Author: JOHN CLARKE/Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
Ontario Government will soon be announcing plans for a Basic Income pilot project somewhere in the Province. There is a lot international interest in this development, especially among those who adhere to the notion that BI could be implemented as a redistributive and progressive antidote to the austerity agenda and the war on the poor.
The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) that I am part of, has come out in opposition to Basic Income. I understand that there are those on the left who sincerely believe that a progressive BI model is attainable. We don't look to denounce or insult people who take that position but we do hold an opposing view that I, frankly, have yet to see it responded to on its merits. With the six points I set out below, I am endeavouring to show the basis for the position we are taking.
1. Capitalists can increase the rate of exploitation and profit if there are more workers than jobs. They have always made sure this imbalance is maintained to one degree or another.
2. Income support to those outside of the workforce is provided at minimum levels as a reluctant concession to the extent necessary to prevent social unrest or dislocation.
3. Since the 70s, we have been dealing with an agenda of austerity and an assault on public services that has included the degrading of income support systems. This has included a drive to push disabled people into competing in the job market. The tactic has been enormously successful. Unions are weaker, wages have been depressed and low wage, precarious work has abounded.
4. Despite the gains of the austerity agenda and presently unfavourable balance of social forces, the idea has taken root on the left that we can somehow get governments to provide a universal, or very widespread, payment that will redistribute wealth, reduce poverty and decrease the exploitative capacity of the capitalists. Why governments would do this or how they could be prevailed upon to do so is never really explained.
5. While a progressive BI is not on the cards, the free market concept of BI is a real possibility. An inadequate and dwindling payment is provided under this set up that is the only social provision left in place. Everything else is privatized and you shop for it with your BI. Who could deny that this version is much closer to unfolding reality than the hopes and dreams of the left BI enthusiasts?
6. We are not, of course, opposed to demanding living wages or adequate social benefits and we're quite happy to see specific cash figures named in this regard. However, rather than buy into a concept with such dangerous attributes as BI, we think it would be far better to work to increase the strength of our unions and movements and build around concrete demands for free, expanded and accessible public services. When it comes to income support systems, we should fight for adequate income, full entitlement, expanded supports and an end to austerity based restriction and moral policing.
Ontario Government will soon be announcing plans for a Basic Income pilot project somewhere in the Province. There is a lot international interest in this development, especially among those who adhere to the notion that BI could be implemented as a redistributive and progressive antidote to the austerity agenda and the war on the poor.
The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) that I am part of, has come out in opposition to Basic Income. I understand that there are those on the left who sincerely believe that a progressive BI model is attainable. We don't look to denounce or insult people who take that position but we do hold an opposing view that I, frankly, have yet to see it responded to on its merits. With the six points I set out below, I am endeavouring to show the basis for the position we are taking.
1. Capitalists can increase the rate of exploitation and profit if there are more workers than jobs. They have always made sure this imbalance is maintained to one degree or another.
2. Income support to those outside of the workforce is provided at minimum levels as a reluctant concession to the extent necessary to prevent social unrest or dislocation.
3. Since the 70s, we have been dealing with an agenda of austerity and an assault on public services that has included the degrading of income support systems. This has included a drive to push disabled people into competing in the job market. The tactic has been enormously successful. Unions are weaker, wages have been depressed and low wage, precarious work has abounded.
4. Despite the gains of the austerity agenda and presently unfavourable balance of social forces, the idea has taken root on the left that we can somehow get governments to provide a universal, or very widespread, payment that will redistribute wealth, reduce poverty and decrease the exploitative capacity of the capitalists. Why governments would do this or how they could be prevailed upon to do so is never really explained.
5. While a progressive BI is not on the cards, the free market concept of BI is a real possibility. An inadequate and dwindling payment is provided under this set up that is the only social provision left in place. Everything else is privatized and you shop for it with your BI. Who could deny that this version is much closer to unfolding reality than the hopes and dreams of the left BI enthusiasts?
6. We are not, of course, opposed to demanding living wages or adequate social benefits and we're quite happy to see specific cash figures named in this regard. However, rather than buy into a concept with such dangerous attributes as BI, we think it would be far better to work to increase the strength of our unions and movements and build around concrete demands for free, expanded and accessible public services. When it comes to income support systems, we should fight for adequate income, full entitlement, expanded supports and an end to austerity based restriction and moral policing.
Comments
Post a Comment