By definition, a Universal Basic Income (UBI) - "is a social concept, implying the regular payment of a sum of money to each member of the community by the state or other institutions. Payments are made to all without exception, regardless of the presence of other income and without having to do the work." The concept advocates that each member of the community has a share in social production. And with the socialization of the means of production and resources, we see the necessary conditions for introducing a universal income in the daily life.
To date, there are a number of local experiments which have confirmed the effectiveness of universal income(Canada, Namibia, Brazil, India, Kenya, Germany, the United States, the Scandinavian countries). Some of the results observed were: reduction of poverty and crime, an increase in economic activity, education, health, and overall quality of life of people receiving monthly payments.
Despite the fact that the results of all the experiments are quite positive, and speak in favor of UBI concepts still there are critics who believe that the presence of universal income will foster laziness and dependency of human psychology, and, consequently, degradation instead of development. It is not difficult to guess that the bulk of criticism belongs to the adherents of the free market. It is understandable, the liberal conception is based on the fact that if you give someone freedom, he will immediately begin to implement their basic instincts. Only the market can tame the unbridled animal nature of man [#sarcasm].
However, even amongst critics, people with a left view can be found. Tthe Liberals consider work for money and competition in the field as a necessary condition for the existence and survival of man in society, the criticism of the left insists on the fact that work is necessary as a guarantee of building a new socialist world order. Even if it is forced labor (Hello, Stalin!). This position totally overlooks the factor of the conscious need for labor, the relationship of man and work is replaced by the logic of the bourgeois labor forced for the sake of wealth. It ignores a psychologically important moment such as the pleasure and self-actualization through work as a creative activity. This distorted logic offers work for the benefit of socialism and for the sake of socialism, and a question arises - where does man belong, and why does one need such socialism?
The idea of universal basic income initially includes in itself the fatal disconnection of humans and the economic compulsion to work. The idea, of course, highly humanistic, which carries the concept of free human development for the benefit of society. When a person is exempt from the need to work to secure a minimum set of material goods (and most of the people in the world work for this reason), he has more time to understand and meet their real needs. A person begins to devote more time to their health and well-being, express interest in education, acquire skills or improve its level of expertise in the field. Such are the results of the conducted experiments.
Moreover, technological progress and job automation will inevitably cause the release of a huge number of workers. And here the UBI comes to aid as a way to evenly distribute manufactured goods. It makes no sense to hold on to the need for social and productive labor and, especially, forced labor as a mandatory pledge of this distribution. Exemption from compulsory labor is a way to a new round of progress, is an option to increase the quality of education and stimulate creative activities.
However, there is a reason to believe that repeating the success of experimental UBI on a larger scale will be problematic. To begin with, the introduction of UBI involves the abolition of all other social benefits. On the one hand, this idea actually looks more positive purely psychologically. Regularly collecting a huge amount of papers confirming your right to receive benefits in itself is quite humiliating. Especially if this benefit is called an aid for the poor. On the other hand - receiving monthly payments without any bureaucratic red tape and based only on the fact that you are a citizen of the state. It definitely looks like the road to universal equality and non-discrimination.
However, in the current macroeconomic situation, when the world is ruled by big businesses, wouldn't it be a reason to completely destroy all the signs and the remnants of the welfare state? Wouldn't this seemingly wonderful idea, in practice, look like a miserable sop to the masses by the people in power? After all, as a result of the introduction of UBI people will no longer depend on the availability of any work in order to survive. There will be more highly qualified specialists. This will definitely affect the labor market. Employers will be forced to raise wages, and competition from the field of job seekers will move slowly move to job givers. An obvious disadvantage for capitalists, but they will find a way to turn it into a plus. The logic for the compulsion to work will find a way to self-realize.
Healthcare, education and other basic human rights - would all this will remain in the public domain where it is now, and will it be open to all, where it is not present? Would the prices for products, goods, services, etc.go up again? Will there be on par with the abolition of social benefits monetization of other benefits? What would the scale of taxation be? After all, budget money, freed from the cancellation of various social benefits and thus reducing bureaucracy, clearly is not enough for it to provide the minimum necessary for a decent life for each individual. Here I want to emphasize the "decent" because a payment, allowing someone to barely make ends meet, clearly does not correlate with any civil dignity, nor with a humanistic idea of universal equality and free development.
And in this context, of course, it is absolutely clear that the implementation of universal basic income needs quite concrete economic conditions. A universal basic income would be meaningless without a progressive (differentiated) tax scale, that is, the state as an institution should monitor adequate redistribution of money in their framework. Moreover, universal basic income would be meaningless without affordable universal health care and education.
And of course, it makes no sense to talk about the introduction of a universal basic income in one or a few particular countries. Firstly, because it keeps opportunities to save, use, and storage funds outside the country. And then we realize that if it was possible to implement the utopian idea of equal distribution of wealth (resources, money) in the current market economy, it would have been done a long time ago. But the problem is that it is not realizable. No capitalist will not work under such conditions, because of his real goal - a monopoly, and the increase in profits, but not more or less equal distribution amongst all the inhabitants, whether within one country or humanity as a whole.
Secondly, it naturally creates an increased influx of migrants to more prosperous countries, which we can observe now and without the introduction of UBI. As the true cause of the migration crisis - it is poverty, hunger, unemployment, exploitation and war, rather than a desire to do nothing and live happily ever after. As a result, wealthy countries are forced to create artificial bureaucratic obstacles to the passage of refugees in its successful world.
Thus, at the moment in the context of the global hegemony of big businesses, the idea of a universal basic income despite all its attractiveness and progressivity - is bad and harmful. The joint international effort of the working people is the only way for society to come closer to universal equality and well-being. In a situation where there is no place for the exploiters and capitalists, and universal basic income will appear in the transitional stage of the job automation period.
#Income #Capitalism #Progress #Market #Socialism #Labor #Shareconomy #Crowdholding
