I am
a socialist, or a communist, or an anti-capitalist, whichever fits
your taste. I fight against the socio-economic system and the
injustices caused by it. I have been following the Unconditional
Basic Income (UBI) discussions for years now. I have four problems
with the proposal and/or how it is presented, which to my knowledge
are not answered yet.
1. Exchange value rather than use value
First
is a theoretical problem. It is about the monetarized formulations in
the campaign. We demand free healthcare and education for all. And
UBI campaign tries to enlarge this demand to other basic needs. But
instead of directly demanding housing, food and public transport, it
demands the supposed costs in the form of money.
The
problem with this approach is that it leaves the decision to the
market. We should never forget that 62 people own more wealth than
half of world population, and that the 1% is richer than the 99%
combined. The ruling class and their choices influence the prices
disproportionately more than us. Anyone who observed the
gentrification process in Bairro Alto or Alfama1
knows how that projects onto the right to housing, for instance.
In
fact, this monetary approach is perfectly compatible with the
capital's commodification motives. We should be demanding food,
housing and public transport for all, independent of their prices.
Introducing the price tag serves per se to amplify the
existing inequalities. Winning right to education is conquering a
fortress, winning UBI is shifting the battle itself into another
fight for what would be the fair basic income, to what products it
would be indexed, and how it would be updated.
While
UBI advocates like the simplicity of “one measure to solve it all”
motto, unfortunately this is not how reality operates. The simplicity
does help to spread the word and raise awareness, but it also hides
the fact that, in application, all that simplicity will be lost to
market obscurities and neoliberal technocracy.
A
campaign defensible by anti-capitalists should reject the liberal
discourse, instead of trying to frame its own agenda within it. We
want the basic needs to be outside of the universe of
commodities, and the UBI campaign is pushing to include them within
that universe.
2. A conflict-free proposal
My
second problem is an ideological one. It is another simplification
that undermines the UBI campaign, which is the proposal to include
“everyone, without discrimination” in the set of beneficiaries.
This kind of “equality in policy” is what bourgeois philosophy of
law has sold us since the beginning of modernity. These philosophers
tell us that we are all equal in front of law, for instance; but
anyone who ever challenged a company for its misconduct knows
otherwise. The ruling class not only has access to a herd of
sophisticated lawyers, they are also the ones who wrote the laws with
convenient loopholes and wording ambiguities. One could at most say
that the 99% is equal in front of law – well, unless you are a
person of colour, or of an ethnic minority, or of a gender minority,
or very poor, or homeless, or an immigrant, etc. etc. etc.
There
are no win-win policies in history. And the reason is simple: History
is the history of class struggles. Class struggle exists a priori,
the policy proposal comes on top that fragmentation.
I
understand that it is a populist approach to propose a simple policy
measure that would benefit everyone. But for this marketing strategy
to work, you should avoid telling what your actual proposal is.
Indeed, the UBI campaign seems to intentionally avoid from putting
content into what the campaign defends. This is also another reason
why political parties with government programs do not adopt the
campaign.2
A
campaign defensible by anti-capitalists should, in one way or
another, choose side in the existing class struggle(s).
3. Who will fight for it?
This
brings me to, my third point, a political problem with the campaign.
By avoiding social confrontation and promoting dialogue between
antagonistic political agendas, the UBI campaign fails to define
agency.
The
campaign discourse is that everyone can be persuaded to the campaign,
therefore everyone should be persuaded to the campaign, and so we
would win. The bad news is that “everyone”, “all of us”, “we”
have no social agency. A social movement can advance only if it
defines a class of people who would naturally benefit from this
struggle.
By
avoiding such political confrontation, the UBI campaign misses the
chance of mobilizing around this project. This is visible in its way
of organizing as discussion groups rather than a social movement.
This
attitude does allow for open debates where people with various
opinions exchange ideas, and I find this quite useful in a world of
social polarization. (Maybe the UBI advocates just wanted to bring
about dialogue and critical thinking to our societies; if so, they
have been doing a wonderful job.) However, as an anti-capitalist, my
priority is to fight the injustices of the current socio-economic
system, in campaigns that we should, can and might win.
4. The prey and the predator allied
Related
to this, there is a fourth point, a strategical one. The UBI
proposals have support from various ideological backgrounds, with a
strong presence of liberal economists and intellectuals. The UBI
advocates seem to welcome this diversity, but anti-capitalists should
beware. We shouldn't pretend class struggle does not exist. And the
UBI campaign runs the risk of putting the sheep and the wolf under
the same roof.
I
have respect to highly-educated bourgeois intellectuals and their
talent and tradition to draw lessons from history. I believe that
they see what I see in this campaign, and most probably more: an
opportunity for accumulation and centralization of the capital. And I
believe that this is why they are there. Of course, as any rational
wolf would do, they do not raise their voice against us but rather
use the pretext of win-win solutions as ground for persuasion. There
is no persuasion or collaboration of wolves and sheep.
The
UBI campaign proposes a form without specifying its content,
thereby allowing diverse opinions to encounter in a common platform.
For common people, this is quite useful exercise. But when
ideologists of the ruling class come in, it turns into a different
story, at least for anti-capitalist militants.
Building traps for one's self
In
conclusion, the strategy of the Universal Basic Income advocates to
present the campaign as conflict-free and widely inclusive brings
about a serious of weaknesses for the campaign. These weaknesses may,
in the worst case,open space to swaying towards neoliberal politics,
or, in the best case, produce a non-winnable campaign. I see very
little space for an anti-capitalist movement at any point in this
spectrum.
Most
UBI activists seem to share, implicitly, a set of values such as
justice and equity, with which I agree. They also seem to share a
common apologetic attitude towards the world they imagine, with that
I disagree. I believe it is crucial to openly declare what we want
rather than focusing on having faith on tricks in communication
strategies, because victory doesn't come without conviction and
honesty.
1Touristic
neighbourhood in downtown Lisbon, subjected to urban transformation
projects for years, resulting in raises in rents and living costs,
and gradual abandonment of the locals.
2In
Portugal, only PAN and Livre support the campaign openly. Not
accidentally, both parties have more of a philosophical wishful
thinking approach rather than strategies to seize the political
power. I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing, perhaps
nowadays those approaches are more necessary than power-focused
programs. However, one cannot win a fight without a political
agenda.
Thanks for the insightful reflexion! Really good points!
ReplyDelete