84
CHAPTER 4
POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES IN ACTION . . . UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
EVENTS: In 1981, the Alaska Permanent Fund was launched. It has since become the world’s only enduring attempt to put the idea of universal basic income (UBI) into practice. The Permanent Fund, financed by Alaska’s oil and gas resources, pays all adults and children a dividend each year – in 2019, it was $1,606 – the only condition for which is they must be full-time Alaskan residents. In effect, this is ‘free money’. However, unlike most versions of UBI, Permanent Fund dividends are not fixed, guaranteed amounts and they are not high enough to cover basic expenses. Among other prominent experiments with UBI is the scheme in Finland, under which 2,000 people, randomly chosen from the ranks of the unemployed, were given a monthly sum of €560, from January 2017 to December 2018, no strings attached. SIGNIFICANCE: Public debate about UBI has grown as socialists and leftists, in particular, have seen it as a possible solution to both growing inequality and economic insecurity in an age of neoliberal globalization, and the increasing effect of automation on jobs and income. The key argument in favour of UBI is that, as payments are made at a flat rate, it promotes social justice (monthly stipends have a greater relative impact on the poor than on the rich) and reduces – or (if payments are generous enough) eradicates – poverty. Such thinking is underpinned by the belief that, in boosting spending power, UBI stimulates economic growth, so helping to pay for itself through increased tax revenues. Moreover, UBI may redress the relationship between employers
and workers to the benefit of the latter, whose greater economic freedom serves to alleviate wage slavery. UBI, nevertheless, also attracts criticism. First, it may serve ideological purposes quite opposed to those of socialist egalitarianism. For example, the US free-market economist, Milton Friedman, defended the related idea of a negative income tax (in which the state pays citizens, rather than the other way round) on the grounds that it would allow for the dismantlement of the welfare state while, at the same time, strengthening self- sufficiency. Second, even if its purpose is to reduce inequality, UBI may be an ineffective tool. Among the reasons for this is that it threatens to draw funding away from public services like health and education that may be more reliable in meeting the needs of the less well-off. Finally, not only may UBI undermine the incentive to work – and, in the process, turn people into passive consumers – but there is also no guarantee that income from UBI schemes is used wisely.
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, leading, inevitably, to the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution. Social democrats, on the other hand, have tended to define social class in terms of income and status differences between ‘white collar’ or non-manual workers (the middle class) and ‘blue collar’ or manual workers (the working class). From this perspective, the advance of socialism is associated with the narrowing of divisions between the middle class and the working class brought about through economic and social intervention. Social democrats have therefore believed in social amelioration and class harmony rather than social polarization and class war. However, the link between socialism and class politics has declined significantly since the mid-twentieth century. This has largely been a consequence of declining levels of
Powered by FlippingBook