Along with UBI (Universal Basic Income) are these two just liberal bullshit in some sense or am I mis-analising?
the 32 hour full-time work week for no pay cut is reasonable considering the 50 year stagnation of wages while productivity has increased, the thing that makes it libshit is doing it with liberal governments, i’d expect average working hours to decrease and average, uh, purchasing power parity or whatever, to go up if we pressed the socialism button tomorrow (you can take a pay cut on paper if rent stops existing).
UBI is more fundamentally misguided, even if we assume a rent freeze is baked in, i assume someone will have a copypaste on hand.
24 hours a week is sufficient for nearly full employment and production.
The 4 day 8 hour per day work week for the same pay would be a good step forward in many countries.
Unfortunately companies have caught on to the marketing and often mean 4 day 10 hours per day. So you’re working the same amount. Maybe for some people this is better but ten hour days are really hard on a person. Even eight hour work days are suboptimal.
In Germany the metalworkers union was pushing for a four day work week but they’ve all but given up. Meanwhile capital interests have pushed the government to consider extending legal working times, and the Chancellor claims Germans work too little (in reality they work more than most EU counterparts).
Lesser work time is a direct improvement of worker’s material conditions. So is a day during the working week that we can use for using services that could be much less available during weekends or our working days. Whether we live in socialist system or not, it’s just an improvement.
UBI is a way to sustain capitalism artificially. In socialism necessities (and eventually commodities in general)are made available without the proxy of the market for everybody.
I think UBI is a terrible idea. It would create a new class that has absolutely no power, since they provide no labor, and is completely dependent on the capitalist class generosity to survive. They would have a worse quality of life, then those on minimum wage or unemployment subsidy.
Reduced working hours is a necessity at this point. For the last hundred years there’s been no improvement in working hours, despite productivity rising massively. It seems this struggle is abandoned. But maybe a 6 hour working day could relaunch it? Also, from a productivity perspective, we need to work less, because capitalism is destroying the planet by overproducing, at this point we really don’t gain much by increasing production even more. Food is a great example of this, we already overproduce the amount of food we require to feed all the human population, it’s a problem of distribution and waste.
Wouldn’t the “class” of people on UBI just be Lumpen Proletariat rather then a new class entirely? If not, I’d appreciate a correction.
I don’t think so, this new class has a considerable purchasing power, that capitalists would try to compete for. Also, their entire life quality is dependent on how much the capitalist class tolerates them.
Also, their entire life quality is dependent on how much the capitalist class tolerates them.
Doesn’t sound that different from how the current working class is treated.
It’s very different. The workers provide labor, which the capitalists need. Those on UBI provide nothing, they can’t strike because they don’t produce anything. The capitalist class, can’t eliminate the working class because it relies on it. But the UBI will come mainly from taxation on capitalist profits.
Only if the view is that labor must produce profit. Imagine those who write that first novel, paint that first mural, or aid the elderly, because they can financially afford to spend time do those things. A sidewalk chalk artist making everyone’s day better with their whimsical takes. Someone at 40, deciding to go back to school as a change in profession, or to gain knowledge for knowledge sake. UBI would only be enough to cover basic necessities, things governments should ensure for everyone anyways. For some people, the basic would be enough.
Labour is not the only thing capitalists need from the workers, they’re also at the same time commodity consumers. Even when reaching an advanced level of automation, the capitalists will need people to purchase their products which is where UBI enters the picture. Interestingly, the “UBI” class could actually strike by not consuming stuff.
Anyways i think you’re just overthinking, the UBI in the imperial core is only a labour subsidy.
It’s a terrible idea which is why i support it in the imperial core. Less money for terrorism abroad, slighly better living conditions for the people which also means less people join the terrorist military.
No. It is Marxist. I’m startled that this is even a question.
UBI is just a redistributive measure in order to justify further commodification of public services.
The 4 day work week is in line with the historic proposals of the communists for a reduction in working hours, together with an increase in minimum wage.
Basically, productivity (per person-workhour) has gone up for the past 100 years since the 5 day 8 hour work week was normalised, but workers still receive a pittance of a wage and work the same amount of time. Since that increased value must be going somewhere, it’s going into the surplus value (profits) of the businesses. That means that capital owners are earning more, while the workers are earning the same or even less for their time.
An enforced obligatory 4 day work week (with no wage reduction) would imply in a 20% increase in valuation for the working hour. The conditions over whether this is a worthwhile struggle in your region depends on a lot of factors (I.e. I think in the US people are paid by the hour rather than monthly), but instituting high minimum wages and low maximum working hours are essential since companies will tend to those minimums and maximums.
Since the end goal of Marxism is the elimination of surplus extraction, rejecting workweek reduction out of hand would be absurd.
I know Capital is a handful, but please at least give Wage Labour and Capital and Value Price and Profit a quick read. It’ll take two hours at most and probably elucidate the principles by which Marxists choose reforms to support.
“would imply in a 20% increase in valuation for the working hour.”
I’m nit-picking but the increase would be 25% not 20%.
For example:
You work 50 hours per week for $100 at $2 per hour. A 40 hour work week at $100 would be $2.5 per hour.
$2.5 is a 25% increase over $2.
I was debating in my mind whether it would be 20% or 25% and didn’t do the maths properly lol. Thanks for the correction!
I’m startled that this is even a question.
It’s a question because the bourgeoisie liberal media here like to talk about it like it’s some sort of cure for overworked workers, which it isn’t imo.
Why isn’t it? I saw some comments about four 10-hour workdays, is that why? That would be super illegal in my country, so it never even crossed my mind.
Both would give the working class more time to think and rest and organize. I know getting money for not working during covid did a lot to radicalize me.
Really depends in the specific conditions of the nation. In a vacuum it would be great if the spoils of production were shared among the population through a base UBI, however can an underdeveloped nation afford to do that instead of reinvesting in advancing the productive forces? How would an underdeveloped nation catch up with the advanced imperialist nations if they implement a 4 day work week? Again, in a vacuum it sounds great but an underdeveloped nation has to act with a sense of urgency, it has to rush development to catch up to the advanced imperialist nations and you cant do that by stagnating productivity with a reduced working week. In this context, i do not support neither policy in the global south, we are simply not in a position to implement them.
Paradoxically, i do support both policies in the imperial core because they almost certainly weaken the imperial core and allows the rest of the world to catch up. And as they say here, caballo que alcanza, gana. ( Horse that catches up wins, roughly means that catching up means you won because the momentum is on your side.)
This is a great point. Prole projects will always have to work from their conditions, which can very easily mean setting aside the short-term ideal in favor of long-term strengthening, as AES states often teach us. Thanks for bringing it up.
its kind of a brutal dialectic and the optics work against us but AES workers have to be worked to the bone to be able to catch up and survive, which is why many people take China for an “hyper capitalist” nation.
At my first job they changed from a 8-5 schedule to a 10-4 schedule and as much as I hated working 10 hours having three days off in a row was fucking amazing. It felt like I actually got to live a life outside of work and everyone stayed so refreshed that we almost never worked overtime on Friday - I think it happened like once, maybe twice.
I would kill to have that schedule again. Is it a substitute for workers owning the means of production? Obviously not but man was it a breath of fresh air compared to before.
Can’t say the same for UBI as that doesn’t exist in the States, but I wish it did. Having disposable income is always nice and having income at all when you’re unemployed is even better. Again: not a permanent fix but a good stepping stone toward something better.
the 4-day week as a social issue is about reducing full time work by 8 hours, not cramming 40 hours into fewer days
I know. That was my main objection when they first implemented it: that 10 hours was too long. But having three days off was a game changer regardless, which was my point.
As harm reduction in the short-term they’d be great, but again we circle back to who is in power and making these policies a reality. Charity from the capitalist class is like an abuser being nice some of the time; when are they going to take it away / stop being nice again? Hard won reforms from labor unions might seem like stronger than that, but if the capitalist class remains in power, they will erode union power over time and chip away at reforms.
Policies like this in the hands of a prole state, that’s fundamentally different. UBI under socialism could help a lot of people with disabilities, who may otherwise have to go through a long process of seeking qualification for aid. Means testing is associated with a lot of “trap you in poverty” bullshit. So whether it’s UBI or something else, minimizing the barriers toward people getting the help they need is important, as is ensuring that help does not become a dependency trap. 4 day work week is just the tip of the iceberg if you have actual power to redesign workplaces. Focusing on a humanely structured workday from start to finish seems more important than hours/days themselves, not that addressing that couldn’t also have value.
We should not set our sights so low that we’re enamored with surface level reforms, but that doesn’t mean the concept of some reforms are without merit. The main problem with reform politicking is that it doesn’t take political power seriously enough and it asks far too little. Dare to be ambitious toward changing society. Look at what AES states have been able to accomplish in their time. That’s the bar. Capitalist reform sets the bar pathetically low, by comparison.
They are useful as both harm reduction and as a permanent solution to a few problems. Liberals use them as harm reduction, UBI for dealing with the unemployment from automation and 4 day work week to deal with rising class consciousness. But they are also nice to have under socialist systems.
The policies themselves aren’t all that important. What’s important is that we have the political power to implement those policies, and others.
