[P2P-F] [CommonGood] The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income

Mon Oct 9 13:11:52 CEST 2017

wonderful Barb, thanks a lot for this reaction already,

Michel

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Barb Jacobson <barbx45 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes I have seen this. I'm in the midst writing a long essay about several
> attacks on UBI from the left, but there are a few things to say here.
>
> 1/ The end of the statement 'We must struggle for income support systems
> that are based on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of
> intrusive rules and moral policing' doesn't sound a whole lot different
> from what a lot of us would call 'basic income'. <g>
>
> 2/ A pro-UBI critique of the Ontario pilots is needed - there are a lot of
> problems with how they're being done, not least that what is actually being
> tested is a means-tested negative income tax. Even still some interesting
> facts re otherwise unconditional cash transfers may emerge. There are such
> critiques of the Finnish experiment (which can be found on
> http://basicincome.org), and the Canadian UBI movement is developing one
> of the Ottawa experiment.
>
> 3/ By fighting a defensive struggle they are allowing capital to set the
> terms, which I think has been the left's problem for the last 40 years.
> Unsurprisingly, it has failed to inspire people in general, and equally
> unsurprisingly, it is losing - the cuts in services and benefits is ongoing
> without basic income. It's unclear to me what OCAP hope to gain by doing
> this statement, and gathering support for it - the pilots in Ottawa are
> already underway, so it won't stop them. Surely what would be more
> effective is a critique of the specific problems with Ottawa's experiment -
> for example the fact that the payments are not protected against debt
> garnishment as current state benefits are; that passported benefits like
> free meds and travel for disabled people has not been protected. Rather
> than making demands around actual problems with the pilot like these, we're
> asked to make an ideological choice.
>
> Few I've spoken to within the UBI movement see this as anything other than
> a struggle for power in the long-term. This is happening at a lot of
> different levels, not always as the kind of clear class struggle which OCAP
> would recognise or see as 'valid'. One thing I would say is that the idea
> of UBI has done a good job of splitting the neoliberals, not all of whom
> support it - why is this not seen as a good thing? In my experience UBI has
> also helped to open up people to a lot of other ideas - the role of
> economic rent; the replacement of taxes on these with taxes on work; what
> is necessary work, paid or unpaid; what is the commons and what is our
> share in it - to name a few. These also must be part of the 'working class
> political challenge to neoliberalism', surely?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Barb
>
>
>
> On 09/10/2017 7:35, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> counting on you for a response, dear Barb <g>
>
> a significant quote about the mindset of the organizers:
>
> "f faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could
> offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not
> possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent
> agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation.
> We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of
> social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class
> political challenge to neoliberalism."
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, tina ebro <cgebro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty <http://ocap.ca/> (OCAP) has drawn
>> up the following statement on basic income (BI). It makes the case that,
>> progressive hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, BI is being developed as
>> a measure of neoliberal attack that should be opposed. We invite
>> progressive organizations and individuals who hold positions in agencies
>> and academic institutions, who agree with our arguments, to sign onto the
>> statement. We hope that it will raise a voice of opposition and help
>> develop information sharing and forms of co-operation among those,
>> internationally, who reject the notion that basic income represents any
>> kind of realistic response to the neoliberal attack.
>>
>> Endorsements and other responses can be directed to OCAP at ocap at tao.ca.
>> from Socialist Project The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income
>>
>> We, the undersigned, are convinced that the emerging model of basic
>> income, reflected in pilot projects and other initiatives in a number of
>> countries and jurisdictions, is one that would intensify the neoliberal
>> agenda. The hope that there is any realistic chance of ensuring a truly
>> adequate, universal payment, that isn’t financed by undermining other vital
>> elements of social provision, is misplaced in our view.
>> [image: Basic Income: Wolf in sheep's clothing]
>>
>> We are far from wanting to suggest that existing systems of income
>> support are anywhere close to adequate. They provide precarious sub-poverty
>> income under conditions that are marked by intrusive regulations and forms
>> of moral policing. Moreover, decades of neoliberal austerity have made
>> these systems considerably worse.
>>
>> However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption
>> that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo
>> has to be tested by considering a number of factors. Historically, income
>> support has been provided because those in political power concluded that
>> outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create
>> unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from
>> dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided
>> at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid
>> workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again,
>> the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must
>> concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of
>> desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers.
>>
>> If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are
>> today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to
>> move toward greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance
>> workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic
>> income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested
>> payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is
>> primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a
>> subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be
>> financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself
>> to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people
>> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1399.php> and, as a “citizen’s
>> income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants
>> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1489.php>, especially those left
>> undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the
>> social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot
>> projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in
>> this regard (we include some links at the bottom of this article that
>> provide information on several of these).
>> Workless Future?
>>
>> However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and
>> may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic
>> income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the
>> idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of
>> technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a
>> universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be
>> adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter
>> of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this
>> could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive
>> basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and
>> acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort.
>>
>> In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside
>> transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the
>> current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society,
>> after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that
>> a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda,
>> is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that
>> removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates
>> suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would
>> actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an
>> unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist
>> job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary
>> change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible
>> social policy enactment.
>>
>> If basic income as emancipation is not possible, it can only too easily
>> take form as neoliberal intensification. Yet, sadly, progressive advocates
>> end up offering legitimacy to that regressive alternative but placing hopes
>> in musings about basic income by Silicon Valley billionaires or by
>> presenting cynical pilot projects, set up by austerity driven governments,
>> as flawed but important first steps. However much they wish otherwise, the
>> sow’s ear will not become a silk purse.
>>
>> “
>>
>> We must fight for free, expanded and accessible public services. We must
>> win decent wages and workers’ rights.”
>>
>> If faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could
>> offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not
>> possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent
>> agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation.
>> We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of
>> social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class
>> political challenge to neoliberalism. As we do this, we must fight for
>> free, expanded and accessible public services. We must win decent wages and
>> workers’ rights. We must struggle for income support systems that are based
>> on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of intrusive rules and
>> moral policing. We must infuse all of these movements and struggles with a
>> sense of a very different kind of society from the capitalist one we are
>> fighting. This doesn’t have the glitter of the dream of a progressive basic
>> income but it does accept the reality that there is no social policy way
>> around neoliberalism or a long and hard fight against it. The progressive
>> welcome mat for basic income is a very big mistake. •
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CommonGood Mailingliste
>> JPBerlin - Politischer Provider
>> CommonGood at listi.jpberlin.de
>> https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at:
> http://commonstransition.org
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
>
>
>

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20171009/207771ea/attachment-0001.html>