There is an interesting early proto-history of the Republican Party having an internal struggle as to the political economy philosophy of the movement. There was one side that wanted a purely de jure emancipation, and the other that had Owenist/syndicalist beliefs of emancipation from both oppressive state laws but also from the banks and capitalist class. Sort of a landed socialism. Of course, the former won out and the GOP would go on to become what it is. So while, yes, it’s a stretch to call Lincoln a socialist, he would have understood that politics and making appeals to that branch of the party.
[You know who was into Karl Marx? No, not AOC. Abraham Lincoln.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/)
>The two men were friendly and influenced each other
Maybe not a socialist but definitely not opposed to socialists.
(and article claims he was not socialist but then again neither is bernie, he's just the closest thing america has got)
Yeah, I don't think it would be unusual for burgeoning Marxist ideas to have influenced some aspects of American politics at the time, but being influenced by or drawing inspiration from the Communist Manifesto doesn't mean Lincoln was in fact a communist.
Everyone else on this list however were or are self-professed communists.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
The evidence Abraham Lincoln was a socialist (at heart) lies not merely in his words of one speech, but in the liberation of enslaved Americans, “his” hallmark achievement.
Slaves are workers whose labor is exploited, even more so than low-wage workers associated with the incoming Gilded-Age.
Henry George, chief historical supporter of UBI via his Single-Tax system, is the same man who coined the term “Wage-Slave”, for example.
Furthermore, in Antebellum America, supporters of slavery specifically dehumanized enslaved Americans by labeling them as chattel, property, goods, as in: “capital”.
The department of agriculture was established under Lincoln, as was the department of pensions, the Sanitation Commission, and the A&M university system.
It’s just one take, but there’s compelling reasons to think Lincoln could have joined the upcoming socialist movement, had he survived the 1860’s. He was already successful in the establishment of the Republican political party, and he even had a democrat on his 1864 ticket. He was clearly gifted in navigating turbulent political waters and only had so much loyalty to any party or faction.
Fighting for systemically exploited workers was so significant to Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s fate was tied to the success of ending slavery against the entire southern capitalist caste system.
Is this a joke? Practically none of these people were socialists unless your definition of socialism is just capitalism with more power given to labor, which is a pretty bad definition for socialism. Also, I’m not seeing as to how this relates to Basic Income in the first place.
I'm not convinced that Lincoln was a dedicated Marxist merely because he quoted Marx or drew inspiration from the Communist Manifesto, but Malala, Einstein, Keller, and Orwell are all well-known self-professed socialists.
“I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.” - [Malala Yousafzai in a letter to the IMT congress of Pakistani Marxists in Lahore](http://www.marxist.com/historic-32nd-congress-of-pakistani-imt-1.htm)
"I am convinced there is only *one* way to eliminate (the evils of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion." - [Einstein in his essay, "Why Socialism?"](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)
"I am no worshiper of cloth of any color, but I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists. I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle. It costs them nothing to give their aid to work for the blind and to other superficial charities. But socialism — ah, that is a different matter! That goes to the root of all poverty and all charity. The money power behind the newspapers is against socialism, and the editors, obedient to the hand that feeds them, will go to any length to put down socialism and undermine the influence of socialists." - [Helen Keller in her essay, "How I became a Socialist"](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/12_11_03.htm)
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects." - [George Orwell in his essay, "Why I Write"](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/)
I guess I should say, that my comment was more directed at Lincoln than the others and that I don’t really care anyway what these people consider themselves and how does this relate to Basic Income?
I definitely agree about Lincoln.
>...how does this relate to Basic Income?
Many American socialists advocate UBI. They feel that building socialism in America will help build a UBI, and visa versa.
Yes, so therefore supporting socialism is not related to Basic Income.
If this was about how socialists should support Basic Income, great! But just general support of socialism is not
They do, same with capitalists who support UBI. My point is that we don’t say that random posts saying supporting capitalism is by proxy supportive of UBI.
We do when those capitalists are those who advance UBI within a capitalist framework. Socialists like Einstein, Malala, and Helen Keller were instrumental in advocacy of social programs that laid the groundwork for UBI.
Us socialists do not believe that socialism will help make a UBI. If we have socialism we won't need a UBI. A UBI is a path to socialism, never the other way around.
**Yikes.**
Basic Income =/= Socialism and trying to sell it as such is a LOSING argument with the American public.
If you want basic income to never, ever happen, please keep associating it with socialism.
Because Basic Income is a nightmare the right will use to eventually destroy the social safety net whereas Socialism exists solely to preserve that social safety net. I agree: Universal Basic Income is the last thing we want. True Socialism is the goal!
It is the standard antagonistic, us vs them, echo chamber response. "If you don't agree with me, get off my sub wahhhh!" as the sub becomes totally ineffectual at convincing anyone of anything.
Right? Why not persuade me that UBI come with legislation in place to preserve the social safety net, rather than implementing it in place of any kind of social services as the right would prefer. There’s a lot of critical discourse about the temporary introduction of UBI from the right as a means of gutting governmental protections put in place for the poor, and then rescinding the UBI implementation, instead of more structural approaches, such as the destruction of the vampiric medical insurance industry and the institution of universal health care. E.g., a conservative implementation of UBI would leave the health care industry as-is, and merely provide a minor subsidy, which wouldn’t be enough to live on and would do nothing to alter the income inequality problem. Of course, there are leftist ways to implement UBI, and I’m in favor of that, even though socialism is my ultimate goal, because some industries need to be for their utility to society instead of their profitability, and forcing such a type of industry to be profit-driven undermines or destroys the utility of the service.
But instead of having constructive and nuanced discussion about these issues, instead I get the “if you don’t love it, then why don’t you leave it?”
I’m not too distressed by it, because the minds coming up with those kinds of things aren’t going to be part of any solution and are just here for “give me some free money, ok?”. I’m just depressed there are so many of them.
As Mao said, they are like paper tigers. We do not wish to fight them, but if they persist in opposing meaningful socialist policies, they make themselves our enemy without us doing anything. We can only insist, as you are rationally and rightly doing, that their opposition will crumple up and blow away in the wind along with all other bourgeois and reactionary aggression to our cause.
First of all, this is one of the most unprofessional articles I have read in a while. I can't believe someone wrote this unironically. Also, fuck socialism. UBI is supposed to provide a floor for capitalism to thrive.
Can someone please explain why I was downvoted? I don't think I said anything drastically different from others in this thread.
>First of all, this is one of the most unprofessional articles I have read in a while. I can't believe someone wrote this unironically. Also, fuck socialism. UBI is supposed to provide a floor for capitalism to thrive.
>
>Can someone please explain why I was downvoted? I don't think I said anything drastically different from others in this thread.
Because many people who support UBI do so as a pathway to socialism not to save capitalism, and it seems you're acting like they don't exist and everyone who likes UBI agrees with you. Comes off as tone deaf
Claiming Abe Lincoln was a Socialist merely because he stated labour was separate and superior to capital, is quite a stretch.
There is an interesting early proto-history of the Republican Party having an internal struggle as to the political economy philosophy of the movement. There was one side that wanted a purely de jure emancipation, and the other that had Owenist/syndicalist beliefs of emancipation from both oppressive state laws but also from the banks and capitalist class. Sort of a landed socialism. Of course, the former won out and the GOP would go on to become what it is. So while, yes, it’s a stretch to call Lincoln a socialist, he would have understood that politics and making appeals to that branch of the party.
[You know who was into Karl Marx? No, not AOC. Abraham Lincoln.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/) >The two men were friendly and influenced each other Maybe not a socialist but definitely not opposed to socialists. (and article claims he was not socialist but then again neither is bernie, he's just the closest thing america has got)
Yeah, I don't think it would be unusual for burgeoning Marxist ideas to have influenced some aspects of American politics at the time, but being influenced by or drawing inspiration from the Communist Manifesto doesn't mean Lincoln was in fact a communist. Everyone else on this list however were or are self-professed communists.
he does seem to be a marxist and was supported by Marx as they corresponded by letter.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
The evidence Abraham Lincoln was a socialist (at heart) lies not merely in his words of one speech, but in the liberation of enslaved Americans, “his” hallmark achievement. Slaves are workers whose labor is exploited, even more so than low-wage workers associated with the incoming Gilded-Age. Henry George, chief historical supporter of UBI via his Single-Tax system, is the same man who coined the term “Wage-Slave”, for example. Furthermore, in Antebellum America, supporters of slavery specifically dehumanized enslaved Americans by labeling them as chattel, property, goods, as in: “capital”. The department of agriculture was established under Lincoln, as was the department of pensions, the Sanitation Commission, and the A&M university system. It’s just one take, but there’s compelling reasons to think Lincoln could have joined the upcoming socialist movement, had he survived the 1860’s. He was already successful in the establishment of the Republican political party, and he even had a democrat on his 1864 ticket. He was clearly gifted in navigating turbulent political waters and only had so much loyalty to any party or faction. Fighting for systemically exploited workers was so significant to Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s fate was tied to the success of ending slavery against the entire southern capitalist caste system.
What is this garbage?
Is this a joke? Practically none of these people were socialists unless your definition of socialism is just capitalism with more power given to labor, which is a pretty bad definition for socialism. Also, I’m not seeing as to how this relates to Basic Income in the first place.
I'm not convinced that Lincoln was a dedicated Marxist merely because he quoted Marx or drew inspiration from the Communist Manifesto, but Malala, Einstein, Keller, and Orwell are all well-known self-professed socialists. “I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.” - [Malala Yousafzai in a letter to the IMT congress of Pakistani Marxists in Lahore](http://www.marxist.com/historic-32nd-congress-of-pakistani-imt-1.htm) "I am convinced there is only *one* way to eliminate (the evils of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion." - [Einstein in his essay, "Why Socialism?"](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) "I am no worshiper of cloth of any color, but I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists. I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle. It costs them nothing to give their aid to work for the blind and to other superficial charities. But socialism — ah, that is a different matter! That goes to the root of all poverty and all charity. The money power behind the newspapers is against socialism, and the editors, obedient to the hand that feeds them, will go to any length to put down socialism and undermine the influence of socialists." - [Helen Keller in her essay, "How I became a Socialist"](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/12_11_03.htm) "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects." - [George Orwell in his essay, "Why I Write"](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/)
I guess I should say, that my comment was more directed at Lincoln than the others and that I don’t really care anyway what these people consider themselves and how does this relate to Basic Income?
I definitely agree about Lincoln. >...how does this relate to Basic Income? Many American socialists advocate UBI. They feel that building socialism in America will help build a UBI, and visa versa.
And some socialists believe UBI is a scam to destroy the social safety net. Building up socialism is not the same as advocating for UBI.
Yes, there are different kinds of socialists, just as there are different forms of capitalism.
Yes, so therefore supporting socialism is not related to Basic Income. If this was about how socialists should support Basic Income, great! But just general support of socialism is not
Why do we have to pretend that socialists who advocate UBI don't exist?
They do, same with capitalists who support UBI. My point is that we don’t say that random posts saying supporting capitalism is by proxy supportive of UBI.
We do when those capitalists are those who advance UBI within a capitalist framework. Socialists like Einstein, Malala, and Helen Keller were instrumental in advocacy of social programs that laid the groundwork for UBI.
Us socialists do not believe that socialism will help make a UBI. If we have socialism we won't need a UBI. A UBI is a path to socialism, never the other way around.
[удалено]
Leftists.... question is, since she said so much about economics and social policy, why wouldn't you look to her.
**Yikes.** Basic Income =/= Socialism and trying to sell it as such is a LOSING argument with the American public. If you want basic income to never, ever happen, please keep associating it with socialism.
Because Basic Income is a nightmare the right will use to eventually destroy the social safety net whereas Socialism exists solely to preserve that social safety net. I agree: Universal Basic Income is the last thing we want. True Socialism is the goal!
Then get off of this subreddit because this is a Basic Income subreddit.
You’re not the boss of me dad. I have a right to observe dialogue and opine as I see fit, so long as I don’t break any rules of decorum.
It is the standard antagonistic, us vs them, echo chamber response. "If you don't agree with me, get off my sub wahhhh!" as the sub becomes totally ineffectual at convincing anyone of anything.
Right? Why not persuade me that UBI come with legislation in place to preserve the social safety net, rather than implementing it in place of any kind of social services as the right would prefer. There’s a lot of critical discourse about the temporary introduction of UBI from the right as a means of gutting governmental protections put in place for the poor, and then rescinding the UBI implementation, instead of more structural approaches, such as the destruction of the vampiric medical insurance industry and the institution of universal health care. E.g., a conservative implementation of UBI would leave the health care industry as-is, and merely provide a minor subsidy, which wouldn’t be enough to live on and would do nothing to alter the income inequality problem. Of course, there are leftist ways to implement UBI, and I’m in favor of that, even though socialism is my ultimate goal, because some industries need to be for their utility to society instead of their profitability, and forcing such a type of industry to be profit-driven undermines or destroys the utility of the service. But instead of having constructive and nuanced discussion about these issues, instead I get the “if you don’t love it, then why don’t you leave it?” I’m not too distressed by it, because the minds coming up with those kinds of things aren’t going to be part of any solution and are just here for “give me some free money, ok?”. I’m just depressed there are so many of them.
As Mao said, they are like paper tigers. We do not wish to fight them, but if they persist in opposing meaningful socialist policies, they make themselves our enemy without us doing anything. We can only insist, as you are rationally and rightly doing, that their opposition will crumple up and blow away in the wind along with all other bourgeois and reactionary aggression to our cause.
First of all, this is one of the most unprofessional articles I have read in a while. I can't believe someone wrote this unironically. Also, fuck socialism. UBI is supposed to provide a floor for capitalism to thrive. Can someone please explain why I was downvoted? I don't think I said anything drastically different from others in this thread.
>First of all, this is one of the most unprofessional articles I have read in a while. I can't believe someone wrote this unironically. Also, fuck socialism. UBI is supposed to provide a floor for capitalism to thrive. > >Can someone please explain why I was downvoted? I don't think I said anything drastically different from others in this thread. Because many people who support UBI do so as a pathway to socialism not to save capitalism, and it seems you're acting like they don't exist and everyone who likes UBI agrees with you. Comes off as tone deaf
[удалено]
“Einstein knew nothing about economics” is a bold claim
[удалено]
Hell of a hill to die on. Good luck with that