So, TandF Online recently published a paper discussing UBI as a popular program in the global south (third world) and debunking leftist critiques of UBI. I found it to be very good. It summed up a lot of points I've been trying to make for a while now, all in a single paper.
Basically, for mainstream leftists, UBI is a band aid. Because for them, the problem is capitalism, and while many would define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production, there is still a rather healthy anti market left among leftists. As a result, typical mainstream debate seems to center around the right, which is very pro market and anti state, and the left, which is very anti market and pro state. It seems like, in the extremes of our economic ideologies, people just can't see nuance between the two things, noting that both markets and states are tools with which we can accomplish human centered improvements to our life. And both systems, in my view, come off as very authoritarian to me. Capitalism claims to be libertarian because "free market, you're not forced to do anything", but in practice, yeah, you kinda are. The system is imposed by a state, even if they act like its minarchist, and people are forced into a state of propertylessness and being forced to work for others. And then these people have the gall to say that "nature" is coercing you, because they see their capitalist and property rights oriented systems as arising organically out of nature (we've debunked this on this blog by reading Widerquist's books on the subject). And then you have the leftists. Leftists seem to have a very specific approach to state action which also amounts to authoritarianism. They tend to prefer creating jobs over giving people income, and when they do give stuff via a welfare state, they prefer in kind aid and conditionality, as opposed to cash and unconditionality. This amounts to its own form of authoritarianism in which people are forced to work and consume as the state tells them to. it robs people of their agency and liberty. And in the worst case scenario, you get a crazy hard line authoritarian system where people have no freedom at all (looking at you, USSR, North Korea, etc.). While socdems are far more moderate and seem to have a mix of market mechanisms and welfare states, they still prefer to maintain conditionality and incentives to pressure people into the work force. Honestly, this dichotomy sucks, and is why I dont fit into a traditional political spectrum well. As Bob Black pointed out (and I had to have cited this quote like a dozen times on this blog):
Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx’s wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists—except that I’m not kidding—I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work—and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs—they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They’ll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don’t care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working.
I would say that all of the old ideologies are authoritarian, but you could say conservative too. The point is, all of them just have different ways of coercing people into labor, they just have differing organizational structures and theories of justice.
And that's where I run into issues with leftists online with UBI. Most leftists I talk to have nothing but hatred and disdain for UBI. Calling it a capitalist or libertarian plot to destroy welfare, claiming it wont do anything because greedy landlords and capitalists and inflation, and acting so high and mighty in proposing more traditional welfare and "universal basic services", where the government gives you all of your needs directly, with no regard for what they actually are. If you get cheese and you wanted vegetables, tough crap. If you wanted gas and not crackers, also tough crap. Instead of letting people buy what they want on the market, they want to determine what people need or deserve and give it to them. Rather than empowering individuals to make their own choices, we empower states and governments.
That leads to the flaws we see in the traditional economic spectrum. The right claims to be for freedom and can often claim a moral high ground in stating that states are inefficient and tyrannical, and that markets are more about freedom and efficiency. The left points out that capitalism is exploitation and slavery and calls for abolishing it, and often replacing it with state control. Yes, I know that some leftists are more anarchist, but i generally believe if you believe in revolution and abolishing capitalism, the result will largely be the same regardless of ideology, because the far left does not have mechanisms in place to guarantee things will go as well as they think it will.
In a way, both are right, and both are wrong, which is what happens when you lack naunce.
I admit, social democrats and liberals are better than the lot of extremists on both sides, but even they can be dogmatic in solutions. This proposed synthesis of left and right ideas still ended up with inefficiency and authoritarianism in practice. They're better than either extreme, but they're not perfect. Which is why we need a new way forward.
UBI offers that way forward. What we need in the 21st century is a New New Deal. Not one based on 20th century ideals like Bernie and his followers want to give us, but one that both has the state doing things and providing for people, while also recognizing their liberty. THe most successful government programs generally involving giving checks to millions of people. Why not take that model and universalize it? Give it to everyone as a right to citizenship, and let people decide what to do with us? From the right, you get your freedom and efficiency. From the left, you get everyone's needs being taken care of and freedom from exploitation and wage slavery. It's the best of both worlds.
And yes, I recognize we need other programs on top of UBI. The whole "well if you're for UBI you want to abolish everything else" is another weird leftist strawman. Yes, right wing versions of UBI exists. But that doesnt mean UBI has to work like that. UBI should exist in conjunction with universal healthcare, free college, a housing program, and some sort of infrastructure/green bill to fix our infrastructure and climate change. But that's why it's a new new deal, not just a UBI. It's a package of reforms, not just one reform.
The fact was, both Yang and Bernie both had it right in 2020 in different ways. Yang had UBI, and nominal support for universal healthcare, and Bernie had all of the other reforms, but lacked UBI, seemingly leaning into higher minimum wages and jobs programs as an alternative (so more of the same crap we've always done).
Both had some great ideas, but neither had the whole picture. We need a system that gives us the best of both. An ideal 21st century economic reform package is a synthesis of many different ideologies, and policy proposals, not fully one thing. We need more nuance in our politics.
And yeah, I recognize that a lot of what I wrote was a soapbox and i used the article as a springboard here, but that's how I see it, and the article seemed to largely be in line with my ideas. Rather than be dogmatic and push for the same old solutions while crapping on UBI for ideological reasons, we need a system that is a bit more flexible and nuanced, and celebrates the advantages of capitalism, while fixing its disadvantages. Rather than seeing UBI as a band aid, we should see it as the main cure. Quite frankly, I think UBI and unconditional cash grants would do far more to enhance the average person's life than all the blathering on about who owns the means of production. Because one allows people to take control of their own lives and unilaterally allows them to say "no", and the other still requires mass collective action to leverage properly, if at all.
The problem with the left is its too collectivist. Yes, apes together strong, but in a lot of ways, the left simply wants to replace one tyranny with another, with the other having the potential to be far worse than the one that currently exists.
And yeah, that's my views on this. I've said it before. Right wing ideology is based in the 18th century, left wing ideology is based in the 19th, liberalism and social democracy is based in the 20th, and we need an iterative move from social democracy toward social libertarianism and human centered capitalism. Rather than relying on the same old solutions, maybe try the new solution that we know seems to work? Sometimes we overcomplicate things. Mainly because authoritarians on both sides do that. Maybe the answer really is unconditional cash grants. The government does things, and then it gives people the freedom to live their lives. Seems like a good deal to me. I'd prefer cash and free healthcare over whatever government job and in kind services with conditions the benevolent authoritarian leftists wanna force on me.
No comments:
Post a Comment