Against The Citizen’s Income


The idea of a “Citizen’s Income”, or “Basic Minimum Income”, or whatever else it gets called, has been rattling around the left for ages, but has been thrust into the limelight by the recent failure of the “surging” Green Party to successfully advocate it more publicly. It’s already popular amongst the autonomist and eurocommunist elements of the left, but the slew of coverage it has had recently means it’s worth briefly setting out the case against it from a more class-oriented position:

The best argument, as far as I’m aware, for the Citizen’s Income says that it would lessen workers’ dependency on the labour market, allowing them to refuse work and thus removing the ability of the ruling class to force down wages by threatening to replace you with someone cheaper. This would help us transition away from a low-wage economy and force the automisation or eradication of what David Graeber calls “bullshit jobs”, and would give the working class breathing room to fight for socialism. This seems to be the essence of Paul Mason’s recent defence of the policy in the Guardian.

This seems pretty fatally flawed on a number of levels. First up, let’s assume that the Citizen’s Income wouldn’t necessarily achieve these things. A variant of it was proposed ages ago by the neoliberal economist Milton Friedman in the form of the “Negative Income Tax”, and Richard Nixon gave it very serious consideration in the early 1970s. It’s not hard to imagine why the right might support it: under a government controlled by capital, a guaranteed minimum income would essentially be a huge public subsidy for low private wages. In the case of Freedman and right-wing ‘libertarians’ this was also a mechanism to dismantle ‘dependency’ on the state through replacing the public ownership and provision of services with a single cash payment. Indeed, it’s not far away from Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit, or Blair and Brown’s tax credits.

So we need to assume that every government in control of the Citizen’s Income will use it to empower the working class, particularly the government that actually implements it. But a worker’s government is just that – a worker’s government. In fact this is the only kind of government that could plausibly put it into practice. As Mason argues, the policy would demand a great deal of restructuring for business, with huge additional investment required to transition from low-wage to high-wage industry. Only in the depths of Fabian fantasy would the ruling class put up with this without a fight. At the very least, they would try to seize control of the policy and transform it into something far more beneficial to them, as US businesses did with various New Deal programmes in the postwar era. So if we’re proposing that a ‘progressive’ Citizen’s Income could actually be implemented and sustained, we’re assuming that there is already a very powerful working class, with a well-organised, radical party at its head, that can win power and impose its will upon the rich and their allies.

But a powerful working class doesn’t need legislation to get high wages – that’s what trade unions are for, and when they’re strong they do a perfectly good job of raising wages without legislative help. So in order to have a ‘progressive’ Citizen’s Income, you would need certain radical conditions to be in place – but creating these conditions is the goal of the policy! For the left, it’s an idea that can only survive by eating itself, forever consigned to a kind of resigned utopianism where working class power is the rhetorical ends, but is completely abandoned as means.The Citizen’s Income is only confirmation that any perspective of wielding political power through working class mobilisation and organisation has been abandoned by large sections of the left in favour of the hopefully benign actions of the state. This was evident in the hopes that many placed on the hopefully more “democratic” government that would be provided by an independent Scotland and is also clear in the Green Party’s aspiration for a state funded political party system, removing both big business and organised labour from direct influence on political parties.

For all that, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s still possible. A Citizen’s Income by itself could just as easily be reactionary as progressive – for it to be the latter, we’re really talking about it being just one element in a broad programme of radical structural change in the economy that would ultimately require the permanent domination of the propertied class by the working class.

We’re talking, in short, about socialism. And if we assume socialism to be a process of transferring power and wealth from the few to the many, what function does the Citizen’s Income serve in that? We’ve already established that strong trade unions can do a perfectly good job themselves of guaranteeing better wages, but now we’re suggesting that that power be given to the state. And once you can rely on the state to guarantee you a decent income, why join a trade union? All of sudden we’ve got a supposedly progressive policy kicking the legs out from under working class organisations and boosting the abstract, supposedly classless power of the state. The Citizen’s Income doesn’t build working class power; on the contrary, it is parasitic upon it.

Fundamentally, it’s a nationalist policy. It doesn’t begin from questions of class and power but from an imagined community ultimately embodied in the state, in which everybody’s interests are equally considered and represented, and struggle is procedural, between vague strategic coalitions organised around ideas, rather than warlike, between the classes in which very real material interests are concentrated and combined. It’s hardly surprising that those peace-loving Greens are so enthusiastic about it.

Rory Scothorne (@shirkerism)


2 thoughts on “Against The Citizen’s Income

  1. Hmm.

    ‘The right would weaponise UBI for their own ends’

    Quite; the way they attempt to do with every policy. The Tories reconfigure welfare support, national healthcare and public services to serve their interests- does this constitute an argument against any of the above? Negative income tax is not the same as UBI, it is a right-wing perversion of UBI in the same way as academies are a right-wing perversion of the idea of comprehensive schools.

    ‘UBI is a nationalist conception of change’

    So is any policy delivered on a national basis- the NHS most notably has the word ‘national’ in it. So does ‘nationalise.’ Yes, a world with no nations and no borders should be campaigned for. That’s not the one we’re in and any demand we make of government is by definition nationalist in that sense.

    ‘UBI is a classless conception of change’

    UBI (set at a sufficient level) would firstly directly lift millions of working and unemployed people out of abject poverty. Secondly, it would allow time for people to develop themselves that the crushing regime of benefit policing or low-paid full-time jobs doesn’t. Thirdly, it would frame a living income as a basic entitlement in the way that healthcare is now seen in Britain after 60 years of an NHS- an end to the deserving/undeserving poor and welfare-as-handout which has absolutely destroyed solidarity between the working and unemployed poor at the same time as being the biggest weaponised discourse in the hands of the right. In the sense that the state oversees UBI, sure it is ‘classless.’ Then again, so are a great deal of the public services and benefits that we demand.

    ‘For UBI to work it would have to be implemented by a left wing government’

    No kidding. Again, most left-wing demands require a left-wing government to implement them.

    ‘UBI would sap trade unions’

    In case we haven’t noticed, the trade union movement isn’t doing too well at the moment anyway, and we ignore in this the millions of people unwaged or unemployed who haven’t joined a union, can’t join a union or are in a union that refuses to fight. Not all union disputes are about pay as we well know. And I refuse to believe the labour movement would pack up and go home in the event of UBI any more than union branches dissolve once the living wage is won at a workplace.

    ‘It’s a very big demand’

    Yes. So’s full communism. It’s also an effective transitional demand in the truest sense – the space it occupies allows you to win the basis of the theoretical argument for communism with something far less abstract and apparently less radical, and provide not just an effective policy but a principle to fight for and unite around, a demand much like ‘free education’ in the sense that a lot of caveats and points beyond merely abolishing fees are bundled into that idea.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s