wonderful Barb, thanks a lot for this reaction already, Michel
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Barb Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I have seen this. I'm in the midst writing a long essay about several > attacks on UBI from the left, but there are a few things to say here. > > 1/ The end of the statement 'We must struggle for income support systems > that are based on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of > intrusive rules and moral policing' doesn't sound a whole lot different > from what a lot of us would call 'basic income'. <g> > > 2/ A pro-UBI critique of the Ontario pilots is needed - there are a lot of > problems with how they're being done, not least that what is actually being > tested is a means-tested negative income tax. Even still some interesting > facts re otherwise unconditional cash transfers may emerge. There are such > critiques of the Finnish experiment (which can be found on > http://basicincome.org), and the Canadian UBI movement is developing one > of the Ottawa experiment. > > 3/ By fighting a defensive struggle they are allowing capital to set the > terms, which I think has been the left's problem for the last 40 years. > Unsurprisingly, it has failed to inspire people in general, and equally > unsurprisingly, it is losing - the cuts in services and benefits is ongoing > without basic income. It's unclear to me what OCAP hope to gain by doing > this statement, and gathering support for it - the pilots in Ottawa are > already underway, so it won't stop them. Surely what would be more > effective is a critique of the specific problems with Ottawa's experiment - > for example the fact that the payments are not protected against debt > garnishment as current state benefits are; that passported benefits like > free meds and travel for disabled people has not been protected. Rather > than making demands around actual problems with the pilot like these, we're > asked to make an ideological choice. > > Few I've spoken to within the UBI movement see this as anything other than > a struggle for power in the long-term. This is happening at a lot of > different levels, not always as the kind of clear class struggle which OCAP > would recognise or see as 'valid'. One thing I would say is that the idea > of UBI has done a good job of splitting the neoliberals, not all of whom > support it - why is this not seen as a good thing? In my experience UBI has > also helped to open up people to a lot of other ideas - the role of > economic rent; the replacement of taxes on these with taxes on work; what > is necessary work, paid or unpaid; what is the commons and what is our > share in it - to name a few. These also must be part of the 'working class > political challenge to neoliberalism', surely? > > Best wishes, > > Barb > > > > On 09/10/2017 7:35, Michel Bauwens wrote: > > counting on you for a response, dear Barb <g> > > a significant quote about the mindset of the organizers: > > "f faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could > offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not > possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent > agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. > We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of > social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class > political challenge to neoliberalism." > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, tina ebro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty <http://ocap.ca/> (OCAP) has drawn >> up the following statement on basic income (BI). It makes the case that, >> progressive hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, BI is being developed as >> a measure of neoliberal attack that should be opposed. We invite >> progressive organizations and individuals who hold positions in agencies >> and academic institutions, who agree with our arguments, to sign onto the >> statement. We hope that it will raise a voice of opposition and help >> develop information sharing and forms of co-operation among those, >> internationally, who reject the notion that basic income represents any >> kind of realistic response to the neoliberal attack. >> >> Endorsements and other responses can be directed to OCAP at [email protected]. >> from Socialist Project The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income >> >> We, the undersigned, are convinced that the emerging model of basic >> income, reflected in pilot projects and other initiatives in a number of >> countries and jurisdictions, is one that would intensify the neoliberal >> agenda. The hope that there is any realistic chance of ensuring a truly >> adequate, universal payment, that isn’t financed by undermining other vital >> elements of social provision, is misplaced in our view. >> [image: Basic Income: Wolf in sheep's clothing] >> >> We are far from wanting to suggest that existing systems of income >> support are anywhere close to adequate. They provide precarious sub-poverty >> income under conditions that are marked by intrusive regulations and forms >> of moral policing. Moreover, decades of neoliberal austerity have made >> these systems considerably worse. >> >> However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption >> that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo >> has to be tested by considering a number of factors. Historically, income >> support has been provided because those in political power concluded that >> outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create >> unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from >> dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided >> at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid >> workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, >> the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must >> concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of >> desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers. >> >> If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are >> today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to >> move toward greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance >> workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic >> income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested >> payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is >> primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a >> subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be >> financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself >> to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people >> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1399.php> and, as a “citizen’s >> income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants >> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1489.php>, especially those left >> undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the >> social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot >> projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in >> this regard (we include some links at the bottom of this article that >> provide information on several of these). >> Workless Future? >> >> However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and >> may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic >> income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the >> idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of >> technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a >> universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be >> adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter >> of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this >> could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive >> basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and >> acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort. >> >> In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside >> transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the >> current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society, >> after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that >> a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda, >> is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that >> removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates >> suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would >> actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an >> unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist >> job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary >> change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible >> social policy enactment. >> >> If basic income as emancipation is not possible, it can only too easily >> take form as neoliberal intensification. Yet, sadly, progressive advocates >> end up offering legitimacy to that regressive alternative but placing hopes >> in musings about basic income by Silicon Valley billionaires or by >> presenting cynical pilot projects, set up by austerity driven governments, >> as flawed but important first steps. However much they wish otherwise, the >> sow’s ear will not become a silk purse. >> >> “ >> >> We must fight for free, expanded and accessible public services. We must >> win decent wages and workers’ rights.” >> >> If faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could >> offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not >> possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent >> agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. >> We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of >> social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class >> political challenge to neoliberalism. As we do this, we must fight for >> free, expanded and accessible public services. We must win decent wages and >> workers’ rights. We must struggle for income support systems that are based >> on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of intrusive rules and >> moral policing. We must infuse all of these movements and struggles with a >> sense of a very different kind of society from the capitalist one we are >> fighting. This doesn’t have the glitter of the dream of a progressive basic >> income but it does accept the reality that there is no social policy way >> around neoliberalism or a long and hard fight against it. The progressive >> welcome mat for basic income is a very big mistake. • >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CommonGood Mailingliste >> JPBerlin - Politischer Provider >> [email protected] >> https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
