If "the west" isn't voting for Bush or Reagan then they're hailing people like Obama, who destroyed Libya and brought back open air slave markets - or Clinton who destroyed Belgrade and undermined social protections for workers. To think you are somehow better because you support(ed?) Genocide Joe is just delusion.

Under a free market system most of the increase in workers purchasing power would translate into bid up rent prices and higher profits for landleeches, higher rents and not much benefit for the ordinary worker.

The proposals for ubi presented by presidential candidate Andrew Yang would require recipients to stop recieving other forms of government assistance - no more food stamps, no disability benefits, no housing assistance. This would endanger disabled comrades and put them in s position of relative disadvantage and take away their currently existing accommodations within society. While the average worker may be slightly better off with ubi, a disabled person would receive much less benefit from such a change in the system.

Many proponents of ubi wish to tie it to the undoing of minimum wage laws, claiming that ubi would offset the need for such protections.

Who would pay for it? Rich people have found a myriad of wayd of avoiding taxation and so the burden of ubi may well fall on workers themselves, with higher taxes offsetting the direct payment of ubi - this may benefit lower paid workers slightly but would cause division between higher paid workers and lower paid workers. It may well end up having s very similar effect to the prebate/negative tax systems favored by libertarians.

Ultimately as Marxists we seek to empower workers with ownership over the means of production, ubi is just some crumbs thrown at workers by the owners of the means of production - tho likely paid for by the workers themselves. It will dampen revolutionary energy and cause increasing division within and with the outside of society.

Will migrants be eligible? If not will we create an underclass of struggling workers excluded from the ubi programme, unable to afford higher rents. Will this not lead to calls to restrict migration/extension of citizenship?

As a resident of the global south, where discussion of ubi is almost nonexistent and the likelihood of such programmes being implemented is very low - it seems like ubi is just rich nation people arguing over how to divide the spoils of empire and I'm pretty sure it will in no way benefit the poorest people on earth. If rich nations want to offer cash money to people in the global south, that would be great but let's be real - that is not what is being proposed. All we will see is higher barriers to migration.

As Marxists we are not asking for "free" money. We are asking for fair pay. Ubi is a right wing band aid on capitalism and not something we can endorse. If implemented it would only make worse the situation for the poorest.

Making basic necessities (housing, public transport, food, electricity, water, internet) free at the point of use would be a better programme and one that perhaps we could find some liberal allies to support.

They could feed their people, they just don't care to.

Oh she showed up, once they won the vote and there was little risk in associating with the unionisation drive.

Fidel nationalized his family's farms

Even in the earliest days of European colonialism, there was very much a concept of the damage being done, look up Bartolomé de las Casas and educate yourself.

"Ronald Reagan was a freedom fighter in terms of supporting our Jewish bros & sis in the Soviet Union & opposing vicious forms of communism" - West

Historical claims? Lol wut? There is no country of "Taiwan" they call themselves the Republic of China and are remnants of the chinese civil war, specifically the nationalist side who lost to the communists who control the People's Republic of China. Without the amerikkkans sending their fleet to prop up and protect the ROC government in Taipei there would be no division and Beijing would have achieved Chinese reunification long ago.

The PRCs claims on the island of Taiwan are legal and recognised by the most every country on earth including the USA since 1973 via the upholding of the One China Principle.

The soviet archives were opened after the dissolution of the USSR, the idea that these things are unknowable is wrong. Anti soviet historians with a shred of decency revised their analysis following those events and retracted many of their extreme claims. Conquest called the Holodomor a genocide prior to the opening of the archives and later admitted he was wrong.

We only trust western state and corporate media

Came here to say Vijay as well even tho he's not that young he should have a good 20+ years in him still, hopefully.

Badempanada debunked the nore egregious claims but then stupidly concluded that declining birth rates mean something bad is happening, as if such a thing was not a consequence of improving material conditions.