The aff is an essential first step to the alt – we assume their critique

The idea of providing a stipend to every person in a given country—or even across the globe— seems like it would be a project that socialists would love. And while there are certainly a large number of socialists that do or would support the establishment of a universal basic income (UBI), there are many left criticisms of UBI that have produced a great deal of skepticism about the idea. Most of the critics of UBI treat its advocates as though they believe UBI would solve all or most socioeconomic problems, at least in the Global North.1 I have yet to come across any serious UBI advocate who takes such an expansive position. My point here will be to provide reasons for why socialists should support a thick conception of UBI as a kind of radical reform from within capitalism, as part of a broader left agenda.2 In order to make this case, this essay will focus on three main contentions that are generally raised by left critics of UBI: (1) UBI would be used to dismantle existing social welfare programs, leaving the poor worse off than they were before; (2) UBI doesn’t do anything for workers within the workplace; and (3) UBI doesn’t challenge capitalism. (1) First, it is quite true that not all UBI programs would be worth supporting. Any UBI program that would have the likelihood of leaving the poor and vulnerable worse off should certainly be opposed by any socialist or progressive. This kind of welfare-state replacement UBI is the kind that white supremacist and conservative thought-leader Charles Murray and other libertarians often support. 3 However, simply because not all UBI programs are worth supporting, does not mean that there are not thick or expansive conceptions of UBI that absolutely are. An example of a conception of UBI that socialists should support would be one that is—as the acronym requires—universal and also set at or above subsistence. This means that all people, regardless of their ability or willingness to work, would at least be much more likely to live a life without lacking any fundamental necessities. A subsistence (or higher) UBI would likely only be able to achieve the goal of eradicating extreme poverty if it was also combined with a universal health care and tuition-free public higher education system. If the poor still had to pay or go into massive debt to afford basic health care and education, a subsistence UBI would be nearly functionally irrelevant—or worse. (2) Second, it is simply not true that UBI is irrelevant to workers and the workplace—again provided we are discussing a thick version of UBI. There are two key reasons why UBI would help workers in the workplace. First, if workers did not rely entirely on their wage for their subsistence, they would likely be able to take more aggressive positions in collective bargaining (Andy Stern, former president of the SEIU, has referred to UBI as a “national strike fund”). 4 A subsistence UBI would decrease the opportunity-costs of hardline negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, fewer hours, and better working conditions. Workers, in such a position, could also demand greater democratic rights within the workplace. This is not to suggest that wages would cease to be a site of contention. On the contrary, by providing a stronger foundation from which to negotiate wages and benefits, there would be an opportunity for an increase in labor struggles. The second way that UBI would aid workers in the workplace is more speculative. If a subsistence UBI were to be achieved, there is almost no way of imagining this taking place without massive organized support from workers. It would need to be collective demand that itself would require organizing and mobilizing workers, alongside the unemployed and homeless, and even stay-at-home moms and dads. The kind of social solidarity that such a radical policy position like a subsistence-level UBI would require would undoubtedly have important consequences for the organization of the workplace. (3) The idea that an expansive UBI program could not be a direct challenge to capitalism is frankly laughable. There are two main reasons why a subsistence UBI (or higher) could be a challenge to capitalism, but it is important to note that in the very short-term there is the chance of some increase in stability brought to the capitalist system by the Keynesian effects of the policy, if enacted in even a single globally-crucial economy like the US, the EU, or even China or India. 5 This stability would be short-lived and could lead to progress towards socialism, for the reasons that follow. The first reason builds on the points made under the previous section: a subsistence UBI that did not replace existing, or was implemented alongside expanded, social welfare programs would require a mass movement in order to be achieved. It would also take workers in enormous numbers out of the realm of necessity and closer to the realm of freedom (as described by Marx). With a subsistence UBI, workers would no longer be forced to work at low-paying, degrading, unsafe, or mindless jobs. These jobs would then likely become the first sites of full automation. If systematically-compelled wage-labor is the sine qua non of the capitalist mode of production, then a subsistence-or-above UBI would be a direct challenge to the foundation of capitalism. Secondly, a thick UBI could change how people think about their value in society. By declaring, not with mere rhetoric, but with serious policy, that all people, regardless of status, effort, place of birth, gender, race, sexuality, or any other category, are worthy of the dignity of the means to support themselves, society has a powerful opportunity to evolve in a more just and democratic direction. It wouldn’t necessarily be a smooth transition, but it would certainly provide the basis for a practicable transition from capitalism to an egalitarian democratic postcapitalism (i.e., socialism). These two points are in direct opposition to the position articulated by Daniel Zamora in Jacobin. 6 Zamora argues that UBI reinforces the market ideology by simply allowing more people to participate in consumption. What Zamora misses (though this is basically true of most socialist critics of UBI) is the progressive decommodification of work and life in general that UBI can contribute to. If I don’t have to work or don’t want to work under undemocratic or unsafe conditions, I wouldn’t have to. Yes, labor would still be commodified to some degree— but not universally or necessarily. In the same way that we could imagine a world where basic necessities are not commodified but luxury goods could be. With an expansive UBI, I wouldn’t be required to sell my labor to survive. And while there would certainly still be a market for consumer goods at this stage, buying goods in the market is not the defining trait of capitalism. With an expansive UBI, the connection between structurally-coerced labor and one’s ability to live a (decent) life—the foundational relationship of the capitalist mode of production—would be progressively severed.7 Imagine the creative “work” people could participate in of their own accord if they didn’t have to “get a job” to survive. Remember, not all UBI proposals are created equal and therefore not all UBI plans should be supported by those on the left. There are however very good reasons why a thick conception of UBI should be part of any socialist project aiming beyond capitalism but moving forward from within capitalism. There are no guarantees here, and it is imperative to think UBI within a much broader left program. There is, after all, no good reason to think that any one or two policies or demands would ever be successful on their own, especially not without the mass movement any one of them would necessarily need to have behind them in order to be achieved.