Socialist Project - home

The   B u l l e t

Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 1494
October 9, 2017

Socialist Project - home

The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (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

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.

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 and, as a “citizen’s income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants, 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. •

Related Reading


#3 David Lidov 2017-10-10 09:58 EST
Basic Income
The OCAP analysis is good as an alert to the danger of wolves in sheeps' clothing, but not necessarily a good guide to action. If incremental measures are essayed, as in Ontario, we can look at their outcomes case by case, support what works and decry what doesn't.

#2 Kim Hunter 2017-10-09 22:54 EST
In Support of Basic Income
Hello Folks,

I write this from the perspective of an African American, but I don't think things are that much better in Canada to make that much difference. Your argument against basic income are wrong. All of the arguments you make against it could just as well be made against universal healthcare or voting for that matter. Universal health care, though it is a necessity, is not the end goal of all who seek true economic and social justice and democracy, reject racism, misogyny, homophobia etcetera. Universal health care could, for example, deliver crappy service unless we fight for better.

The fight for basic income would be monumental in the USA. It would undermine a basic fascist/right wing/religious belief that all people are evil and undeserving of anything they have not suffered for and/or that is not "god given." BI would put us on the slippery slope to realizing that we're all worthy of support and of supporting one another. I don't think most folks on the left have serious appreciation for how much the fight is about values or what values are at stake, particularly at this point with fascists, if not fascism itself, on the rise. Cognizance of the battle for values doesn’t come across in pronouncements such as the one against BI.

Though I sincerely respect you folks a great deal and look very much forward to your emails, arguments you make against BI read like they were produced from inside a bubble, a position taken by folks who would have a very difficult time explaining their position to the folks who most need BI. I wish more of us on the left had to explain what we mean and want to people who don't have degrees, would interact more with people who don't have degrees (and not just for work/day jobs.)

But my most important point is that you can have both BI and real justice as long as BI is not an end in itself. Like universal healthcare, we have to fight to shape it and make it humane, not dump. I call on you to reflect and reconsider.

#1 Janet Hudgins 2017-10-09 13:50 EST
Decent wages from decent employers
This is about women and their incomes because I am one and I have a lifetime of first-hand experience.

When men were employed as secretaries 150 years ago, for example, they were paid enough to live comfortably and support a family. They were even treated with respect in the community. As soon as women took their place, business men saw an opportunity to increase profits with a good deal of their female-employees salaries, and that's still the case.

Women should be paid according to their value to the company, just as CEOs rate and pay themselves, and that formula is not difficult. As it has always been, women maintain the domestic life for men and their families and they do it for nothing more than bed and board. It was all too easy to assume they would run the business world, for one thing, for nothing more than a subsistence income, as a gift to entrepreneurs, and be thankful for the job, by the way.

For these and all other short paid employees, men in power are equally guilty of this theft by omission. No one should have the right to blatantly underpay anyone and the state has no right to refuse to support its own constituents in favour of big business.

Post New Comment:
Join the debate on Facebook


What is this text?: Prove you're not a robot :   
(fill-in the captcha text above, and then click on 'Submit' button)
« Previous
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( The   B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• ISSN 1923-7871 •
Next »

Share: Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Google bookmark  MySpace  Pinterest  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Twitter  RSS

^ Back to Top ^