French socialist Hamon is bringing universal income!

[anotherlife]

Check out who won the French socialist primaries.

http://basicincome.org/news/2017/01...date-following-basic-income-focused-campaign/

Hamon will create universal income.

The entire world understands, that what your vote is worth is how much money you get for it today, not tomorrow. Every CEO understands this too.

So why don't American voters ever get it?

Discuss.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Never happen in america. One would think, and this was the promise held out early on, that the industrial and tech revolutions would help to free humankind from drudgery, hard labor, and lead to a more healthy advanced society with discoveries and advances that would benefit all and contribute to more humane societies. This has hardly been the case across the world in all societies. In america we have this original sin male dominator god perceptual reality, and this is before we add in this Puritan world view component. We in america need to see at least some segment of the population suffer so we can demonize them as poor on purpose, lazy, defective and undeserving of recognition as fellow human beings. Regardless of how wealthy this society becomes, we have a need to see some struggling and suffering to feel better about ourselves. So we worship the wealthy as instructed and scoff at the poor and disenfranchised.

 

[Pete7469]

Good, all libturds should go to France.

 

[Eloy]

Benoît Hamon is a good man and we are counting on the French electorate to do the right thing and put him in office.

 

[anotherlife]

Never happen in america. One would think, and this was the promise held out early on, that the industrial and tech revolutions would help to free humankind from drudgery, hard labor, and lead to a more healthy advanced society with discoveries and advances that would benefit all and contribute to more humane societies. This has hardly been the case across the world in all societies. In america we have this original sin male dominator god perceptual reality, and this is before we add in this Puritan world view component. We in america need to see at least some segment of the population suffer so we can demonize them as poor on purpose, lazy, defective and undeserving of recognition as fellow human beings. Regardless of how wealthy this society becomes, we have a need to see some struggling and suffering to feel better about ourselves. So we worship the wealthy as instructed and scoff at the poor and disenfranchised.

What do you mean by male dominator God? I can understand the predatorial nature of Puritanism, but what does male dominator God mean?

 

[anotherlife]

Good, all libturds should go to France.

Why? Don't you want some money printed for you too? Or do you think that only corporations should have the privilege to print money?

 

[anotherlife]

Benoît Hamon is a good man and we are counting on the French electorate to do the right thing and put him in office.

This would be good indeed, if the money wasn't linked to robbing other Europeans, not even talking about middle easterners.

 

[montelatici]

If automation is to completely replace human work, as some predict, a basic income for humans for whom work will not be available will be a necessity unless the owners of the automated means of production intend to reduce the population to themselves and a few hand servants.

 

[Eloy]

Benoît Hamon is a good man and we are counting on the French electorate to do the right thing and put him in office.

This would be good indeed, if the money wasn't linked to robbing other Europeans, not even talking about middle easterners.

What money do you mean?

 

[there4eyeM]

There are turning points in history. Some are political, some are economic, some are climatic, some social, some military. The end of the middle ages brought many changes. One of the biggest was the development of capitalism. Much of what this brought, very gradually and mostly invisible to those at the time, meant better life for Europeans, where it happened, and other areas once it spread. It was not a religion, ideology or social movement, just an evolution of how money could work. It was the motor for great amounts of wealth creation. It contributed to making human life more successful.
That success changed the very background from which capitalism, and many other institutions and systems, had emerged. Modifications were necessitated, and these lead to resistance and struggle in new ways. Integrating the mechanistic principles of profit into the human domain of sensitivity and caring has taken time. Now, we have arrived at a new juncture.
The war for human survival is over, and we won. We don't have to be constantly conquering another people so that 'our' part of the world can exist; we know we all exist better if we do it together. We trade resources form all over the world to the benefit of all the world. At least, potentially. Advanced mechanization and nearly universal exchange of resources and labor mean new ways of dealing with old economics must be found. The problem is that no one knows, as yet, what these are or even should be. A few 'visionaries' do, however, have a sense of this reality. They are beginning to come forth with ideas that will highlight the new realities even if they turn out not to be the best solutions for them in the long run.
Put briefly, we have to re-invent economics, labor and how communities work or a gigantic scale. Early attempts at such re-examination can aid us in avoiding some mistakes. Marx, for example, caused us to focus more, and to change, how the labor force should be engaged. History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded. The break from the thinking of the past that was contributed does, nevertheless, advance our capacity to adapt. We don't want to go down a road where the 'state' becomes 'God', neither a 'left' nor 'right' one. Whatever changes that come, they must somehow be 'bottom up', not 'top down'.
But, we still function as little nations with little political systems and little interests. So, cautious little steps over little political and social 'eggs' must be taken. Hamon's proposals take into consideration the rising use of automation and seek to compensate for resultant decrease in buying power and, thus, consumption. Much broader action is imperative, but even this much will bring France, and others, closer to facing meaningful change.

 

[Eloy]

There are turning points in history. Some are political, some are economic, some are climatic, some social, some military. The end of the middle ages brought many changes. One of the biggest was the development of capitalism. Much of what this brought, very gradually and mostly invisible to those at the time, meant better life for Europeans, where it happened, and other areas once it spread. It was not a religion, ideology or social movement, just an evolution of how money could work. It was the motor for great amounts of wealth creation. It contributed to making human life more successful.
That success changed the very background from which capitalism, and many other institutions and systems, had emerged. Modifications were necessitated, and these lead to resistance and struggle in new ways. Integrating the mechanistic principles of profit into the human domain of sensitivity and caring has taken time. Now, we have arrived at a new juncture.
The war for human survival is over, and we won. We don't have to be constantly conquering another people so that 'our' part of the world can exist; we know we all exist better if we do it together. We trade resources form all over the world to the benefit of all the world. At least, potentially. Advanced mechanization and nearly universal exchange of resources and labor mean new ways of dealing with old economics must be found. The problem is that no one knows, as yet, what these are or even should be. A few 'visionaries' do, however, have a sense of this reality. They are beginning to come forth with ideas that will highlight the new realities even if they turn out not to be the best solutions for them in the long run.
Put briefly, we have to re-invent economics, labor and how communities work or a gigantic scale. Early attempts at such re-examination can aid us in avoiding some mistakes. Marx, for example, caused us to focus more, and to change, how the labor force should be engaged. History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded. The break from the thinking of the past that was contributed does, nevertheless, advance our capacity to adapt. We don't want to go down a road where the 'state' becomes 'God', neither a 'left' nor 'right' one. Whatever changes that come, they must somehow be 'bottom up', not 'top down'.
But, we still function as little nations with little political systems and little interests. So, cautious little steps over little political and social 'eggs' must be taken. Hamon's proposals take into consideration the rising use of automation and seek to compensate for resultant decrease in buying power and, thus, consumption. Much broader action is imperative, but even this much will bring France, and others, closer to facing meaningful change.

You sort of make some sense but your summary of economic development among the nations is too simplified. Furthermore, your singling-out communism, socialism, social democracy, e.g. for criticism in your statement: "History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded." is plainly wrong. There are European states run by socialist/social democrat politicians which are very successful.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The French have always had a different take on how their society is structured.
They care about their quality of life and can be bloody minded in defence of it.
But anyone who has been to France can see the benefits.
I would like to see this given a chance, a lot of people are watching.

 

[there4eyeM]

There are turning points in history. Some are political, some are economic, some are climatic, some social, some military. The end of the middle ages brought many changes. One of the biggest was the development of capitalism. Much of what this brought, very gradually and mostly invisible to those at the time, meant better life for Europeans, where it happened, and other areas once it spread. It was not a religion, ideology or social movement, just an evolution of how money could work. It was the motor for great amounts of wealth creation. It contributed to making human life more successful.
That success changed the very background from which capitalism, and many other institutions and systems, had emerged. Modifications were necessitated, and these lead to resistance and struggle in new ways. Integrating the mechanistic principles of profit into the human domain of sensitivity and caring has taken time. Now, we have arrived at a new juncture.
The war for human survival is over, and we won. We don't have to be constantly conquering another people so that 'our' part of the world can exist; we know we all exist better if we do it together. We trade resources form all over the world to the benefit of all the world. At least, potentially. Advanced mechanization and nearly universal exchange of resources and labor mean new ways of dealing with old economics must be found. The problem is that no one knows, as yet, what these are or even should be. A few 'visionaries' do, however, have a sense of this reality. They are beginning to come forth with ideas that will highlight the new realities even if they turn out not to be the best solutions for them in the long run.
Put briefly, we have to re-invent economics, labor and how communities work or a gigantic scale. Early attempts at such re-examination can aid us in avoiding some mistakes. Marx, for example, caused us to focus more, and to change, how the labor force should be engaged. History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded. The break from the thinking of the past that was contributed does, nevertheless, advance our capacity to adapt. We don't want to go down a road where the 'state' becomes 'God', neither a 'left' nor 'right' one. Whatever changes that come, they must somehow be 'bottom up', not 'top down'.
But, we still function as little nations with little political systems and little interests. So, cautious little steps over little political and social 'eggs' must be taken. Hamon's proposals take into consideration the rising use of automation and seek to compensate for resultant decrease in buying power and, thus, consumption. Much broader action is imperative, but even this much will bring France, and others, closer to facing meaningful change.

You sort of make some sense but your summary of economic development among the nations is too simplified. Furthermore, your singling-out communism, socialism, social democracy, e.g. for criticism in your statement: "History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded." is plainly wrong. There are successful European states run by socialist/social democrat politicians which are very successful.

You wanted, maybe, a book?
Only the 'isms' arising from Marx were cited. Your oversimplification is that all socialism comes from Marx, which is not at all the case. Even so, the present socialist systems are mostly no more successful than America's, though of course it could be argued that even here there are strong socialist elements. Obviously France, though not as 'socialist' as Americans often conceive, is relatively prosperous and thriving; a nation of 1% of earth's population and about 6th economically in the world. My contribution here is merely to attempt in a brief and compact manner to advance the capacity to accept bolder thinking.

 

[Eloy]

There are turning points in history. Some are political, some are economic, some are climatic, some social, some military. The end of the middle ages brought many changes. One of the biggest was the development of capitalism. Much of what this brought, very gradually and mostly invisible to those at the time, meant better life for Europeans, where it happened, and other areas once it spread. It was not a religion, ideology or social movement, just an evolution of how money could work. It was the motor for great amounts of wealth creation. It contributed to making human life more successful.
That success changed the very background from which capitalism, and many other institutions and systems, had emerged. Modifications were necessitated, and these lead to resistance and struggle in new ways. Integrating the mechanistic principles of profit into the human domain of sensitivity and caring has taken time. Now, we have arrived at a new juncture.
The war for human survival is over, and we won. We don't have to be constantly conquering another people so that 'our' part of the world can exist; we know we all exist better if we do it together. We trade resources form all over the world to the benefit of all the world. At least, potentially. Advanced mechanization and nearly universal exchange of resources and labor mean new ways of dealing with old economics must be found. The problem is that no one knows, as yet, what these are or even should be. A few 'visionaries' do, however, have a sense of this reality. They are beginning to come forth with ideas that will highlight the new realities even if they turn out not to be the best solutions for them in the long run.
Put briefly, we have to re-invent economics, labor and how communities work or a gigantic scale. Early attempts at such re-examination can aid us in avoiding some mistakes. Marx, for example, caused us to focus more, and to change, how the labor force should be engaged. History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded. The break from the thinking of the past that was contributed does, nevertheless, advance our capacity to adapt. We don't want to go down a road where the 'state' becomes 'God', neither a 'left' nor 'right' one. Whatever changes that come, they must somehow be 'bottom up', not 'top down'.
But, we still function as little nations with little political systems and little interests. So, cautious little steps over little political and social 'eggs' must be taken. Hamon's proposals take into consideration the rising use of automation and seek to compensate for resultant decrease in buying power and, thus, consumption. Much broader action is imperative, but even this much will bring France, and others, closer to facing meaningful change.

You sort of make some sense but your summary of economic development among the nations is too simplified. Furthermore, your singling-out communism, socialism, social democracy, e.g. for criticism in your statement: "History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded." is plainly wrong. There are successful European states run by socialist/social democrat politicians which are very successful.

You wanted, maybe, a book?
Only the 'isms' arising from Marx were cited. Your oversimplification is that all socialism comes from Marx, which is not at all the case. Even so, the present socialist systems are mostly no more successful than America's, though of course it could be argued that even here there are strong socialist elements. Obviously France, though not as 'socialist' as Americans often conceive, is relatively prosperous and thriving; a nation of 1% of earth's population and about 6th economically in the world. My contribution here is merely to attempt in a brief and compact manner to advance the capacity to accept bolder thinking.

Socialism does come from Marxian analysis, without question. Your dismissal of socialism/social democracy is where you are most wrong.

 

[there4eyeM]

We disagree.

 

[anotherlife]

Benoît Hamon is a good man and we are counting on the French electorate to do the right thing and put him in office.

This would be good indeed, if the money wasn't linked to robbing other Europeans, not even talking about middle easterners.

What money do you mean?

The money to be spent on the universal income. France did not export its revolutionary ideas like the USA did. France packaged it for the express purpose of creating wars in all of its neighbors. Not only is this obvious in that every country that neighbors the European Union is in some war, but also in that every border within Europe was redrawn by France to trigger new wars at whim. So the money is dirty, hence this basically nice idea of universal income is also dirtied.

 

[there4eyeM]

...and, someone can tell us when it was, after 1815, that France inflicted its will this way on Europe?

 

[anotherlife]

There are turning points in history. Some are political, some are economic, some are climatic, some social, some military. The end of the middle ages brought many changes. One of the biggest was the development of capitalism. Much of what this brought, very gradually and mostly invisible to those at the time, meant better life for Europeans, where it happened, and other areas once it spread. It was not a religion, ideology or social movement, just an evolution of how money could work. It was the motor for great amounts of wealth creation. It contributed to making human life more successful.
That success changed the very background from which capitalism, and many other institutions and systems, had emerged. Modifications were necessitated, and these lead to resistance and struggle in new ways. Integrating the mechanistic principles of profit into the human domain of sensitivity and caring has taken time. Now, we have arrived at a new juncture.
The war for human survival is over, and we won. We don't have to be constantly conquering another people so that 'our' part of the world can exist; we know we all exist better if we do it together. We trade resources form all over the world to the benefit of all the world. At least, potentially. Advanced mechanization and nearly universal exchange of resources and labor mean new ways of dealing with old economics must be found. The problem is that no one knows, as yet, what these are or even should be. A few 'visionaries' do, however, have a sense of this reality. They are beginning to come forth with ideas that will highlight the new realities even if they turn out not to be the best solutions for them in the long run.
Put briefly, we have to re-invent economics, labor and how communities work or a gigantic scale. Early attempts at such re-examination can aid us in avoiding some mistakes. Marx, for example, caused us to focus more, and to change, how the labor force should be engaged. History is clear that 'isms' arising from his works have not succeeded. The break from the thinking of the past that was contributed does, nevertheless, advance our capacity to adapt. We don't want to go down a road where the 'state' becomes 'God', neither a 'left' nor 'right' one. Whatever changes that come, they must somehow be 'bottom up', not 'top down'.
But, we still function as little nations with little political systems and little interests. So, cautious little steps over little political and social 'eggs' must be taken. Hamon's proposals take into consideration the rising use of automation and seek to compensate for resultant decrease in buying power and, thus, consumption. Much broader action is imperative, but even this much will bring France, and others, closer to facing meaningful change.

I would like to say that this would be nice, but hammon has his hands tied because the nation's you are talking about were invented for the exact opposite. It looks like that in hammon' equation, we achieve this goal by blacklisting and killing some nations, for the benefit of others. Is that price worth to pay for this solution?

 

[anotherlife]

The French have always had a different take on how their society is structured.
They care about their quality of life and can be bloody minded in defence of it.
But anyone who has been to France can see the benefits.
I would like to see this given a chance, a lot of people are watching.

Yes, this should be given a chance. But as a French guy who doesn't want French to become his primary language, I must say hammon is the Borg machine. How do we save this good and scientifically meritable idea from such doom?

 

[there4eyeM]

It cannot be excluded that the notion of 'nation-state' will have to evolve along with much else.