By Ajax the Great
Originally posted on The Chalice and the Flame blog.
I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all. At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely. And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before.
To wit:
- First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women". Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all. Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking. As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do: underpaid, and unpaid. While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women. Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree. It is indeed LONG overdue. And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown. Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
- Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women. When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall. And this will only increase in the near future. This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later. Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions: 1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money. Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one. Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
- A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy. No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God. It's simply a basic human right, period. And it would be far less costly in the long run.
- As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology. And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you. And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.
- Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem. And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
- We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
- With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
- Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin. Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life. And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way.
- Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve. This is over and above the effects of poverty alone. And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty. (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
- We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to. Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like. A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
- And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts". What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard. And that needs to change. Yesterday. The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place. A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be. (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)
In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top. So why aren't we doing this yesterday? Because that would make far too much sense. To quote Buckminster Fuller:
We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate." And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life. Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless. Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs. And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.
So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!
Did you on purposefully repeat a couple of paragraphs at the end, Ajax. I agree with this totally especially your remarks about the situation for women: underpaid & unpaid. This whole system gets emotional for me as I'm a woman & it gets worse from having been in the adult trade. I have noticed one thing, however, that makes me uncomfortable. Since the checks have been doled out by the govt I can't find employees. I had to do 5 times as many ads as I used to to get one employee for yard work. I have put hundreds of bucks of ads for a webman & NOT ONE RESPONSE. Other people have told me no one wants to work since they got the checks. It seems far fetched. If no one works, where do they get the money to give everyone a basic income? That part I don't get. It must be extremely limited - just the poorest people get the basic income?
ReplyDeleteI wrote the article a bit redundantly I guess overall.
DeleteAs for UBI supposedly making it so no one would want to work, there have been many studies on experiments where people are given money with no strings attached and it did not discourage people from working. What is going on now in the anecdotal evidence you mention is not actually UBI, but rather extended and expanded unemployment benefits (due to the pandemic) where people are literally paid NOT to work, thus creating a perverse incentive. An actual UBI would be for everyone regardless of work, period. And not just the poorest, but everyone. No one gets disqualified by earning too much. Thus, no perverse incentives.
It would be a very modest amount if given to everyone, such as $1000/month, but still enough to eradicate material poverty. Wages would of course go up since workers would then be free to demand higher wages since desperation would no longer be an issue, but such a rising tide would truly lift all boats. And it would stimulate the economy like a massive B12 shot in the arm, since customers would have more money to spend.
As for where they would get the money to fund UBI, all they would literally have to do is "print" it with a few clicks of the keyboard. Just like the FERAL Reserve does for the big banks via QE, but for We the People instead. Alternatively, the funds could be raised from progressive taxes, financial transactions taxes on Wall Street, and/or Georgist-style taxes on land and mineral resources kinda like Alaska does with their oil revenues. And before anyone cries "hyperinflation!", keep in mind that the FERAL Reserve already prints lots of money as it is, and can easily claw back excesses and rein in inflation by raising interest rates.
Back to the issue of extended and expanded unemployment benefits, those are due to be yanked in September, and it will be interesting to see how many people suddenly are interested in working again.
For more information about UBI, take a look at my informative (and humorous) page "Why UBI?" on the True Spirit of America Party blog. There are pros and cons to every idea, but if one were to make a list of both for UBI, the list for the former would be MUCH longer than the latter.
ReplyDeleteI see I cannot leave the area before publishing comments as two tries disappeared after I left & came back. My contention is what you are proposing sounds morally right, & you explain why it wouldn't have negative effects. However, this could & would be done if your society was JUST, FAIR, HONORABLE & LOVING, which PATRIARCHY IS NOT. I did real, long ago, the writings of Karl Marx, who explained the premise for poverty - that it is created so that the rest of the folks could get CHEAP, CHEAPER, CHEAPEST LABOR, a part of humanity who does the meanest, dirtiest, most boring, hardest, least paying work. This fits the untouchable class in India - not only do they do the meanest, dirtiest work, like cleaning latrines, but they are often brutalized by rape, arson & violence, & rarely do the police help, they side with the Brahmin class {who are supposed to be God's chosen.} In our society you have the prosperity preachers' who claim that those who are given money by God are favored by God. So give, give give to the televangelist so he can profit & live in huge multi-million dollar mansion/compounds. This is pure lies against God & people of course, as is the caste system, as is a society that harbors poverty & homelessness.....What I am saying is as you know, the men / Patriarchs want this system of unfairness, poverty, helplessness, hopelessness, as if the people who are empowered can stand up to the tyrants. In the women's movement, those who were active were not poor women & prostitutes', the illiterates, those in ghettos. These women were professions, Emmeline Pankhurst was married to a doctor, so was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If I was not empowered to some degree, I could not do all this work for Matriarchy. Somewhere, somehow, one must have some sort of empowerment to fight for their rights effectively, & the Patriarchs, Oligarchs, tyrants, Hitlers, Stalins & whomever, don't want this. They want us poor, obscure, helpless, hopeless & disempowered.
ReplyDeleteThat is very true, Rasa. Under capitalism (aka greed patriarchy), and in fact patriarchy in general (which nearly always degenerates into oligarchy if given enough time) considers poverty to be a FEATURE of the system, not a bug. Because it is the desperation of poverty that allows the ruling class to economically coerce the rest of us, both the poor themselves and those at risk of (or at least fearful of) the threat of becoming poor. And extreme inequality relative poverty) is further toxic and socially corrosive over and above the effects of absolute poverty. It is the weaponization of poverty, inequality, and divide-and-conquer all rolled into one.
Delete