by Kate McFarland | Aug 2, 2016 | News
The Movement for Black Lives, the network of organizations behind the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, released its first official platform on Monday, August 1. The platform calls for a universal basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount distributed to Black Americans as reparations.
The Movement for Black Lives (MBL), a collective of over 50 groups affiliated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, released its official platform on Monday, August 1.
The platform is constructed around six core demands: Ending the war against Black people; Reparations for past and continuing harm; Investment in education, health and safety, and divestment from exploitative forces; Economic Justice for all; Community Control of laws and institutions; and independent Black Political Power.
The platform is explicitly radical and visionary, aspiring to a “complete transformation of the current systems”, but its authors have also written policy briefs that outline intermediary steps to reach these visions.
The Movement for Black Lives’ demands include universal basic income, as described in its policy statement on Reparations. The document makes clear that MBL endorses a basic income for all Americans, with an additional amount (a UBI “PLUS”) given to Black Americans as reparations for harms ranging from colonialism and slavery to mass incarceration.
Political scientist Dorian T. Warren, a Fellow of Roosevelt Institute and Board Chair of the Center for Community Change, authored the policy brief. Its section on universal basic income is reproduced below:
What does this solution do?
A Universal Basic Income (UBI) provides an unconditional and guaranteed livable income that would meet basic human needs while providing a floor of economic security. UBI would eliminate absolute poverty, ensuring economic security for all by mandating an income floor covering basic needs. Unlike most social welfare and social insurance programs, it is not means tested nor does it have any work requirements. All individual adults are eligible.
No other social or economic policy solution today would be of sufficient scale to eradicate the profound and systemic economic inequities afflicting Black communities.
As patterns and norms of “work” change rapidly and significantly in the decades to come – no matter how profound those changes are – it is likely that Black America and other populations that are already disadvantaged will bear the brunt of whatever economic insecurity and volatility results.
A pro-rated additional amount included in a UBI for Black Americans over a specified period of time.
The revenue saved from divesting in criminal justice institutions could be pooled into a fund for UBI; this revenue could be earmarked for the “PLUS” aspect of the policy that would be targeted toward Black Americans. If combined with other funds, it would effectively function as reparations, in a grand bargain with white America: All would benefit, but those who suffered through slavery and continuing racism would benefit slightly more.
Federal Action:
UBI would have to pass both houses of Congress and then be signed by the president. The revenue could be generated by multiple sources which would require structural reforms to the tax code including higher taxes on the wealthy, taxes on public goods like air (carbon tax) or on certain industries (financial transactions tax), or a dividend based on distributing resources from a common-owned asset (like oil).
State Action:
Similar to national policy, UBI would have to pass through state legislatures and be signed by governors. Other instances might require amendments to State Constitutions. The precedent here is the Alaska Permanent Fund, set up in the late 1970s/early 1980s. All residents of Alaska receive an annual dividend based on the invested revenue from the publicly-owned oil reserves.
How does this solution address the specific needs of some of the most marginalized Black people?
UBI would then provide an individual-sustaining basic floor for people who are formerly incarcerated upon re-entry that does not currently exist.
UBI would be an improvement on portions of today’s current safety net and would benefit cash poor Black people the most. Some benefits, such as food stamps, are replete with paternalistic restrictions that rest on racist tropes about recipients and their consumption habits. Others, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), are significantly tied to work, which is problematic when structural racism continues to create so many barriers to Black employment. UBI lacks these flaws.
The document also links to Warren’s essay “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“. In this short paper, Warren describes the problem of racialized economic inequalities in the American economy, and proposes UBI as a solution. He emphasizes that most forms of UBI would benefit the black community, and that “even an equal income could disproportionately benefit black Americans” since white Americans presently earn more on average.
Warren goes on to argue, however, that a “Universal PLUS Basic Income” model, with an additional pro-rated cash transfer specifically for African Americans, would be preferable as a way to “take into account the historical and cumulative disadvantages of income, wealth and inheritance afflicting black communities”.
The Black Lives Matter movement originated in July 2013, after a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of all charges surrounding the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. The movement spread on social media via the use of the hashtag “#BlackLivesMatter”.
Tuesday, August 9 marks the two-year anniversary of the death of Michael Brown, another unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. The fatal shooting launched a series of street protests that brought widespread national publicity to BLM to a point where the topic of raising the Black Lives Matter flag was discussed in various circles of the government to show solidarity against racism. The BLM flag may not be flying atop a monster flagpole anytime soon, but the discussions in several mediums have definitely carried forward the cumulative fears and concerns of the African American populace.
Monday’s release marks the first time in its history that BLM has issued a single, comprehensive set of policy demands.
MORE INFORMATION
The Platform is available at The Movement for Black Lives’ website: policy.m4bl.org.
Dorian T. Warren, “Universal Basic Income and Black Communities in the United States“.
General news about the release of the BLM platform:
Yamiche Alcindor, “Black Lives Matter Coalition Makes Demands as Campaign Heats Up“, The New York Times; August 1, 2016.
Eric M. Johnson, “Slavery reparations sought in first Black Lives Matter agenda“, Reuters; August 2, 2016.
Amée Latour, “How To Read The Black Lives Matter Agenda & See Its Comprehensive Plan For The Future“, Bustle; August 1, 2016.
Trymaine Lee, “Black Lives Matter Releases Policy Agenda“, NBC News; August 1, 2016.
Jamilah King, “The Movement for Black Lives’ New Policy Platform Looks Beyond the 2016 Election“, Mic; August 1, 2016.
Tess Owen, “Black Lives Matter reveals a policy platform that includes reparations and breaking up banks“, Vice; August 2, 2016.
Featured Image CC Gerry Lauzon
Thanks, as always, to my supporters on Patreon
by Kate McFarland | Jul 31, 2016 | News, Testimonies
Nina Šoštarič obtained her Master’s Degree in Philosophy from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, with a thesis titled “Basic Income as a Step towards Environmental Justice”. She is now a PhD student at University College Dublin in Ireland, where her research lies in the intersection of equality issues, social justice, and degrowth.
Nina has published two articles — “Between Socialism and Capitalism: Universal Basic Income” (2012) and “UBI in the Light of Global Environmental Crisis” (2011) — and edited the book Where are we headed? Thoughts on Ending the Crisis (2013) (all in the Slovenian language).
In a recent Basic Income Interview, Nina explained her interest in the idea:
I first heard about basic income years ago in college when my professor Igor Pribac, later my supervisor, talked about basic income at a module called Social Philosophy. Immediately I thought it was an amazing concept.
I support basic income because it is truly an inspirational idea. Every individual and the society as a whole could benefit immensely from it, if implemented properly. Basic income would provide a safety net for everyone in this precarious era. I think it has a big transformational potential.
Nina recommends the website Sekcija UTD for more information about the basic income movement in Slovenia.
Photo used by permission of Nina Šoštarič.
Basic Income Interviews is a special recurring segment of Basic Income News, introduced in July 2016 by Jason Murphy and Kate McFarland. Through a series of short interviews, we aspire to display the diversity of support that basic income receives throughout the world.
Have your own thoughts to contribute? Want to see yourself in a future Basic Income Interview? Visit our interview form.
by Guest Contributor | Jul 22, 2016 | Opinion
Donald Trump and the Prospects for a Basic Income
By Steven Shafarman
The Republican Party convention is over, and I’m feeling hopeful. Trump’s triumph may be a big step forward in our campaign to enact a basic income in the United States.
With Trump’s speech, and the convention’s overall tone, the party has completed its transition and come out of the closet. It’s now the Repugnant Party.
Our best hope is a landslide defeat, leaving Trump and the Repugnant Party in the dust. That will also leave Republicans with the task of rebuilding, seeking to reunite their Pro-Trump, Never-Trump, and Stuck-with-Trump factions. They’ll need a platform that’s positive, uplifting, and optimistic, something like a new version of Reagan’s “morning in America” — and they’ll have that, if the reborn Republican Party endorses a version of basic income.
Republicans might call it a “negative income tax,” quoting Milton Friedman, who strongly endorsed it in several books and many articles. Perhaps they’ll favor “Citizen Dividends,” to underscore the fact that the basic income is for citizens only, not immigrants. During their convention, they loudly denounced Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as the establishment status quo, and the cause of everything that’s wrong in America today. Republicans can reinforce those arguments by touting basic income as a way to cut taxes, end corporate welfare, and achieve many of their other goals and values.
Democrats will be pressing hard to bring rapid progress, and President Hillary Clinton will be eager to prove that she is much more than a third term for Barack Obama. She can do that by talking about basic income, even if she only floats it as an idea, stopping short of full-on support. They might like UBI, universal or unconditional basic income, using the “U” to emphasize liberal values. If Clinton doesn’t act, Bernie Sanders and his supporters may became our champions, running with this issue and taking over the Democratic Party.
We Americans will have a basic income within the next ten years, I predict, possibly within two to three years.
Steven Shafarman is a co-founder of Basic Income Action, a life member of BIEN, and on the coordinating committee of USBIG. His forthcoming book is The Basic Income Imperative: for peace, justice, liberty, and personal dignity. (If you are or know a literary agent or publisher, please contact him through www.basicincomeaction.org.)
Donald Trump photo credit: Gage Skidmore (2013)
by Kate McFarland | Jul 18, 2016 | News
Basic Income Ireland held its Summer Forum in Dublin on June 11, 2016.
The event included scholarly presentations on the theme of “how a universal, sufficient and unconditional basic income could help us all — women and men — have richer choices about how to live our lives creatively and with greater equality,” followed by open discussion and strategizing about how to advance the cause of basic income in Ireland.
The keynote speaker was Barb Jacobson of Basic Income UK, who spoke about the historical roots of the idea of universal basic income — deriving from the works of Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke — and described her experience with the UK’s Wages for Housework Campaign, which was part of a global movement that emerged during the 1970s.
Responses were presented by Ursula Barry (lecturer and researcher in Women’s Studies at University College Dublin) and Shane Fitzgerald (organizer of the We’re Not Leaving campaign, representing students, interns, and the young unemployed).
Barry spoke about feminist views for and against basic income. Eileen Boyle, a Basic Income Ireland member who attended the forum, recollects:
Some feminist arguments believe that basic income could further silence women and lock them Into their household roles. In particular what emerged for me from Ursula’s considered presentation was how basic income can be regarded as one of the necessary transformational steps (when combined with many others) which would address gender differences in society.
Next, Fitzgerald related his personal journey through college and work as a young adult, explaining how a basic income could have helped him and other youth in similar situations.
Photo from Eileen Boyle
During the open discussion, more than 40 audience members formed groups in which they defined their own topics and tasks. According to Boyle’s report, topics ranged from “how to take advantage of the current political scene in Ireland” to “basic income as part of a basic ‘dignity’ movement” to “basic income and the money system in general.”
One group worked on composing “a succinct statement about basic income that people could be asked to endorse.”
Finally, as Boyle relates, the event concluded with “the chorus of two songs coined by one group to celebrate the undoubted benefits of a Basic Income…….having ‘a few bob in her pocket’.”
Thanks to Eileen Boyle and Genevieve Shanahan for comments — and, as ever, thanks to my supporters on Patreon.
Feature Image (Garden in Dublin) CC Sean O Domhnaill.
by Citizens' Income Trust | Jul 15, 2016 | Opinion
Author: Frances Hutchinson
The simple question, alluded to in the title of this article, is: ‘How do we end the wages system?’ That raises further questions – ‘Why end the wage system? What is wrong with it?’ or the fundamental question: ‘What is the wages system?’ It is my contention that all social and environmental reforms which ignore the role of money in directing human activity are doomed at best to be palliative, addressing individual causes for concern whilst ignoring the root causes from which the individual problems stem. As Marx and Veblen were well aware, the wages system lies at the heart of social injustice and ecological unsustainability. So long as absentee owners direct the work of waged or salaried employees (whether in private or state corporations), the motivation for reform will be constantly frustrated. Where money is the master motivation, all other values fade into subsidiary considerations. The major debates currently raging about war, famine, agribusiness, debt, environmental/ecological degradation, GM, world trade and poverty all stem from one central cause. People are held into doing what they are doing because they seek to profit financially from their cooperation with others. Whether the ‘profit’ is from speculative sale or sale of labour time becomes immaterial. Both are beholden to the same phenomenon: money is the first consideration in determining a course of action. The money economy is dividing people not only from their work and its product, but also from the land that ultimately sustains all forms of human society. If one cannot live on bread alone, one certainly cannot live on money at all. It is absolutely essential that material goods and services exist, and that the resources necessary for the production of those resources are cultivated and conserved. The money economy has come to obscure the practicalities of everyday life.
The money economy
With industrialisation, we were liberated economically from traditional social ties, only to become enslaved by a money system operating beyond everyday comprehension. Rights and responsibilities associated with respect for the ‘commons’ and social justice are swept aside in favour of economic pressures. Money is enthroned in a place of identifiable individuals whose ability to hold sway over others could be monitored by a system of checks and balances which, however imperfect, nevertheless made the oppressor ultimately accountable. When it comes to money management and distribution, some people struggle to meet ends. Although, it should be noted that the availability of home loans and auction finance do people grapple with the tight market. The present system of income distribution has come to seem as natural – even if as unpredictable – as the weather. Incomes are the reward for participating in the formal economy, regardless of whether the work is constructive or destructive of welfare.
As we have observed (Hutchinson et al., 2002, pp.42- 43), oikonomia, the material economy where tangible and useful wealth is created, is now dominated by chrematistics, the money economy that is parasitical upon oikonomia. The ‘real’ economy is the one that ‘earth has given and human hands have made’. The money economy takes from the God-given earth, and from human society, destroying and not replenishing. In short, we have an insane system of economics that counts waste, devastation, pollution, war and social devastation as ‘wealth’.
Take just a few examples. Perhaps car accidents and legal issues surrounding them. Or even environmental disaster adds to GNP (the over-all measure of total national wealth) because of the increase in economic activity – such as fire services, car replacement, ambulance, medical, insurance, and of course the legal costs for a car accident attorney springfield has to offer, and so on that it causes. With more than 11 million car accidents in the United States itself, there are many that lose their lives in the unfortunate occurrence. A lot of their economic activities, get halted if the deceased was the only earning member of the family. For this reason, they would need a personal injury lawyer to represent them in court to receive compensation, as deemed fit by the judicial system.
Furthermore, in the formal economy, food is manufactured, not by God, but by the ‘food industry’: in 1971 a food industry study found that total food expenditure in 1971 need only have been £1,800 million to provide a varied and healthy menu. It was actually £6,636 million – i.e. the food industry added four and a half thousand million pounds – in processing, preserving, packaging, and so on, with all the attendant waste and pollution. In chrematistic terms, we were all ‘better off’. Today, international rulings force small farmers in poor countries to abandon sustainable and reliable practices for mono-cultural cash crops for export. Across the world, ‘financial services’ and dealings far outweigh trade in actual goods and services, which form a mere 5 per cent of the total. The money economy continues to sweep across the world, devouring land and cheap labour sources, leaving social and ecological devastation in its wake. In Hong Kong firms no longer manufacture goods: they merely trade in goods produced in the cheap labour factories, spreading across China. Already, a decade ago, 85 per cent of China’s rivers were dead. The key players: corporations, academics, and politicians – are mesmerised by the money system. In purely chrematistic terms, we are all ‘better off’ if we work for money, regardless of the social and ecological impacts of that work.
Citizen’s Income and the National Dividend
Citizen’s Income seeks to alleviate poverty, particularly family poverty, under capitalism. Arguments for it flow from the observed shortcomings of the welfare system instituted by Beveridge in the aftermath of World War II. The arguments are often accepting of the terms and premises of the capitalist financial system, and sometimes – but not always – assume that full employment and a growing economy are needed to provide the means to pay for Citizen’s Incomes.
The Social Credit movement emerged from a very different stable. Just over one hundred years ago, Europe was plunged into a senseless war. In a brief moment of sanity, young soldiers on the front lines joined hands in singing Christmas carols. People then and since have asked why war is necessary. The Social Credit movement became a worldwide political force working to end war, environmental degradation and economic growth based upon war and built-in obsolescence. Its message was plain and clear. There is enough for everyone’s need, though not for everyone’s greed.
Clifford Hugh Douglas, author of the original Social Credit texts (See Hutchinson and Burkitt, 1997) considered the expenditure of human life and resources in the Great War something to be learned from, rather than something to be repeated for the sake of creating a strong, financially sound, economy. Social Credit was part of a much wider social movement in the so-called ‘inter-war years’ of the twentieth century. Progressive thinkers from all classes and all walks of life questioned the wisdom of basing the formal, finance-driven economy on production for war, waste and consumerism.
Douglas brought his shrewd, common-sense, analytical mind to bear upon the practicalities of the workings of the money economy. As the 1914-18 War raged across the world, factories were working at full capacity. Vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, tanks, machinery, ships and other forms of transport were churned out on all sides. Farmers on the land prospered, supplying food to the armies of military and civilian workers. But the apparent prosperity was ephemeral because it was dependent upon the workings of an unsound financial system. As the war ended, Douglas was an obscure engineer accounting the finances at Farnborough aircraft factory. He predicted the inter-war depression and explained how it would happen and why. He detailed how the finance to run the war was conjured up by the Government as debt, when it could just as easily have been created as credit, in which case the prosperity would continue after the War.
In the immediate aftermath of the War (1918-20) Douglas wrote a series of articles on finance and income distribution. These were closely studied amongst trade unionists, politicians, economists (including Keynes), and a wide spectrum of intellectuals. A vast literature on Social Credit, including weekly newspapers, books, pamphlets, and journal articles, circulated throughout the UK, the Commonwealth, the US, Scandinavia, and Tokyo in multiple editions. Douglas’s predictions were correct, and his work has never been faulted. What is physically possible is always financially possible, because finance is a man-made system of accounting, and can be adjusted to meet the will of the people.
At the heart of Social Credit theorising is the justification for paying a National Dividend to all citizens regardless of work status on grounds of the common cultural inheritance. Douglas argued that labour – paid work – does not create wealth: ‘The simple fact is that production is 95 per cent a matter of tools and process, which tools and process form the cultural inheritance of the community as a whole’, being the result of work done over generations by an army of technologists, the vast majority of whom are now dead (Douglas, 1919, p. 95). Thus claims to a share of the common cultural inheritance, which rightly belongs to the community as a whole, can be justified not by work, and not by private ownership of land and property, but by common right of citizenship. Over a period of three decades Douglas argued consistently that finance is purely a matter of accounting: what is practical and desirable on social grounds is financially possible, because finance is a man-made system. The key to economic democracy is the political will to bring about legal change.
Women and Social Credit
Proposals for a non-means-tested National Dividend, payable by right of citizenship, were of particular interest to women. Although Social Credit was not specifically a women’s movement, women who studied the economics of the social credit movement in the interwar years campaigned on the basis of its potential for improving the socio-economic status of women. Their arguments are echoed in current studies of mothering and home-making:
Mothers in the United Kingdom today are in an impossible situation. Our very title has been erased from Government policy on families [Guidance for Government Departments October 2014] and general political discussion in a pernicious Orwellian language trend. Women who are mothers are expected to engage in the workforce in a liberalist and capitalist tradition of individual interest where market forces reign supreme – there is no room for love and care, let alone awareness of interdependency common to all our lives. There seems to be no place for maternal care. No place for improved, supported services investing in family life.
So writes Vanessa Olorenshaw in her groundbreaking pamphlet, The Politics of Mothering.
Women activists of the 1930s argued that Social Credit offers every woman and man a birth-right income based on the productive capacity of the community. It would:
… ensure economic independence and freedom, for it will release her from being tied to the home when she wishes to live her own life or bound to some man who ill-treats her. Nor would she be driven to work-wage slavery in competition with men in order to stay alive when she has caring responsibilities within the household. Women would get equal pay for equal work because ‘a Social Credit Government will naturally stand for fair play for all citizens without distinction’. Each individual woman will be able to say ‘If I do this job as well as a man could do it, I shall want the same pay as a man.’ And if the employer says, ‘No’, she will be able to say: ‘Very well, I refuse the job. After all, I can live on my National Dividend.’ This places every woman in a very powerful position. (It will apply equally, of course, to badly-paid male workers.) (Quoted in Hutchinson and Burkitt 1997)
Women were politically active in support of the proposals throughout the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States over the middle decades of the twentieth century.
From master to servant
Central to the Social Credit debate are the core issues of farming, finance, and the household. To date, mainstream economic theory has failed to accommodate itself to the realities of economic life. These include the futility and waste of war, which is officially accounted as a plus, and the need for income security so that good work may be undertaken in the home, in the community, in local businesses, and on the land. Today, concerned individuals and groups are bringing forward the identical issues as those surrounding the massive international debate based upon the writings of C.H. Douglas less than a century ago. Douglas asked the fundamental question – why should it be ‘absolutely necessary’ for the workers to produce weapons of mass destruction in order to put food onto the household table? His question remains as valid today as when he first posed it a hundred years ago.
Frances Hutchinson is the author of Understanding the Financial System: Social Credit Revisited (2010) and of The Economics of Love, forthcoming.
References
Douglas, Clifford Hugh (1919) Economic Democracy
Hutchinson, Frances (2005) If citizen’s income is the answer, what is the question?, European Business Review, Vol. 17, No.2. pp193-200. www.emeraldinsight.com/charter
Hutchinson, Frances and Brian Burkitt (1997) The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild Socialism, Routledge (Jon Carpenter 2005 reprint).
Hutchinson, Frances, Mary Mellor and Wendy Olsen (2002) The Politics of Money: Towards Sustainability and Economic Democracy, Pluto Press.
Olorenshaw, Vanessa (2015) The Politics of Mothering, available from www.facebook.com/Politics of Mothering.
