One of the hottest discussions we are seeing is the one surrounding the universal basic income (UBI) or citizens’ income (CI); in Britain it has been advocated by the Trade Union Unite (it was adopted at the last convention), it has been incorporated into the Green Party of England and Wales’s manifesto for a sustainable economy, the Labour Party is discussing it (the left wing, not the right surprisingly), some disabled rights activists support it and it is the measure of choice of many anarchist groupings here. In Canada, at its biennial convention in 2016, the Liberal Party passed a resolution in support of basic income. As Leigh Phillips argues, “the UBI is having its moment.” But as he points out, the UBI does not enable to end of capitalism, it actually reinforces it.

How did a measure originally proposed by right wing economists in the US (e.g., Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, 1962) win the support of the soft and some parts of the hard left? Is this idea, purporting to address poverty and inequality, a progressive or reactionary proposal? Is this a measure that the whole of the hard left should be advocating either as a reform or a transitional measure?

I have been thinking about this for a while; it is an unfortunate preoccupation of mine (which has certainly annoyed many people). I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with many people who shared their ideas and insights both pro and con and which has helped me organise my thoughts; I have benefitted from wonderful discussions. So what you are seeing here are my preliminary thoughts on the question of the UBI. This will not be the last piece I write on the UBI, poverty and employment; but I am planning to write a piece in defence of full employment as a follow-up.

The Origins of the Measure are Important

Unfortunately this discussion requires some basic economic history and some very basic economic theory; my apologies. Irrespective of the fantasies of mainstream economics that viewed unemployment and poverty as generated by the working class itself (e.g., breeding too much, indolence, dissipation, blah, blah) and market blockages (e.g., insufficient mobility of labour , the existence of trade unions driving up wages and causing unemployment, minimum wages interfering in market determination of wages, blah blah) and who argued that in the long run that all available labour would be employed in the capitalist economic system, the Great Depression finally put the kibosh on this fantasy. Even before that, poverty and unemployment were features of the system; think about the realities of the industrial revolution to understand the creation of persistent unemployment due to the elimination of trades when new technologies were employed, the constant deskilling of labour, and the fact that even in a period of economic growth, workers were still living in poverty (see the 18th and 19th century poor laws in Britain if you did not know this) while capitalism, capital accumulation, economic growth and profitability were rising (clearly Adam Smith got it wrong that workers would automatically benefit from economic growth independently of workers struggling for increased wages). Moreover, these problems were not short-term issues in the system caused by a crisis or a business cycle. They are endemic to the capitalist economic system of production, distribution and growth.

Full Employment

The recognition of persistent unemployment and poverty as brought about by the laws of motion of the capitalist economic system led to the advocacy of the notion of full employment. This was the basis of the creation of the state sector as the private sector alone not only could not create full employment, but it was not in their interest to do so. During the Great Depression and in the post-war period (WWII) as part of the post-war settlement, the choice of full employment policies were initiated following the ideas of hard-core Keynesians and Kalecki. The creation of a state sector and the universal welfare state not only provided employment, but also provided needed services for all. Nationalisation of key industries and services (e.g., coal, energy, steel, water, transport), the creation of the NHS and access to universal health care, investment in education (for all), the development of social housing, et al, not only provided jobs, but guaranteed access to services that were not available for the vast majority. Full employment eliminates some of the worse aspects of capitalism; easy access to jobs means that workers could struggle for better wages and working conditions not only through unionisation, but also leaving their jobs to find ones with better working conditions and wages. It is far easier to pressurise bosses into compliance when you have alternatives and those that paid poorly with bad working conditions would have trouble finding workers willing to accept those situation. Unemployed workers or unemployment could not be used as a stick to beat workers to death. This is not to imply that it was a utopia by any means; workers are still exploited under capitalism, but it is certainly a better situation. Lower levels of exploitation and workers having more control over their wages and working conditions were without a doubt a better situation for the vast majority.

Combined with benefits for periods of unemployment (which does exist even with full employment), pensions for the elderly, additional coverage for those unable to work, sickness benefits, widows benefits, maternity benefits, additional income for those with children, access to health care, good housing, education and training for all ages and a system of support certainly improved the lives of the vast majority.

The situation did not last and there are massive reasons why it was abandoned (some economic, most political). Kalecki anticipated this in 1943 and describes why it will be abandoned in his essay, “The Politics of Full Employment.” Kalecki was correct, this policy was abandoned and in exactly the way he described it; it is almost prophetic.

“What will be the practical outcome of the opposition to a policy of full employment by government spending in a capitalist democracy? We shall try to answer this question on the basis of the analysis of the reasons for this opposition given in section II. We argued there that we may expect the opposition of the leaders of industry on three planes: (i) opposition on principle to government spending based on a budget deficit; (ii) opposition to this spending being directed either towards public investment -- which may foreshadow the intrusion of the state into the new spheres of economic activity -- or towards subsidizing mass consumption; (iii) opposition to maintaining full employment and not merely preventing deep and prolonged slumps (Kalecki, 1943, republished in http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html).”

The universal welfare state in Britain is becoming more and more like that of the US (a direct result of Tory austerity policies) which helps the unemployed, poor and disabled but no one else, labour market flexibility commensurate with crappy wages and work conditions are the norm rather than the exceptions, nationalised sectors and resources were privatised, health care and the welfare state are being privatised.

The Rise of the Notion of the UBI

Back in the early 1960s, even the right-wing economists recognised that persistent unemployment was something that was part and parcel of the capitalist economic system. Addressing both poverty and persistent unemployment was the initial justification for this idea of a universal basic income without the messiness of a public sector or a fully universal welfare state (the US never had a universal welfare state, this was provided for the poor, but not for all in the country). These economists clearly would not support the creation of full employment through the state (or public) sector. For them, those that supported the extension of capitalist relations of production; the state sector was draining valuable capital and areas of profitable investment for the private sector.

The obvious answer for them was to open up areas closed to investment by the private sector and to provide a basic income to stimulate demand to ensure further investment by the private sector; you can see that this has a Keynesian basis (as everyone was a Keynesian at that time, sort of); increase demand to stimulate investment, employment and growth through provision of a basic income for all. For them, more capitalism was the answer to address both unemployment and poverty. The proposal of a “negative income tax” (to ensure a basic income and to starve the government of revenue which would then impact government expenditure) by Friedman would serve to grant sufficient effective demand to the poor to purchase the goods and services of the private sector which would in turn increase investment and hence production of these goods. That is the theory, the idea is to stimulate consumption and leave production decisions up to the private sector.

The revival of the debate on addressing poverty and persistent unemployment

Unsurprisingly as unemployment and poverty are rising in the advanced capitalist world, this debate is again raising its head. How do we address these problems in the context of capitalism in a way to strengthen the vast majority? Both discussions of full employment (see, e.g., Bob Rowthorn, Ozlem Onaran and Engelbert Stockhammer, Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein, and Dmytri Kleiner). There is also a vast amount of literature arguing for basic income from many perspectives (e.g., Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work, Ben Schiller, look here for some more articles). These debates are creating divisions among economists and political activists.

What is a Citizens’ Income or Universal Basic Income?

“(A Citizen’s Income is sometimes called a Basic Income (BI), a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a Social Dividend, or a Universal Grant)

A Citizen’s Income is

‘Unconditional’: A Citizen’s Income would vary with age, but there would be no other conditions: so everyone of the same age would receive the same Citizen’s Income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else.

‘Automatic’: Someone’s Citizen’s Income would be paid weekly or monthly, automatically.

‘Nonwithdrawable’: Citizen’s Incomes would not be means-tested. If someone’s earnings or wealth increased, then their Citizen’s Income would not change.

‘Individual’: Citizen’s Incomes would be paid on an individual basis, and not on the basis of a couple or household.

‘As a right of citizenship’: Everybody legally resident in the UK would receive a Citizen’s Income, subject to a minimum period of legal residency in the UK, and continuing residency for most of the year (A Citizen’s Income is sometimes called a Basic Income (BI), a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a Social Dividend, or a Universal Grant) (http://citizensincome.org/citizens-income/what-is-it/).”

To be precise, a UBI is a payment to all citizens (it has been extended to immigrants who are permanent residents in some versions) of a guaranteed amount of money independent of their personal wealth or income; children will receive a smaller amount until they are of a certain age and will then receive the full amount. The amount proposed is fixed irrespective of circumstances; the Green Party of England and Wales advocates £80/week (£4160/year) per adult, £50/week per child (£2600/yearly) and pensioners receiving £155/week (£8060/year); they also advocate supplements for single parents, disabled people (£30/week) and lone pensioners recognising they have extra costs and in some cases, the amount they receive from benefits exceeds the amount proposed as a UBI.

Why are people advocating UBI or a CI?

I will not bother to describe in any detail why the right wing supports the UBI (or CI); that should be obvious. But in short, it destroys the social welfare state in favour of a privatised provision of goods and services to be paid for out of the citizens’ income. It will provide effective demand (that is money to buy goods and services) which is important to realise profitability. Control over production decisions (e.g., what output is produced, how much of each is produced and the manner of production) remains in the hands of the private sector while an income is provided for those without wealth and higher incomes to purchase said goods and services; always a problem for capitalist producers. So they view it as an extension of the free market to cover everything; a win-win for lovers of the free-market and democracy (couldn’t make this up, read Milton Friedman).

I am far more interested in what has drawn so many on the soft and hard left to advocate this as a solution to poverty and unemployment.

Some of those on the left supporting this idea view it as a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to those without wealth. This is based on a misunderstanding; there is no redistribution of wealth here. No form of wealth is being seized, property, assets and land remains in the hands of their owners. Even if funded by a financial transactions tax, this will be a tax on income and hence a redistribution of income. Essentially, even more so in the absence of a serious progressive income tax, this will be an intra-class transfer of income between the working class like the funding for the social welfare state in the US.

Some on the left argue that a UBI would eliminate poverty; given the pittance of an amount that you would receive on UBI, that is, to me, a somewhat strange argument. There is no way that you would receive an income on UBI to cover basic necessities such as rent (housing benefit is retained in some models), social services, food, water, energy for heating and cooking, clothing and childcare (clearly, I am hoping the NHS still exists as a public system as at least you would not have to cover health care).

For me, it seems to be locking people into poverty as the money received would be insufficient and for those with extra needs (disabled people, women, the elderly) supplements are still insufficient and in the absence of service provision (as benefits would be eliminated) and perhaps inability to work, there is no way that you could survive on the amount afforded by the UBI. So this is an unconvincing argument; this is an insufficient amount of money to actually be called a universal basic income for those that do not have access to wealth or other incomes.

What needs to be understood (and this is quite clear if you examine the arguments in favour of the UBI), is that the UBI is meant to replace the benefits system; in other words, the UBI replaces the social welfare state and the public sector workers that work in there. This is not something to sniff at as the UBI is essentially what you receive (whether or not housing benefit would be retained so that you would not have to cover housing on such a small amount of money depends on models).

Here is what the Green Party says they would do in terms of existing benefits:

“The benefits to be abolished:

existing Child Benefits, estimated to cost £12.5 billion in 2015–16;
all tax credits, estimated to cost £31 billion (£24 billion Child Tax Credits and £7 billion Working Tax Credits) in 2015–16.
We make the following broad assumptions about what benefits we are abolishing and what we are keeping:

We will keep Housing Benefit

In the rest of the working age group we will save all the working age benefits and the employment programmes apart from statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay

In the pensioners’ section we will save all the cost of State Pensions apart from the contribution Based State Second Pension, which people have paid for unless they have contracted out into a private pension scheme. We will also retain the Winter Fuel Payment and the free bus pass scheme. Free TV licences for the over 75s will become irrelevant because under our manifesto we intend to abolish the TV licence.

We will save nothing on disability

We will keep the Carer’s Allowance because in our view it is payment for work done rather than income replacement (https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Policy%20files/Basic%20Inc..., p. 7).”

Interestingly, the proposed UBI is actually less than what people currently receive as Employment and Support Allowance (which is incredibly stingy) which is given to those unable to work and would require a £30/week supplement to maintain the differential between that and basic Jobseekers Allowance (for the unemployed); this is discussed above where the issue of supplements is raised.

An issue that is not addressed in detail for some reason is the job loss due to the elimination of public sector provided benefits and services; these are unionised workers making a decent standard of living. If the roles are eliminated, their jobs are eliminated and the question of where they would find jobs at decent wages is a very good question. While some of these jobs have already been outsourced (e.g., providing security at job centres), the people working at these job centres will no longer have jobs and if they try to find them in the private sector (which is not unionised), they will suffer a loss of income as well as full-time employment. Maybe I am missing something, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why a public sector union like Unite would want to explore or support this.

What has led to an acceptance of this argument?

The destruction of the universal welfare state into a means-tested welfare system by neoliberals (this includes the Labour Party, the Tories and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government) has made access to benefits much more difficult and with cuts to the public sector less reliable and over-worked public sector workers (especially in social services which has faced massive cuts), the cracks in the system have become wide with too many falling through the net. Even when operating in a more universal nature, there is the alienation of dealing with the civil service bureaucracy, the lack of individualisation of care and support, people believed that the system was objectifying rather than supportive and the solutions offered were insufficient. Instead of reforming the welfare state and benefits by removing means testing and making it actually a universal welfare state, we should simply provide an income payment to people to purchase goods and services that they need. Disabled people that I have spoken with that support a UBI, think that they are more in control because they can get the services they need directly from private providers with control over exactly what services they get.

The alienating conditions of work in the capitalist economic system unsurprisingly put people off from the idea of work; it is exploitative by definition in a capitalist economic system. Additionally the destruction of conditions of work under capitalism due to deskilling, the undermining of unions means that people view work as part of a Benthamite pleasure-pain principle; that is work is painful and should be eliminated. “We should have what we need to survive without work.” Eliminating the need to work will separate work from income (this is a left libertarian argument); there is no need to work to get the things that we need. If work is not necessary for survival, people that want to work will continue to work anyway. Moreover, the welfare state already has separated income from work (unemployment benefit and welfare benefits), at least partially.

This is a legitimate argument even though simplistic; the productivity of goods and services is high and can easily be accomplished with no need for everyone to work, production of goods and services we need is easily accomplished. Why does everyone need to work? Given unemployment, there is clearly not enough work to go around; so why should everyone have to work? What this begins to address is the idea that the production of surplus value under capitalism only serves the interests of capital and not the needs of the majority. That is a compelling argument for socialists of all stripes.

However, whilst work under the capitalist economic system is deeply alienating and exploitative; what we need to understand is that for people to be able to consume, goods and services must be produced (this is the case in all economic systems, class based or not; the production of use values (things we want and need) is needed in order for people to be able to consume those use values. This argument seems to be ignoring where things that we want and need come from. These things are produced; they require deliberate human labour to produce them, in fact. We cannot have consumption without production; we cannot wave magic wands and have houses appear on the spot. There is no such thing as an “endowment” of houses; they are produced goods. We cannot consume without producing enough to feed ourselves; it is not that food simply appears in supermarkets, there is a whole host of human actions that enable that to happen.

In recognition of this reality, there is a new advance on this argument which says that nobody should have to work, we can produce everything we need using automation (see for example, Kathi Weeks mentioned above and Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams in Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work; for an excellent refutation of this argument see, Scott Ferguson). One argument that was raised in support of this idea was that it would free people to do other things; this had more of a whiff of Plato’s philosopher’s state in The Republic with automatons replacing the slaves freeing citizens to be philosophers rather than Marx. Marx recognised the importance of human initiative and creativity in all aspects of life; not toiling at work for 10 hours a day in sweat-shops and in industry is one thing, a call for a shorter working day and control over production and consumption decisions is of course the goal of all on the left; having time to study, be with family and friends, for relaxing and fulfilling recreation is what we want.

Surrendering decision making to automation (even if possible, which I do not think it is) is not the future for humanity that I have been fighting for; instead I want a world where the vast majority are in control of their lives, for children to have the chance for a better future, to ensure the planet survives to make that a real possibility.

Having seen Terminator and Blade Runner, the full automation argument makes me extremely nervous. Jokes aside (no, I am not joking really), there is a more serious problem with the idea of full automation which, for me, relates to the issue of removing human decision making and agency, initiative and creativity from the production process (production does not only have to be for the production of exchange values, even under capitalism, the satisfaction of human and social needs has been addressed, a clear example is doctors working for the NHS; again, yes, that is skilled labour and is satisfying, and it is obvious that not all work is like this especially under capitalism but, it is the production for human needs). Then there is my understanding of the fundamental nature of human initiative which then relates to the nature of how work is defined.

While we all want to eliminate alienation and exploitation, the UBI and full automation is not the way to achieve these aims. Labour, in and of itself, is not exploitive; it is who we work for and what we do at work. Exploitation derives from the nature of the class system and the creation and appropriation of surplus value (or the surplus product for non-Marxists), not work or labour inherently.

Moreover, some Marxists that advocate a UBI argue that it is a transitional demand (that is a demand that cannot be provided under capitalism to raise workers’ consciousness) towards a post-capitalist (perhaps an ecosocialist) solution. My problem here is I do not see the socialism element that they are talking about. How does having a UBI engender a demand for socialism? Is that the insufficient income that is supposed to bring that about? Is this the socialism that we want? Or how does a UBI point to or articulate a socialist future?

Certainly, under socialism we will need fewer workers to produce what is required to fulfil the needs of the population; the vast amount of production to ensure profitability will not be required. The creation of a zero growth economy, in and of itself, will cut out a massive amount of unnecessary and environmentally dangerous and wasteful production. But it will not mean that human beings will (or should be) relegated to consumers rather than being able to contribute. But, as socialists we want people to find fulfilment in all parts of their lives; not simply be consumers. For many, that means participation and control over economic and non-economic decisions (see John Bellamy Foster).

Moreover, a UBI does not necessarily mean lower growth contrary to what has been argued. In fact, if it did do you think that Uncle Miltie Friedman would have advocated it as a way to achieve growth? A UBI theoretically would lead to more growth as demand backed by money will bring forth production to satisfy it. You cannot have consumption without production. So, it is not something that will necessarily lead to lower growth. Moreover, since we will no longer control provision of services (as this is a privatisation of the welfare state and public sector) as that is all privatised, we have no control over any production decisions (except in our role as consumers) as that is determined by capitalists based upon their needs for expected demand and profitability.

So are there any other problems (besides UBI being a right-wing idea)?

While proposed as a solution to poverty, the issue that arises is that rather than solving the problem of poverty, it entrenches it. Moreover, all versions of the UBI support the dismantling of the welfare state rather than reforming the welfare state. While the welfare state has problems (and that is the case for both its current means-tested incarnation as well as when it was a universal welfare state), its elimination and the privatisation of services and goods produced by the welfare state will actually have a far worse impact upon those most dependent upon the welfare state, that is, women, disabled people and the unemployed and those in precarious employment. The UBI does not offer sufficient funds to actually ensure provision of needed services and income support. Moreover, it will drain resources for things that are desperately needed (e.g., social housing, government job creation in communities to provide services needed in local areas and regions) as it is expected that these will be provided by the private sector. In fact, it removes government responsibility for ensuring social needs leaving it in the hands of a private sector driven by profitability considerations.

With inflation being so low, the worry about the UBI generating inflation and wiping out the UBI leading to increased poverty that was raised by Dmytri Kleiner is probably not relevant currently due to low levels of inflation in the advanced capitalist world; but it may become relevant in the future. In fact, with inflation so low, there is little to worry about an increase in inflation. A rise in inflation would also be expected if we went for full employment, as the closer we get to full employment, the probability of inflation arising is high. The question that arises is whether this is a positive way forward or an entrenchment of neoliberalism.

Accessing Services

While I completely agree that services must be personalised for those that use them, provision of a monetary payment will not guarantee that those services will be provided. It is a misunderstanding that income will ensure that goods and services which are desired by people are produced. What is produced and available in a privatised system depends on your income and the fact that capitalist producers believe or expect that they can make a profit off of it (no profit, no production; that is basic to capitalism). If you do not have money or health insurance (read income again), you cannot access health care in a privatised system (people in the US should know this). Moreover, the problem is that unless there are sufficient numbers demanding those services with this income payment, there will be little or no motivation to provide them on an individual level. So, if only 10 people in a local area have need of occupational therapy, that may not be enough to justify a private provider to set up for occupational therapy. So, having money that actually cannot be used for purpose does not get you what you want.

One very big problem is that it is an individualised solution to the social problem of poverty and unemployment. Poverty and unemployment derive from the nature of the capitalist system; it is not an individual issue affecting small numbers, it is a social consequence of the economic system in which we live. Eliminating those (even reducing those) requires a social solution.

Addressing Social Disability

If you are disabled (and remember disability is a social condition), getting a monetary payment to pay either an agency that provides assistants or you finding one on your own feels like an empowerment after years of dealing with insufficient and indifferent (and often hostile) social services. While some like the responsibility, others are unable to do it on their own and their family members may find this daunting or are unable to actually get the service that is needed (see the problem of provision above). Moreover, not everyone wants the responsibility of being an employer.

In many senses, you do have some control of your life by getting a worker to provide needed services directly from an agency that provides it; but you do not determine wages and work conditions of these workers unless you are hiring someone directly (if you are hiring someone from an agency, it is the agency that determines wages and working conditions). A real problem if/when public social service provision is eliminated is the need for regulations protecting consumers of and workers in private sector service provision.

In order for the agency to make a profit in this situation, they will take part of your money to cover their administration costs (think of it as their cut over and above payment to workers), those working in the caring sector are paid very low (the cut of the agency) and their conditions of work are not great either. So you, the consumer of services, may actually have some say over what you want, but the workers in the sector are extremely exploited due to the nature of the work (think traditional women’s labour which is paid on exchange value and not use value and which is inaccurately viewed as unskilled) and this will be the case under private provision. Even with unionisation, this will be the case.

To change this situation requires a revaluation of priorities and the nature of the work done to recognise its contribution to society. For this to happen we need to remove provision from the private sector and remove gender segregation and improve conditions of work; this will benefit both workers in the sector and consumers of the services. Provision of funds by the government and allowing those that will utilise the services to determine what services they want and need (rather than politicians) is a far better solution; this can be done by workers cooperatives rather than through a profit oriented model of service provision.

Separating Consumption and Production

Many of the problems of UBI come about due to the separation between production and consumption inherent in the concept. While certainly, impacting grotesquely unequal distribution under capitalism is an important reform which we should support and struggle for, it does not impact on the foundational basis of poverty in capitalism which is brought about by private ownership and control over production, means of production (choice of techniques in use). In fact, by removing control from a state that at least has some minimal accountability to those they rule over and by placing production of social services in the hands of the private sector with no accountability except to investors and owners, you are actually surrendering control and responsibility for what is provided or produced to the private sector. We know the causes of poverty, unemployment and we are handing over control to those that rely on poverty and unemployment to make profits. This is beyond putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

One of my deep-seated objections is that this is not something that will shift the real causes underlying poverty in the capitalist system; it is acquiescence to affecting capitalist relations of distribution rather than impacting the root cause which lies in production and the manner in which it is undertaken in a capitalist system. It is submission to capitalism rather than moving beyond it as it leaves production decisions in the hands of those that cause inequality, poverty and unemployment and relies upon them to provide what we need. Since when has that worked in living memory?

Women

One of the things that struck me when I was reading the Green Party’s support for a UBI was the issue of social reproduction and women’s primary responsibility for it; or to be precise the lack of acknowledgement of it. While the manifesto recognised the extra costs of being a lone parent (and provided supplements for them), it wasn’t clear to me that they understood the exact nature of women’s roles in social reproduction. The amount available under the UBI is insufficient to enable single women to actually live on, it also did not address the fact that they either would prefer to work or study or have a social life in addition to being the sole care providers for their children. One of the major problems is provision of childcare that is accessible for all. This is less a demand issue than a supply problem; private childcare is expensive. An income payment (as opposed to the actual provision of childcare facilities and training for those to work there) is certainly not enough to provide the service at a quality where all would have access to the same level. In fact, those with more income and wealth will still have nice crèches while women with less money will be dependent upon what a private provider is willing to provide (in a way in which they can earn a profit; think overworked nursery workers and little stimulation and support for the children) or still dependent upon extended family for support.

More so, this is not a valuation of women’s contribution to social reproduction. A more coherent and useful contribution would be a provision of 24 hour childcare in communities run by local people, trained in caring for children, and paid for by the state (see full employment above). This would provide a socially useful solution to poverty, break down the gender barrier in women’s traditional employments and also enable women to choose what they want to do by offering options to our traditional roles. This is a reform; it does not require a revolutionary transformation. To understand the difference, think of getting the money to pay a babysitter rather than actually being able to have a community of women decide what type of childcare services they actually want and need. It is a question of offering options.

In many senses, while I had problems with the wages for housework campaign; at least it was at least a targeted payment to try to qualify and demonstrate the amount of unpaid labour that women perform in the home and to provide recompense based upon an attempted valuation of contributions to GDP. The UBI is a general income payment to everyone (irrespective of gender) and the idea of women’s unpaid labour is completely hidden. So, this is a shift towards even hiding an issue that feminists have been trying to clarify; the fact that unpaid labour is performed in the home.

Conclusion

In concluding, I want to raise an additional argument which came after reading an interesting and compelling piece by Will Davies that MrJayTee shared with me following the Brexit vote.

The analysis raises an important point that strongly raises questions about the UBI as anything resembling a solution for unemployment and poverty. The vast majority of those of the working class that voted for Brexit were unemployed. The author postulated that they did so because of the sovereignty argument (controlling their future) and with despair at the nature of the notion of handouts especially from the EU (which has subsidised a lot of investment in Britain); this in and of itself should make us think twice about a UBI. The fact that people were unhappy about hand-outs and that they were despairing of a lack of employment make the provision of employment to produce socially needed and useful services, green transformation and housing be of far more value to those that are desperate to work but cannot find employment due to the precarious nature of work in a neoliberal capitalist world. The voices of working class people must be heard and acknowledged, they need to be able to determine their futures; we cannot determine it for them.