Why I Am Not a Capitalist

[Aramas]

For a couple of times in my life, I have bought into the idea that capitalism was a good thing. I thought so until I realized the nature of money.

Money (in a society with laws that protect free market capitalism) is ultimately an object that subjugates and destroys intrinsic human desire. Think about it. In order to get money, you have to get it from someone else. The only way someone else will give you money is if you do something that someone else wants you to do. Your desires only matter in a capitalist society if your desires largely agree with the people around you. If they do not agree with the majority, then you are forced to forego your desires in favor of mean survival. The outlook is rather bleak.

But it's not just that your desires must be subjugated to those around you. It is that your desires must agree with "the average human" -- which, while it might exist as a statistical fact, does not exist in reality. There is no average human. So, each of us is made to conform to a standard of desire that does not actually exist in the real world for anyone. Capitalism is therefore innately inhuman and inhumane, because it subjugates humans to a system that does not allow humans to be truly fulfilled.

That said, I also don't advocate for socialism. Just like capitalism, socialism is another means of subjugating humanity to collective desire -- the average human again.

By looking at capitalism and socialism though the lens of human desire, we can see that, although they might seem opposed, they are really two sides of the same coin. It's no wonder then that capitalist America and communist China trade so readily. They are really one and the same, both forms of slavery to the inhuman.

What to replace them with, then? I don't know. I often favor nothing, myself. Ideology that can be spoken is, in my experience, not worth having. There is always a problem with ideology, no matter what it is. Humans matter more than ideas.

[ouronis]

I think the society around it largely makes or breaks it. It will always be about social change, so long as people are empowered to determine discourse, although whether they are is somewhat debatable these days. So long as elitism still dominates the structures of America we're in a sorry state. I think we're currently searching for the right replacement from a handful of degenerate forms. So overall I guess I would agree with you, people limit politics and thus the prosperity of a capalist society.

[falsehope]

There are many other ways of making money than receiving them from someone else for doing something. It's definitely not the only way, far from that.
In capitalism I can do whatever I want and take pleasure in it, like I don't take jobs I don't like, and I don't need to live in jungle and worry about shelter, food and health. That would be a lot harder for me, and the food would not be good either.
I think you are just pessimistic or something and see bad side of capitalism? Why it would take peoples natural desires? I think it's opposite unless you are some sort of masochist and you do things in life which you hate a lot. You don't need to do them, you can be whatever you have motivation for.

[Singu]

In order to get money, you have to get it from someone else. The only way someone else will give you money is if you do something that someone else wants you to do. Your desires only matter in a capitalist society if your desires largely agree with the people around you. If they do not agree with the majority, then you are forced to forego your desires in favor of mean survival. The outlook is rather bleak.

The only way to get money... is to borrow money. And that borrowed money creates debt. And where does debt come from? It seems to come out of nowhere, debt is literally made out of thin air. Someone arbitrarily decides how much debt interest there should be. So you work to pay off your debt. Essentially, the energy that went into "work" was to clear off your debt. Essentially, you have worked for free, you have worked to make someone else richer. But at least you have created some "stuff" in the process, which will remain and circulate in a society for a while.

So there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and it seems like "money" is just a concept created to get people to working, nothing more, nothing less.

But... but, there is a such thing as a free lunch, if you're a debt creator, if you're a financier, if you're a land owner. Then all you do is get other people to make money for you.

[ooo]

[WVBRY]

Interesting, I do think there are inherent flaws in both capitalism and socialism as modes of production, and agree they are two sides of the same coin.

I'm not sure what to replace it with, either.

[ooo]

I'm not sure what to replace it with, either.

Ethics (I opt for anarkism)

[Aramas]

There are many other ways of making money than receiving them from someone else for doing something. It's definitely not the only way, far from that.
In capitalism I can do whatever I want and take pleasure in it, like I don't take jobs I don't like, and I don't need to live in jungle and worry about shelter, food and health. That would be a lot harder for me, and the food would not be good either.
I think you are just pessimistic or something and see bad side of capitalism? Why it would take peoples natural desires? I think it's opposite unless you are some sort of masochist and you do things in life which you hate a lot. You don't need to do them, you can be whatever you have motivation for.

I have read some poll that reported that 60% of people dislike or hate their jobs. That's the majority of people. Count yourself in the happy minority, I guess. My pessimism is not unmerited in light of the majority of people who don't find their work fulfilling. I personally have never had the opportunity to make very much money doing something I found enjoyable. There was only one job I had that was something close to neutral, and the other two were pure 9th circle of hell cocytus bullshit. I've had friends and acquaintances tell me how much they hate their jobs, and one of them sat on a brick ledge telling me about how he didn't want to go back to food service again with the most desperate and sorrowful look I've ever seen on a human being who wasn't crying his eyes out. That kind of suffering shouldn't be known among humans if possible, imo. And yet it's the only choice a lot of people have: die now of starvation, or die later after having wasted your youth and life on something that took the joy out of life and made it utterly meaningless.

My personal opinion is that this is the core issue behind the present global instability, chaos, reactionary politics, etc. People are suffering, and their suffering is reaching a critical mass. Hopefully, humanity will find its way before it collectively kills itself off.

[WVBRY]

Ethics (I opt for anarkism)

I'm all for ethics, but it isn't really a mode of production. Anarchism can in theory be be communist or capitalist, since those are modes of production.

The problem with modern capitalism as well as communism seems to be the industrial mode of production, and yet how do you fight against technology?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while I agree there needs to be more ethical concerns in our mode production, I don't see capitalism being replaced by another mode of production any time soon since it is the most effective mode of production we know, it probably just needs to be reprogrammed. The whole question becomes "who's needs are we reprogramming it to?".

Because capitalism is concerned with consumer needs, it is able to keep up with demands of production, and to avoid surplusses and shortages which happen in communism, but it also produces that which people can afford, and therefore does not produce the best. It tries to appeal to a majority, this is the role of mass production: to reach a maximum amount of people, the role of craftmanship on the other hand is to reach an elite.

On the one hand I think capitalism does produce mediocrity, because of its mass appeal, on the other, it's better than producing nothing, especially for people can't afford high quality goods anyways, plus capitalism doesn't prevent craftmanship from existing or people paying for higher quality goods if they want to.

So I think given what we know, capitalism, while flawed, is still the best mode of production we know, since it's basically a choice between socialism (state owned, or publically owned, production) and capitalism (privately owned production) and the latter is better able to keep up with demands.

[WVBRY]

I have read some poll that reported that 60% of people dislike or hate their jobs. That's the majority of people. Count yourself in the happy minority, I guess. My pessimism is not unmerited in light of the majority of people who don't find their work fulfilling. I personally have never had the opportunity to make very much money doing something I found enjoyable. There was only one job I had that was something close to neutral, and the other two were pure 9th circle of hell cocytus bullshit. I've had friends and acquaintances tell me how much they hate their jobs, and one of them sat on a brick ledge telling me about how he didn't want to go back to food service again with the most desperate and sorrowful look I've ever seen on a human being who wasn't crying his eyes out. That kind of suffering shouldn't be known among humans if possible, imo. And yet it's the only choice a lot of people have: die now of starvation, or die later after having wasted your youth and life on something that took the joy out of life and made it utterly meaningless.

My personal opinion is that this is the core issue behind the present global instability, chaos, reactionary politics, etc. People are suffering, and their suffering is reaching a critical mass. Hopefully, humanity will find its way before it collectively kills itself off.

I think the problems you are describing could be addressed by creating something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) or maybe Negative Income Tax (NIT), which wouldn't necessitate scrapping capitalism altogther, it would just give people more freedom in choosing what jobs they wanna work. They could also choose no job, and live minimally, if they prefer.

[niffer]

which, while it might exist as a statistical fact, does not exist in reality.

error 404

Why is what caters to the vast majority, and makes attempts to make up for the rest when it can, not enough somehow?

Ideology that can be spoken is, in my experience, not worth having.

Then stfu

[Tigerfadder]

I guess the bigger picture is that humans have to survive and reproduce, can build homes and create food and such and hopefully be happy and create some art and live without killing each other. How that is done is secondary.

[Sol]

the difference is that socialism optimizes the labor and resources in the interests of the majority or whole socium, while capitalism acts for the minority (anyone thinks how to get own profit by any means, not like to make the life better).
socialism is what was in the name of communistic parties before

collectivism vs individualism
humanism vs antihumanism
good vs evil
etc

sometimes liberals say they act for the efficiency. it's lol they create social segregation and exploitation. what efficiency will be at the ones which lack material side and education, which have lesser of free time for development and study, are intentionally supressed to be slaves of the minority
what democracy may to be when people are not equal in material and knowledge base. only imaginary. the ones who have money buy anything, including the power, and spread the ideology to be slaves through low needs, though material needs and money to support this.

only socialism and communism may ascend the humanity. while capitalism only needs slaves

[WVBRY]

Collectivism, no.

[WVBRY]

the difference is that socialism optimizes the labor and resources in the interests of the majority or whole socium, while capitalism acts for the minority (anyone thinks how to get own profit by any means, not like to make the life better).
socialism is what was in the name of communistic parties before

collectivism vs individualism
humanism vs antihumanism
good vs evil
etc

sometimes liberals say they act for the efficiency. it's lol they create social segregation and exploitation. what efficiency will be at the ones which lack material side and education, which have lesser of free time for development and study, are intentionally supressed to be slaves of the minority
what democracy may to be when people are not equal in material and knowledge base. only imaginary. the ones who have money buy anything, including the power, and spread the ideology to be slaves through low needs, though material needs and money to support this.

only socialism and communism may ascend the humanity. while capitalism only needs slaves

People can be convinced they are acting for the good (as with socialism) and yet this could also lead to disastrous results (also the case with socialism).

Is the intent behind a system the only measure of its goodness, or does is the saying "the road to hell is paved on good intentions" not to have any meaning?

[Sol]

People can be convinced they are acting for the good (as with socialism) and yet this could also lead to disastrous results (also the case with socialism).

disastrous results of capitalism are from its antihumanistic approach. it's just clear there - in its egocentrism, which is also the base of satanism and sociopathic disorders
the problems with socialistic approaches were the cases of secondary and external factors. and partly from that it's harder to optimize complex systems from one center (computers may solve this)

the main idea of capitalism is to lead the max of resources to the minimum number of people. it's nazism in social and economic senses. it's pure evil

the all good what is in today "West" is not from capitalism, but from collective ideals which are socialistic by nature. capitalism is just a war of anyone with anyone. it destroys souls, destroys anything. it's ideology of a cancer when the minority controls all resources for own needs

If the humanity has the good future, it's communistic. It's the natural political state for the humanity and only it allows the progress of humanity with the most speed, but not with capitalistic rising the cancer in different places what prevents this development.te

Socialism is the collectivism and all related to this: morality, law, love, friendship, altruism, etc. All what cares about the majority. This is needed to understand.
May war create good? It may only look such. War mostly destroys. Those resources could be spend better to do much more, but this needs socialism and collectivism.
The supressed majority in capitalism not only suffers, but do not uses own potential, as such is needed to hold them under the control by the minority. Remove the inner social antagonism between people, allow them to accept the idea to live for others and by this to be happier and stronger themselves - this is communistic approach and may give much more in any regions of human activity. While individualistic approach prevents this ascension.

It's not only political or world history theme. It's much philosophical. Also it touches human psychology, mathematics optimizations.

[Singu]

Well I'd suppose capitalism is like the decentralization of "reward/punishment", and competition. Each individuals decide how to reward and punish others with money, and also the limited nature of money creates competition. These are not done by some centralized system, like a managed competitive event. That could be done in principle, but it would take too much work. Although, a society DOES create basic rules for capitalism, and how capitalism should be played.

So in a way, capitalism is like evolution by natural selection. But the problem is that natural selection can be ruthless and "inhumane", and that's where the criticism of capitalism comes from, that it alienates the workers, etc. Sometimes we don't want "natural selection". So the good side of capitalism is that competition and the reward/punishment mechanism creates a lot of wealth and advancements, but it also doesn't mean that this competition and reward/punishment can't be done in a more humane and more rational way than "natural selection", either. It does take ingenuity and creativity to step back and get the bigger picture to come up with ways to better manage capitalism. And that's where the mixed-economy comes from.

[falsehope]

[Raver]

I think the problems you are describing could be addressed by creating something like Universal Basic Income (UBI) or maybe Negative Income Tax (NIT), which wouldn't necessitate scrapping capitalism altogther, it would just give people more freedom in choosing what jobs they wanna work. They could also choose no job, and live minimally, if they prefer.

I agree, at the present day, capitalism with UBI is likely the best way to go. So capitalism with a socialist element added in. The main fault of capitalism like Aramas pointed out is that people are stuck on jobs they hate so UBI will give people who hate their jobs a good chance to find another one. It also gives people who are not mentally capable of working a high enough income to live a basic quality of life.

Basically, there will be much less homeless people suffering on the streets due to mental illness or drug addiction or both. Perhaps, in the future, we will conceive of a better system than capitalism and socialism. That will make capitalism and socialism look like archaic and barbaric methods to run society. However, for now I think capitalism with socialist elements is the way to go IMO.

[falsehope]

Universal income is too idealistic to be practical since many jobs still need to be performed by humans. The realistic solution is to pay people not unconditionally but with restrictions. So, there will be likely more welfare payments but there wont be drastic jump to universal income.
In Poland there is something like universal income but it is now more restricted. Originally every child before 18 was paid 1/3 of minimum income, now it's only for second child or for the first child when the income is very low.

[Aramas]

error 404

Why is what caters to the vast majority, and makes attempts to make up for the rest when it can, not enough somehow?



Then stfu

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You didn't read the post well enough to understand it. I never said current capitalistic or socialistic economies cater to the majority. Read more carefully.

[ooo]

@Avebury

Yes, you're right, anarchism can take all the possible roads in terms of economy. What I mean anyway with anarchism is more ideological, ethics is lacking at the current state of capitalism. You're right, we can't stop technology, but it's not technology to be the fuel of capitalism, it is money money money. All the guilts that can be ascribed to a capitalist system convey a bigger importance to the final result, compared to what is the human being that does the work needed to reach that result. This is slavery, and it still exists worldwide, although with all the money that the big companies produce they could allow themselves to pay a fair wage to those exploited people, in the poorer countries of our world.

We see capitalism and its best ends from our spoiled western pov, but the majority of the world is just an enslaved production line that builds the products that we oh so enjoy.

This is what I meant with ethics. Until we recognize to everyone the same rights as us, there won't be any fair capitalism, but just a perpetrated enslavement from those who have the money, and that sell themselves as the "magnanimous helpers" of this system and of those poor people worldwide who wouldn't even have that job if they weren't there (are we sure?!), but that are actually responsible of switching the axis of value from human to money.

[niffer]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You didn't read the post well enough to understand it. I never said current capitalistic or socialistic economies cater to the majority. Read more carefully.

You connected it to money and gave no other alternatives, so you did in effect connect it.

[Aramas]

You connected it to money and gave no other alternatives, so you did in effect connect it.

Unless you can give a fully fleshed out reply, I'm not going to grant you a response. You misconstrued my first post. I told you to go back and read it again. You didn't, as this post indicates.

[niffer]

Unless you can give a fully fleshed out reply, I'm not going to grant you a response. You misconstrued my first post. I told you to go back and read it again. You didn't, as this post indicates.

No lol, I’m not going to give it a fully fleshed out reply because there’s nothing more to say about this retarded idea of yours.

[xerx]

[Sol]

the notes what happened after USSR have converted to capitalism
the minority like 10-20% have gotten more incomes and material resources. but the rest majority have lost it, their lifes have become worse in material side and in intellectual too

Besides lower real incomes than were in USSR, the most people have lost or significantly reduced the access to the quality education and medicine, to good new houses.
Capitalistic regime _officially_ allowed wages below official level of staying alive! Besides the initial calculations were doubtful for an acceptable life. They also do not take into account that many of those people need to have an additional expenses as a rent, to have children, may to have life's complications like an illness which need meds, etc. It's officially supported poverty and robbery by the exploitation about which Marx said.
The taxes are kept as the lowest, lower than in Europe - as it's bourgeoisie, the minority who has the power in the state and writes the laws for own interests, while falsificated votings change nothing since 1991 when most people voted to keep the USSR. And then they say like have no money on something important for the majority - as they've stole this already.
The laws are ignored and broke massively as you may pay to police or controller and they'll do nothing. As the main value of capitalistic ideology is money and egocentrism. So the majority is robbed even more by the illegal ways too. Today Russian bourgeoisie is mostly criminal - they do not pay as should even those low taxes and do other frauds massively.

Now liberals have removed pensions - it's now after 65 years, while the average living time seems is <70 y.o. here for men. After 55 y.o. they have health issues [including because worse medical care] making them inable to do much kinds of the work. Even after 35 y.o. it's hard to find new work here now. The intellectual work reduces due to the destruction of industries and education doing by liberals - hence more % of it becomes physical and low qualified, - this reduced the possibility with higher age to get normal job additionally.

That capitalistic liberal thieves and betrayers just kill my nation. Our population fastly reduces. It's all made by capitalism. There were no such problems until ~1989 when sabotage by liberal Gorbachev have got the power. Most Russians dislike what is happening here, they voted for other several times but the current liberal system stays illegally and against peoples will. We can only do new civil war to try to change the situation, as election process is inappropriate and even falsificated from the start.
Our current constitution, which appeared after Yeltsin's overturn in 1993 is illegal - it did not gotten even officially the needed % of votes.
Russians live under the occupation by capitalistic liberal regime which acts against the national interests. It's just a heap of compradors and thieves, which is the essense of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. It's social fascism by economy means. The most of the bourgeoisie class are stupid, lazy and psychopatic, what is seen in their criminal traits and egocentric values. The social cancer - it's what capitalism is. It was better than previous feudal regimes, but it's still against what is good for the humanity.
Socialism by fact allowed the life better for the most people in ex-USSR.

[Bertrand]

Russians are no stranger to bloodshed and revolution, make it happen Sol. Back to the glory days. You say its worse than ever and maybe it is, but from my point of view Russia has a stronger position on the international scene today than they have had in my entire living memory and its sad the way they control the US presidency and it seems like they're really setting things up nicely for themselves for the future with strategic gains out the wazoo in Korea and with China. I feel like Trump is foolishly erroding the long term interests of the US and has no idea, meanwhile Russia and China are basically having a field day. Its like a free for all in regard to setting up future interests in their favor and all Trump can think about is how his hair looks on foxandfriends. People don't realize how setting the strategic conditions for economic prosperity and global hegemony occur generations before it becomes a reality and Russia's future looks very bright considering how they've shaped the geopolitical landscape lately. I can only hope Trump is gone soon and discontent with liberalism in Russia leads to some kind of internal power struggle that prevents them from continuing to manipulate the US

[Singu]

Russians are no stranger to bloodshed and revolution, make it happen Sol. Back to the glory days. You say its worse than ever and maybe it is, but from my point of view Russia has a stronger position on the international scene today than they have had in my entire living memory and its sad the way they control the US presidency and it seems like they're really setting things up nicely for themselves for the future with strategic gains out the wazoo in Korea and with China. I feel like Trump is foolishly erroding the long term interests of the US and has no idea, meanwhile Russia and China are basically having a field day. Its like a free for all in regard to setting up future interests in their favor and all Trump can think about is how his hair looks on foxandfriends. People don't realize how setting the strategic conditions for economic prosperity and global hegemony occur generations before it becomes a reality and Russia's future looks very bright considering how they've shaped the geopolitical landscape lately. I can only hope Trump is gone soon and discontent with liberalism in Russia leads to some kind of internal power struggle that prevents them from continuing to manipulate the US

Oh really, and Sol, and all those who actually live in Russia, have to worry about making their ends meet and how to live their day to day lives, and personally *feel* it in their bones that things have gotten worse since the fall of USSR, and now you're sitting there saying "Well it's not so bad, because from my point of view (who the fuck cares about your view) Russia is actually really strong and doing well because Putin is controlling the US because I heard it in the media and that must be true and that says something rar rar rar rar rar".

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

[Bertrand]

yeah I feel for the underclass is in all states, but it hardly justifies Trump selling out the US. There's a version of events where we have competent leadership and the US helps itself and the poor around the world and its not more zero sum nonsense, but this time in favor of those power structures. and make no mistake just because Russia/China takes over doesn't mean its going to be inherently better, just different, quite possibly worse, if history is any indication

[Sol]

capitalism is based on the individualism. the more you support the ideas of the capitalism - the lesser citizen you are

P.S. communistic parties are renamed socialistic ones. communism can be understood as the final form of the socialism.
the main aim of the communism is to allow to everyone to do the most he can for the common good, while living happily and equally, without any descrimination
while capitalism creates social segregation and is unlimited by moral or other the fighting of anyone with anyone for egocentric aims. it's the state of war, which limits peoples possibilities to give the use and takes large resources on the fighting
the most natural human society is communistic. people go there, and are on the way of the adoption of new technologies to their natural social state

[Christian Bale]

[Aramas]

I agree, at the present day, capitalism with UBI is likely the best way to go. So capitalism with a socialist element added in. The main fault of capitalism like Aramas pointed out is that people are stuck on jobs they hate so UBI will give people who hate their jobs a good chance to find another one. It also gives people who are not mentally capable of working a high enough income to live a basic quality of life.

Basically, there will be much less homeless people suffering on the streets due to mental illness or drug addiction or both. Perhaps, in the future, we will conceive of a better system than capitalism and socialism. That will make capitalism and socialism look like archaic and barbaric methods to run society. However, for now I think capitalism with socialist elements is the way to go IMO.

Not to mention the fact that home prices are vastly overinflated. There are enough homes in this country to obliterate homelessness overnight. But the system is designed to inflate home prices so that those who already own homes can mortgage them and buy nice things with the extra debt. If prices deflated, Mona wouldn't be able to afford her fifth Mercedes. You wouldn't want that, would you?

[xerx]

My fear vis-à-vis UBI is that it could lead to a two-tier society where the top 1% control everything (because normal people will have even less of an incentive to climb the corporate ladder) and the rest of us are left with a glorified ration card. OTOH, the extra income from UBI might actually encourage poorer people to start their own businesses and challenge the status quo.
... so who knows?

[Aramas]

My fear vis-à-vis UBI is that it could lead to a two-tier society where the top 1% control everything (because normal people will have even less of an incentive to climb the corporate ladder) and the rest of us are left with a glorified ration card. OTOH, the extra income from UBI might actually encourage poorer people to start their own businesses and challenge the status quo.
... so who knows?

Why would anyone want to work for a corporation? They are the definition of soulless.

[xerx]

Why would anyone want to work for a corporation? They are the definition of soulless.

Many people would indeed instantly opt out if given the chance. They would, in that case, forgo an independent income stream and be forced to rely on a ration card supplied by a centralised & cooptable authority.

By giving up economic power, you are effectively giving up political power as well. Since the only people paying taxes to fund this scheme will be the Jeff Bezos & Rupert Murdochs of the world, we could end up in a situation where an oligarchy comprising the top 1% holds the government hostage over anything and everything.

Or we might end up with a more egalitarian society. It all depends on whether people leverage the extra income to seize the economic means of production for themselves.

[Aramas]

Many people would indeed instantly opt out if given the chance. They would, in that case, forgo an independent income stream and be forced to rely on a ration card supplied by a centralised & cooptable authority.

By giving up economic power, you are effectively giving up political power as well. Since the only people paying taxes to fund this scheme will be the Jeff Bezos & Rupert Murdochs of the world, we could end up in a situation where an oligarchy comprising the top 1% holds the government hostage over anything and everything.

Or we might end up with a more egalitarian society. It all depends on whether people leverage the extra income to seize the economic means of production for themselves.

Working for a corporation is the very antithesis of Independence. Not sure how you blundered into that idea.

Lots of micro and small businesses might result. It would be a good thing if it worked.

[xerx]

Working for a corporation is the very antithesis of Independence.

Of course, but it's more independent than praying for the good graces of Jeff Bezos. When your boss is reliant on your labour to run his business, you can exert control (albeit increasingly limited) over him by going on strike or threatening to quit.

Politicians are also more likely to listen to you if you're a tax payer instead of a tax recipient. Under UBI, any politician will have an excuse to call you a "welfare queen" & tell you to STFU if you get too uppity.

If everyone is getting a basic income anyway, it will be easier to justify shutting down government healthcare & education programs on the excuse that people should be able to choose how to spend their money in a free market. Assuming UBI is even enough to cover those expenses, a highly sophisticated advertising industry exists to convince people to spend their money on beer & weed instead.

Lots of micro and small businesses might result. It would be a good thing if it worked.

[idontgiveaf]

Because I'm a commie

[Aramas]

Of course, but it's more independent than praying for the good graces of Jeff Bezos. When your boss is reliant on your labour to run his business, you can exert control (albeit increasingly limited) over him by going on strike or threatening to quit.

Politicians are also more likely to listen to you if you're a tax payer instead of a tax recipient. Under UBI, any politician will have an excuse to call you a "welfare queen" & tell you to STFU if you get too uppity.

If everyone is getting a basic income anyway, it will be easier to justify shutting down government healthcare & education programs on the excuse that people should be able to choose how to spend their money in a free market. Assuming UBI is even enough to cover those expenses, a highly sophisticated advertising industry exists to convince people to spend their money on beer & weed instead.

You can't really threaten to quit unless you're one of the rare few who are indisposable. In the vast majority of situations, the corporate employer has absolute control. There is no independence when your employer can just hire another desperate human being and work them like a dog.

Politicians don't listen to anyone but lobbyists.

If people want to spend their money on beer and weed, that's up to them. I don't think advertizing is so advanced that it can mind zap people into buying things when they have urgent health issues instead. If they do that, they probably don't care much about their health. Some people might be that susceptible to advertizing, but I don't think most are.