In the
second part of the interview with members of the Swiss Generation Basic Income,
we discuss the effects of introducing an unconditional income, how it will be
financed, criticisms of the concept, inequality, and the ugly nature of current
policies on welfare.
You can read the first part here
Enno Schmidt, the co-founder of Generation Basic Income, has said a basic income
could be “one of the landmark historical moments, like the abolition of slavery
or the civil rights movement”. What do you think will be the social effects of
introducing an unconditional income?
Che Wagner: To have a right for an income that will
make possible a life in dignity without condition is a landmark historical
moment for sure! Primarily it represents a question to each and every one of
us: do you trust others? Introducing a basic income will pose the question of
trust in a fundamental way: what will you do if your income is assured?
Socially
this means nothing less than that I am fully accountable for my deeds in the
sphere of what I contribute to others through my work, but not in a juridical
sense, because the basic income is unconditional. There won’t be a penalty for
those who are not ready to contribute anything. But in the social sphere I will
have to stand by the things I do for others and there are no excuses anymore,
such as I have to do this because I need an income.. etc.
In the aftermath of financial crisis, we
are constantly told that public spending cuts are unavoidable and that we must
“live with our means”. A basic income is going in the opposite direction. To
mouth a hoary old objection, where would the money come from to fund a basic
income?
Enno Schmidt: This is a matter of education. Money is
created where goods and services are produced that are for sale. Otherwise they
could not be bought. What can be produced, can also be financed. We have no
shortage of goods. There is not only enough money, there is too much money. But
a lot of money has lost its connection with social reality. We do not know what
the economy is, what money is, what taxes are. We think the economy is there to
make money-profits, that money is a possession of which one can never have
enough, and taxes should be avoided. That's just silly. The economy is there to
satisfy the needs of others, to do something that benefits others. Money is a
legal means to regulate the exchange between performance and need. Taxes are
what we pay for the work to which we assign to the state - work, which is not paid
by the individual consumer, but work we want to fund as a community. The tax is
a division of the process to be generated socially, in part by the private and
non-profit sectors. When you buy a computer, you don’t pay for the one you get,
but the next, which is already produced. The one you took already was paid for,
otherwise it could not be there. And what accounts for its price, is not the
stuff that will be available at your desk, but the income of all involved in
the production process, so that a computer can be made and given to you. These is also the
source of the income of the people who run the government and non-profit work.
All
money goes into income. That's one thing. And a second is that there is so much
work, as there are people. The income enables you to work. It makes you free,
it allows you not to just take care of yourself but also to do something for
others, and to live by what others do. This is the situation today. But we
still think like it was 150 years ago. Work cannot be paid, otherwise you can
buy people. Actually, slavery has already been abolished. But not in our
habits.
Where
will the money come from for the unconditional basic income? It is already
there. We share sufficient goods. We all have more or less an income sufficient
to live on. This level of income will be made unconditional. How does it work?
This is a consideration for economists. When all have an unconditional basic
income, prices rise or wages fall. Most likely, wages and benefits will decrease
on average to about the level of basic income. Because everyone now already
comes with an income to work. Income from labour is relieved of the task of
ensuring the existence of people. Wage negotiations will take place as free
negotiations between free people.
There are objections to basic income from
the Right and Left. Conservatives says that an unconditional income would lead
most people to sleep late, drink, take drugs and not do anything useful. Some
left-wingers say it is unfair to allow able-bodied people not to work while
leaving the burden of producing necessary goods on others. How do you respond
to these criticisms?
CW: Regarding the arguments from the Right:
basic income is an arduous idea and initiative as well and is not about being
lazy. The primary question for everyone is: what are you going to do when your
existential income is secured? To keep up at this question will be hard and
everyone has to deal with it individually. Some may go to sleep late as well
but that’s within their own freedom – I don’t see a problem or even an economic
issue there.
Regarding
the arguments of the Left: with the basic income, people are free to contribute
to society what they individually find necessary. For the first time in history
that will convert to something we could call a free market situation, where
everyone has the ability to say “No”, because their basic needs are
unconditionally covered. To produce necessary goods is a question of the need
of these very goods or services. Why wouldn’t these goods be produced anymore? It
will definitely have an impact on the prices of these goods and services in the
sense that quality producing will get cheaper in comparison to quantity and
profit-oriented producing.
Large
parts of the Left fear the shift of power to the individual who is enabled to
say “No” by the existence of the basic income and thereby forget this very
shift used to be the one political agenda in their initial formation a century
ago. The big difference now is: it’s not a class war anymore but a simple step
to empower everyone economically, whatever social class he/she may belong to.
ES: The Left and the Right are used to
talking about others and to judge without touching their own heads. Perhaps the
conservatives would only sleep late and take drugs, and the leftists live by
the actions of others. Today, many have switched off at their workplaces, today
more and more people are mentally ill and take legal drugs that are already
prescribed to children. There is no way forward, without thinking again.
Does Generation
Basic Income have any other objections to capitalism or conventional
Parliamentary democracy? I note that you are working directly through a
referendum, rather than through the Parliamentary system. Is a basic income
sufficient or does society need other changes as well?
CW: I do not want to generalise here because
every nation and cultural sphere has its own history. But the idea of the
discussion or even implementation of an unconditional basic income is not
limited to any borders; it’s a global idea in a globalised world.
I don’t
object to capitalism in general because I don’t see a problem in concentrating
forces by raising capital to be able to make things and ideas possible – that’s
a great thing! But we’re in a situation now, where capital has too much weight
and people are controlled by it and can’t live in dignity anymore. The
unconditional basic income is able to change this situation not by destroying capitalism
but by humanising it.
As you
can easily observe, in many countries within the EU plus the USA, Parliamentary
democracy is stuck in a deep crisis. In my opinion, the idea of a basic income
doesn’t work in a top-down setting and it is only natural that the movement is
diverse and carried by people like you and me. Strongly Parliamentary systems
and political spheres controlled by parties won’t be able to keep up with such
a movement. If people are able to take into consideration individual economic
power and self-determination, the question of political rights and power is
never far away.
There is another forthcoming referendum
in Switzerland, on whether to limit pay differentials in companies to a 12:1
ratio. Does Generation Basic Income overlap with the people behind the “1:12
initiative”?
CW: The “1:12 initiative” is an interesting
but rather conventional leftist proposal. We are in contact with some of the
initiators and talking about similarities and differences but from the basic
mindset, the two initiatives are still very far from each other. The basic
income does not want to take anything away from anyone by law. On the one hand,
“1:12”, like our initiative is the attempt to socialise our society. But the
basic income asks: can you trust your neighbour enough to give him an
unconditional income without forcing him to work for it? It can be seen as a
very liberal initiative because it does not dictate by law as to what you're going
to do with that income in any way. It is not predictable what will happen with
this new freedom and that’s the root of all the fear of opponents, including
the leftists behind “1:12”. Still, I would definitely count the “1:12” group as
part of the Basic Income Generation because they are doing something they
really want to do out of an inner decision – in that case being politically
active!
Marilola Wili: Those two ideas are not standing in
concurrence but do not overlap either. They are two totally different
approaches. The “1:12 intiative” wants an income upper limit and to set a ratio
by law. The idea of an unconditional basic income wants to empower everyone and
ask herself/himself what she/he wants and what she/he is able to do.
ES: Also, the difference is that 1:12 just throws a stick into the gearbox. The
thought is good. It is very easy to say this is justice. But nothing moves,
because income is only reduced and comes from the side of an isolated
regulation. It is one measure. The basic income doesn’t come from the side of a
regulation, a measure, a smug sense of justice. As Che said, the basic income
is not directed against capitalism, it is just better than that. It allows
people to do better and to develop it further.
I wanted to ask about the 1:12
initiative because there is growing recognition, in the UK (as well as in other countries)
of the damage caused by inequality. There was book published in the UK a few
years ago, called The Spirit Level, that showed that social problems
such as mental illness, poor educational attainment, violence, obesity, teenage
conceptions etc were invariably worse in countries of high inequality. Also, I
think you can trace a lot of causes of financial crisis to too much money at
the top of society – money that goes into restructuring companies,
mergers and acquisitions, and speculation in shares or commodities like food.
Is not inequality – as opposed to solely providing an unconditional income for
people – a problem that needs to be addressed?
ES: Yes, inequality
has all the effects you mention. But why does nothing change? We know
everything. While I am writing these words 20 children will die of hunger. Why
do all the good intentions change nearly nothing? We have organisations for
everything but something is missing. The old forms of justice do not apply,
they have brought us to this point.
It will take a lot more than proposals such as the 1:12 Initiative. It is
a distraction and not just because those in power will prevent it. But because
the thought has no substance. You might think you could reach 1:12, it is so
simple and direct, but it has no reality. The unconditional basic income looks
like it is just imagination, but it is very real. Basic income is not against
anybody or anything. It eliminates poverty, it does not stick to hatred of the
rich. It’s a trap, to always look on the rich. With a basic income, a lot more
people can work to ensure that inequality decreases. Then you can look at why
some people are so rich, then you can go to the source. Then you can look at
the causes and see what to do differently. But that only works if people are
strengthened.
In the UK and elsewhere, the political
debate on “welfare” is fixated on imposing ever more punitive penalties on
benefit claimants, and that includes disabled people, for not seeking work with
enough ardour. Hunger and destitution are resulting and more and more people
rely on food banks. Does a basic income have the potential to bring
about a paradigm shift into this ugly debate?
CW: You’re speaking of one of the core shifts
that has to take place, whether a basic income is introduced or not. The
problem here is a lack of income and not a lack of work or employment. People
need an income in order to be productive and to contribute for others by work.
It’s a simple rule you can test on yourself: when is it you’re more productive?
In a state of pressure and stress or rather in a state of ease and security?
MW: If the basic needs of everyone are met
unconditionally, the stigma of being poor, unemployed or providing care-work would
swiftly disappear. That’s only one reason why the unconditional basic income
would change a lot in these problems.
ES: We are now in a time of old, outdated
thinking and old ideas are becoming more violent because they feel they are no
longer correct. But this thinking wants to stay with all its might. It tortures
people, it can only assert itself at the expense of others in its falsehood.
The backlash can be bloody. We hope not. The unconditional basic income is a
way to channel the pent-up energy in a positive and creative track. That way, the contempt for the people, the misanthropy
loses its power.
What does the future hold for Generation
Basic Income? If you don’t win the forthcoming referendum, will you continue to
campaign?
MW: Generation Basic Income is the main
source of this initiative in Switzerland but we’re not bound to the results of
the initiative or to borders. We are living the idea of an unconditional basic
income. It’s a lifestyle. We are going to continue to engage with the idea and
to make it sensible for as many individuals as possible.
Update
The 1:12 referendum was defeated, sadly, by a margin of 66-34 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swiss-voters-reject-112-proposal-to-cap-top-executives-pay-in-latest-referendum-8960669.html
Update
The 1:12 referendum was defeated, sadly, by a margin of 66-34 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swiss-voters-reject-112-proposal-to-cap-top-executives-pay-in-latest-referendum-8960669.html
This a truy transformational idea, and so logical: in the US there will be support from progressives, liberals/modernists/libertarians and conservatives if the idea makes it past the intelligensia...Occupy and the Green Party have adopted it as a platform, but they have very little political power. However, the minimum wage movemnt is gaining strength, which goes in the right direction...there is growing recognition in public opinion of the plight of the working poor and the cost to the taxpayer of their (meagre) benefits
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I agree that it's transformational and logical but I don't share the belief that conservatives will support the idea of a basic income. In the UK and I imagine the US, the whole political programme of conservatives is founded on making exploitation easier, of making it nigh on impossible for people say no to a bad deal as Enno Schmidt puts it.
DeleteWage negotiations as "free negotiations between free people" strike me as one of the last things conservatives would want to happen
White House petition to introduce a guaranteed income for all Americans. http://wh.gov/lBIAx
ReplyDelete