have to do with anything I've said? Of course libs want to slash the minimum wage, this is a completely banal point that says nothing of your understanding of "power". What I am saying is that UBI is a ploy to sneak through yet more austerity, supported by supposed "leftists" who are drunk on memes about FALC and have no understanding of the actual economic impact of this policy. If your aim is to improve welfare, raise wages, lower working hours, improve productivity, or introduce some sort of pseudo-communism funded by gibmedats, UBI is both markedly inferior to alternatives and in many cases completely counter-productive.

Marx did call it "Socialistic Bourgeoisie" though.

UBI is a good policy, but to pursue it alone or even primarily is just economism, just like Medicare for all and a 15 minimum being your only political position is economism.

By themselves, these are good things that help workers, and we should support them. That said, our politics should be much broader than these specific issues implemented as defensive measures within the framework of bourgeois democracy even if we support them as critical empowerment of the working class.

It can be a ploy to sneak in more austerity, but it doesn't have to be. Social Security didnt sneak in austerity, it created a program that they will never be able to destroy. Every other program is open to be chopped up, but being against SS is political suicide, a UBI is social security for everyone.

We can have a UBI, and raise corporate taxes and raise wages. Whatever alternatives you think are better can be done as well. The only people who don't support a UBI are people who never struggled financially. I can't imagine how insulated you'd have to be to not realize that having more cash in your pocket is a good thing.

A good chunk of "mental illness" today is people just not being good workers though. My mom had an anxiety disorder that disappeared when she retired. A lot of depression is people having a normal reaction to a miserable life. A lot of people with "High Functioning Autism" would just be considered weirdos or nutty professor types if they werent forced to do corporate teamwork shit in order to eat and have a roof over their head.

This doesn't apply to all mental illness of course, but psychiatry is about treating individuals instead of the society that causes their problems. Some percentage of mental illness is brain chemistry issues that would exist no matter what, but some percentage is caused by our horrible environment and some is the medicalization of inefficient personalities.

t. nazi collaborator

Translation: "I consider myself a proletariat, but anything that benefits NEETs takes away potential allies from my movement, therefore let's make NEETs more miserable than they already are so they join us. That's the real reason UBI is not liked by Zig Forums."


Great thread.

If you won't work you will not eat, sorry "comrade".

You sound like a leftytard upset that we all have seen the video of your boardowner with a dick in his mouth


how is making everyone the same under the hammer of the state individualistic?

Damn UBI threads always pop up, and again, as a 1488 visitor and shitposter to your bo ard, I will share some truth. Something like UBI will eventually be necessary IF and WHEN we actually progress to a society with considerably more surplus and automation than today. The individual wealth of the average person has skyrocketed in the last 150 years, but our reproduction rate (at least among niggers,, pajeets, and bugmen) has skyrocketed too. Not saying I don't want 17 white children, but that's only to counter the brown people. Anyway… as long as we have people who just blindly reproduce and overpopulate, and so many of these people are absolute fucking freeloaders, we won't get there. Despite your commie dreams, alleviating the need to work to survive would not be some utopia, it would be hell on earth with no sense of purpose (we already see this happening with mixed race no family ties welfare scum) and no sense of accomplishment (if you don't pull your own weight and/or contribute what the fuck good are you). We have to fix the dumbassery of the human race (I suggest eugenics) before we can reach the utopia you want.

Please do not misgender Che, she is a beautiful and strong woman and a proud retard (yes that's right racists we're taking the word back)

Taxation is theft, but people that don't work don't get taxed. Why are you supporting porky fascist?

8ch.net/qresearch/catalog.html
🦉
Flood detected

Attached: IMG_4527.JPG (800x800, 351.94K)

Broke: Taxation is theft
Woke: Profit is theft

How can porky profit if no one works for him?
Again, why are you supporting porky fascist?

Why are you helping porky by posting on his datamining website, fascist?

???
Individualism is a fucking disease. Fuck off. A collective of individuals not individualism, ok?

I too was once optimistic naive as fuck

This is a long long long way off. You might think this day is here, but you must step out of your silicon valley tech utopia bubble. Look at the state of labour in the entire world. To automate all of that even to the level of say, germany, would take us a long long long long fucking time. At least a lifetime, if not more.

This is caused by wealth accumulation you fucking brainlet, jesus. What is taking houses from some and giving 3 to others, if not accumulation of wealth?

Youre idealistic

Counterpoints in next post:

1. UBI will have to be funded out of taxed money. Ultimately, where is the place money ends up? Capitalists. So you tax capitalists to pay for UBI, whose sole function (for the capitalists) is so the workers can then spend it on their products again. They are basically giving them free shit. This will result in two things:
1a. No profit can be made if no labour is paid. Profits drop as the share of UBI increases. Any sale done by UBI is just taxed off on the other end. If there is no selling of labour, the cycle of capital cannot continue to exist and the market system as we know it seizes to exist.
1b. There is no reason capitalists would willingly let this happen. Remember, they still have all the power over what, how and how much is produced. Why should they produce goods if they cannot sell them and get a profit? They would never willingly go along with full on utopia-UBI. They will probably turn society into some sort of neo-feudal tech-dystopia. If you force them to go along, you assume control over their factories and force them to do what the workers want, which is just collectivisation with extra steps.

2. UBI removes labour power from the workers. Right now, the capitalist needs the workers, he cannot exist without them. That is where the only real power of the workers lies. They can strike, they control the work. If the workers dont work, the factories do not run, the capitalist do not make money and cannot pay his goons (cops and others) to keep the workers in line. If a king cannot pay his soldiers, the soldiers will sack his cities. But add UBI? Now the workers rely solely on the capitalists. The roles are reversed. Wages for "optional" jobs are so low they can not sustain a person. But the capitalist class, which controls the factories and money, can take away income from a citizen on a dime. Now, people have no economic power, they have no way to enforce their desires on the capitalists, they are at the mercy of the capitalist.

3. UBI has been supported by people like milton friedman because it allows a nice way to cut down welfare even more and increase the range of market. It has been supported by people like him, but with caveats like "people who get money through UBI shouldnt be allowed to vote because they would vote to give themselves more" and other things. Here are some things that are going to happen if you implement the "ubi in place of other welfare stuff"
1. At some point UBI will get cut, or
2. Prices will increase while UBI stayed the same
3. Voting rights from those with UBI will be reduced
All in all, its much easier to cut the numeric value of the UBI or fuck it up with inflation or price hikes, than it is to cut set in stone welfare guarantees like ambulances, healthcare and education.

4. UBI wrongly assumes that automation is always cheaper. It is not. It might be cheaper now, but what is labour under capitalism? A commodity. What happens to a commodity if its demand goes down while it supply goes up (by, i dunno, people automating lots of jobs?). Its price drops. What happens where an employer has to choose between cheap labour and relatively more expensive automation? They choose cheap labour. Just look at all of the third world, they closed down automatic factories in the 70's because it was cheaper to have japs assemble it by hand than to have machines do it, and its cheaper to have chinks do it today, or have Moroccans peel shrimp, than it is to have machines do it.
As automation goes up, unemployement goes up, and so thus also automation slows. Your ideal of "full automation" will never come because under a system where its primary motivation is making profit rather than saving labour time, automation in itself acts as a negative feedbackloop on itself. The more you automate, the cheaper labour becomes, and the cheaper it becomes not to automate. A capitalist system, even under UBI, is inherently stagnatic. Even if you somehow manage to get UBI, people would still have lots of time to do labour, and thus their labour would still exist, even if it is in a reduced amount. In the end, even an ideal UBI system where all the capitalists play nice, would still lead to stagnation, not further labour reduction. A socialist system would, as a socialist system is not focussed on profit, but on saving labour time. As such, automation is always favoured under socialism.

As a final, I would recommend you to watch the following
youtube.com/watch?v=J10jKdPRN9A

subversionpress.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/free-money.pdf

Cultural and economic individualism are not the same thing. Your other points are decent though.

Lol no, not in the US at least. We gave up the deficits are bad illusion a long time ago.

Sorry EU cucks, but hopefully you can fund it with wealth taxes.

I mean you could print money but that wouldnt be good for market stability and the capitalists wouldnt allow it. In the end its a transfer of purchasing power to the group that receives the printed (or digitally created) money.

You sound like you are parroting MMT without understanding it. The idea behind MMT is that fiat money is a way for the state to seize a certain portion of the productive capacities of the country (which are consumed by the state in its various branches - the military, public investment, welfare, etc.). But how successful the state is at it depends on both the ability of the state to impose this taking of productive capacities (getting people to accept its currency, because they know they need to hold it to pay taxes, and they know the state can punish them if they don't), and the actual state of the productive forces. If the state simply prints money to fund its expenses, without creating an attendant need for this currency under the form of obligatory taxes, people will no longer accept the currency. If the productive forces collapse, no amount of currency or coercion will squeeze the needed goods and services from the populace.

The US will run into limits on both these counts sooner rather than later.