THE INTRODUCTION of a Universal Basic Income – UBI – is the subject of the first debate to be sponsored by the Isle of Wight Voice – the voice of the National Liberal Party on the Isle of Wight.

However, before we can start this debate, it’ll be useful to know what a Universal Basic Income is. For those who don’t know, it’s an unconditional, periodic cash payment that the government makes to everyone. There’re no strings attached & it isn’t means tested. Essentially, it’s been described as a floor below which no one’s cash income can fall.

The Isle of Wight Voice (IoWV) believes that there’s four main practical reasons why some form of national payment is needed:

• MANY JOBS will be lost due to the rapid advances made in IT and robotics. If workers have no jobs, how will they pay their bills?

• A UNIVERSAL Basic Income acknowledges that people contribute to society in many ways – and not only via paid work. Here we’re thinking of those who carry out voluntary and/or charitable work.

• A GUARANTEED income will allow people to develop cultural & artistic skills. This will allow us to move away from an overly materialistic society, obsessed with GDP and excessive profits.

• THE BENEFITS system is a complete shambles. Some people are waiting weeks & even months for some form of payment. Some form of UBI will ensure that no one is left in absolute poverty.

Practical reasons aside, the introduction of a UBI is a subject that goes beyond the traditional ‘left’ & ‘right’ political divide. This is of great interest to us as we feel that the Establishment has been allowed to rule for far too long via its strategy of ‘divide & conquer’. As such, we’re not concerned too much about labels – we’re far more interested in ideas. Here, the IoWV wishes to nail its colours to the mast by declaring that we’re neither of the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ – neither are we capitalist or socialist. We’re not great fans of ‘Big Government’ so the actual mechanics of distributing a UBI worries us to some extent.

With all the above in mind, we’d ask readers to study this article – originally called ‘Universal Basic Income: Ruling class scam or step toward socialism?’ by Tim Libretti in the US leftist paper, the People’s World – and let us know what you think about UBI. You can do so when you see this article appear on the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

You can read Tim Libretti’s original article here: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/universalbasic-income-ruling-class-scam-or-step-toward-socialism/?fbclid=IwAR2HWl0yRHQYwIoI3Cr8gqdH_ OOfReQPUJgTANsIxD5XR8A47KOePuX8vkU Please note that we have left any North American spellings & phrases as they are. It goes without saying that there are no links between Tim Libretti, the People’s World, the National Liberal Party or the Isle of Wight Voice.

.

Universal Basic Income – Beyond Left & Right

Pictured from top left to bottom right: Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821), Major CH Douglas (1879 – 1952), Huey Long (1893 - 1935), Richard Nixon (1913 – 1994) & Martin Luther King, Jr., (1929 – 1968). All held different political positions & views but endorsed the idea of a minimum guaranteed income.

The more mega-capitalists like Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, and the like support it, the more some on the left grow suspicious. Left-leaning intellectual Chris Hedges (1), for example, characterizes the universal basic income as an oligarchical plot designed to defuse any call or movement for actual and substantial structural change to the capitalist system, the dynamics of which create the inequity and misery people suffer to begin with.

And, of course, we do need to recognize the truth that universal basic income policy is not designed to alter the structure of capitalism but rather provide some basic relief to the misery and poverty capitalism creates. Obviously, we need to keep our eyes on the prize of achieving the end of class society and exploitation and creating a world in which the fruits of our collective labors are shared.

Nonetheless, as Daniel Ravenós and Julie Wark (2) have pointed out, so far the universal basic income “is the only policy being mooted as a way of universally guaranteeing the most basic right of all: the right to material existence.” And, in response to Hedges’ concerns, they point out that a universal basic income can nonetheless abet revolutionary class struggle, arguing that “while not a universal panacea, is one way of strengthening vulnerable members of society in their struggle against the oligarchs.”

And, hey, why not go along with the scam, as long as we don’t fall for it? Take the money and run right down the revolutionary road. Destination: socialism.

What is important is that we cultivate and sustain a political and class consciousness rooted in awareness of the fact that our current economic arrangement—capitalism—is precisely what generates the grotesque inequality we need to eliminate. And by extension that same system is responsible for the grotesquely inequitable distributions of political power that deprives the mass of our population the right of self-determination—denies them freedom.

The universal basic income, I would argue, is already beginning to shift our national consciousness in directions that can direct us on the road to socialism. It is bringing issues of class and inequality more into focus and making them part of the national conversation, though in theoretically insufficient ways.

Chris Hughes (3), for example, the co-founder of Facebook, has argued strenuously for a universal basic income as not necessarily a comprehensive solution but as at least a moderating analgesic for the severity of income inequality and poverty in America, asserting, “We talk about inequality—and the economy in general—in terms that make it seem like these are structural problems that we can’t do anything about. When in reality, we’ve created the rules of the road: the way the economy works now.”

While he might not fully articulate what a different economic structure or system would look like (he doesn’t say the “S” word), he does unsettle the notion that capitalism is a fixed and unchangeable thing. He raises the specter that another economy is possible and makes the important point that people control and build the economy, which means we can, in fact, change it and create it anew.

As a culture and in our political discourse, we tend to talk about “the economy” in ways that dehistoricize it and make it seem permanent, as if capitalism is the only game in town. We don’t hear many people in talking about our economy say “the capitalist economy” to distinguish it, say, from feudal or socialist economies. As a culture, this makes it a lot harder for us to entertain different kinds of economic arrangements.

While Hughes, I’m guessing, does not identify as a Marxist, his intervention in this debate does begin to offer a different language for talking about our economy and the fact that poverty is not simply the fault or just desert of lazy or feckless people, but rather a product of capitalist economy. This  language  opens  and  orients  the  national  consciousness  to  a  potentially  imaginativeconversation about what a socially just and humane economy might look like. It’s an opener, anyway.

Billionaire Mark Zuckerburg (4), similarly provokes thinking about both the effectiveness and fairness of class society—and by extension capitalism—in his advocacy for a universal basic income. In a commencement address he delivered at Harvard, he indicated how growing up with financial security allowed him the freedom to pursue his inventions, explaining, “If I had to support my family instead of having time to code, if I didn’t know I’d be fine if Facebook didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be standing here today.”

These capitalists point not just to the unfairness, even inhumanity, of capitalism, but they even hint at what Marx stressed in his analysis of the history of class society: Capitalism, while it unleashed the creativity feudalism had constrained, it also fetters human creativity and the forces of production overall, leading to an economy at once inhumane and inefficient.

Secondly, and more importantly, the universal basic income, in asserting everyone’s right to a material existence, accomplishes some important work in our cultural consciousness, in Marxist directions, in terms of dissociating or de-coupling the work people do from their ability to have their material needs met and, more to the point, to share in the fruits of our collective labor.

In other words, the implementation of a universal basic income can begin to erode the powerful meritocratic ideology that, as I have argued elsewhere (5) in the pages of People’s World, is a centrally insidious ideology sustaining capitalism. As a culture, we are for the most part perfectly happy valuing people’s work unequally, regardless of how essential it is to our lives. Our capitalist culture makes it seem normal and just that the doctor doing the important work of keeping us healthy deserves a lot more money—and hence access to more resources—than the farmworker who does the important and essential work of feeding us. As a culture, we lack a recognition that this very way of valuing work is a product of a capitalist economy, that the way we determine the “merit” of work grows out a capitalist mentality.

Definitive of Marxism for me is the principle made famous in The Communist Manifesto which Marx reiterates in his Critique of the Gotha Program, namely the idea: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” This notion challenges, indeed explodes, the idea that the work people do should bear any relation to their ability to meet their needs or have access to the fruits of our collective labor.

The American dominant culture, however, forcefully insists upon not only differentially valuing work but also linking the work one does to one’s ability to consume or access resources (purchasing power) to live. A vital piece of Marxist thought is precisely this powerful gesture of de-linking the work people do (or not) from their right to a material existence.

The universal basic income, as a policy, does this important cultural work of de-linking people’s merit—people deserving nourishment, housing, healthcare, education, safety, and other basic human rights—from the type of work they do, how much they work, and even from whether they work or not.

Moving to a socialist culture and imagination means we must recognize and eradicate the capitalist values infecting us. Meritocracy is a deeply rooted capitalist value many in America do not even recognize as capitalist.

Mayor Michael Tubbs (6) of Stockton, California, however, has been able to implement a universal basic income in his city, with a plan to be piloted on a small scale beginning in 2019. What motivated him was precisely the socialist imagination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which he has invoked explicitly, recalling reading King’s Where Do We Go From here: Chaos or Community, in which King calls for a guaranteed annual income.

While certainly no remedy for or alternative to capitalism, the universal basic income can address poverty and improve lives while at the same time altering our entrenched thought patterns and inspiring an imagination to ease us on down the road to socialism.

1.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 2.https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/06/universal-basic-income-left-or-right/ 3.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-04/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-wants-universalbasic-income 4.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-universal-basic-income-in-2017.html 5.https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/meritocratic-thinking-devalues-all-work-job-talk-series-part-3/ 6.https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww. washingtonpost.com%2fnews%2fpost-nation%2fwp%2f2018%2f06%2f04%2fa-city-ponders-whether-500-amonth-no-strings-attached–would-help-reduce-poverty%2f%3fnoredirect%3don%26utm_term% 3d.860279bf2be3&noredirect=on&utm_term=.860279bf2be3

David Lloyd George (top left) was the leader of the first National Liberal Party which was formed in 1922. The NLP was formed as a result of a merger between Liberals & the National Democratic and Labour Party. Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (top right) was the founder of the Social Credit movement. Douglas called for a National Dividend – a payment to all citizens with a basic income guarantee, regardless of employment status - to be issued. Douglas (and his Social Credit ideas) remain an important ‘point of reference’ for National Liberals. A ward in the London Borough of Havering (bottom) was the first area where the present-day NLP put forward its ideas to the electorate.

WELCOME TO the first in a new ad hoc series hosted by the National Liberal Party.  Called From The Archives we’ll be looking back at all of the original articles that we’ve posted up since this website went live.  Our idea is to re-examine articles, activities & events as they happened at the time.  With the benefit of hindsight (which, admittedly, is a wonderful thing) we’ll see what lessons, if any, can be learnt.

However, before all that, it may be instructive to give an overview of the core beliefs of National Liberalism itself.  In future articles in this From The Archives series, we aim to examine these beliefs in more detail.  We also hope to examine the British political current known as National Liberalism from its roots in the early 1920s, led by David Lloyd George.  We’ll also look at other National Liberals such as Otto Fischbeck, Giuseppe Mazzini & Gustav Stresemann.

As well as looking at National Liberals, we’ll also examine the ideas of people like Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Major C. H. Douglas, John Hargrave, William Morris, Arthur Penty and others.  (We view these people as ‘points of reference’ – meaning that they all have either said and/or done something that we find of great interest).

However, when it comes to the core beliefs of National Liberalism, we feel that the following accurately sums up our ideals:

NATIONAL LIBERALS believe that individual liberty and the right to organise social change is essential for human progress – but we believe a Liberal society can only be attained by people sharing an inclusive culture within the framework of an independent national state.

NATIONAL LIBERALS believe that national sentiment is intrinsic to mankind and that an independent nation state is a natural building block of human society. As nationalists we believe in the right to self-determination for all nations and reject imperialism.

NATIONAL LIBERALS believe that the principal enemy of liberty are Big Brother Governments who are ever ready to abuse their power for selfish ends or lead us to war. They enslave the people in ‘the name of the people’.

NATIONAL LIBERALS believe that the antidote to Big Brother Government attacks on liberty and national feeling is by introducing forms of Direct Democracy. By building democratic institutions and voting systems we can ensure the ‘sovereignty of the people’.

In conclusion:

NATIONAL LIBERALS believe “individuals require a national identity in order to live meaningful autonomous lives” and believe liberal societies need the “stability of national identity in order to function properly”. Both liberty and independent nations need strong democratic institutions to defend them from the corruption of Government.

With the above in mind, the current National Liberal Party web-site kicked off with the news that NLP was putting its ideas before the electorate in the London Borough of Havering, way back in 2007.  And as this first report noted, our candidate was local man Gregory Campbell:

National Liberals Contest another Local Election 30/07/2007

Nominations recently closed for the forthcoming Squirrels Heath Council by-election in Havering(August 23rd).

The National Liberal Party will be fielding a local man, Gregory Campbell. Gregory had led the campaign against the loss of the large Hare Lodge building by Upper Brentwood Road and he previously stood in the ward as an Independent in the borough elections in 2006.   Now standing for the National Liberals he said “If Hare Lodge is replaced by high-density flats I believe this could incite flat applications throughout the Gidea Park Area of Special Character. Many residents moved to the area for a better quality of Life. We must stop this creeping over-development!”

Apart from the National Liberals there are four other parties standing in the election – Labour Party, UKIP, Havering RA and Conservative.

• CHECK OUT the original report here: http://nationalliberal.org/national-liberals-contest-another-local-election30072007

• ALSO CHECK out the National Liberals on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/