BBD in the context of the new left

It’s time to break down why Universal Basic Income (UBI) is such an important battle for the modern left. It’s an idea that has been circulating in society for several eras – its modern advocates, for example, consider the 16th-century humanist Thomas More to be their founding ideologue. This article is not intended to explain why UBI is unworkable, harmful, and dangerous in the long run. Michael did a pretty good job of that in this article from three years ago.

Here it would be useful to consider the question of why pushy, power-unrepresented supporters of the ideological left have only recently begun to promote their idea of an Unconditional Basic Income in combination with bizarre "green" concepts, and how the new left differs from the Soviet left that has been rampant in Bulgaria for the last nearly 100 years.

A few months ago I was a spectator of a debate between the free market oriented Boyan Rashev ( his materials in EKIP ) and the defender of the BBD Vanya Grigorova. What was interesting in this case was not so much the presented idea of forcible seizure of private property (money) by the state, but the significant difference in the slogans that we are used to hearing from the hardcore left. An interesting example from the conference was precisely the completion of the idea of the BBD with another modern call – that of degrowth. We can safely say that the new wave of Communism 2.0 is coming in full force in Bulgaria, along with the rest of Europe.

Even before the official collapse of the Soviet Union, leftist (Western) idealists began a kind of ideological rebranding of it. The entire history of socializing the land, the means of production, etc. has failed to prove that this is the way to achieve a peaceful, classless society that will lead humanity to a new paradise on Earth. On the other hand, the experiment leaves millions dead, dozens of bankrupt countries, several generations paying off the debts of their ancestors - socialism does not work. Therefore, the defenders of redistribution and collectivization need to reformulate their appeals. Here are some new signs that the propaganda that is pouring down on you comes from the new left

The struggle is no longer just class, but comprehensive.

The classic leftist struggle along the rich-poor axis has been successfully developed by the new ideological followers of Marx. In principle, people are always divided into “us” versus “them”. This model has been evolutionarily embedded in us since the apes. Neo-communists use it very skillfully to attract diverse strata to their cause, as they did a century ago with the proletariat.

According to the new left, if you are a woman, you are necessarily oppressed by dominant men; if you are a person of color, you are necessarily oppressed by whites; if you are of a different sexuality, you are necessarily oppressed by those with a traditional one, and so on.
If you are part of these underprivileged groups, you are destined to fight a battle...and this battle is not your personal one, it is group, national, political. Thus, discussing any public issue can become something resembling the classic "class war" of a century ago.
We observe the successful implementation of this rebranding of the left in the USA, where the so-called PC or political correctness culture is at its peak.

The unemployed, may they be alive

The appeal to the workers, the working class, the proletariat as the true communists, to whom the New World is promised, is replaced by an appeal to the non-workers, the welfare class, the unmotivated. From the emblematic slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ”, the part with the capabilities practically disappears – you will receive a basic income, regardless of whether you work or not. The main foundation of the ideas of communism, that because you consume public goods, you are obliged to create them (and give them to society), has a completely new reading. There are no longer plans for 0% unemployment, the unemployed by vocation is the new target group of the modern left. And why not?! This is, perhaps, the easiest idea to sell – stay home, do with your life what you want, others (the bad ones) will pay the bill for you.

This is how we get to BBD. It is not promised only to the working, the toiling, the proletarians. It is for everyone. Especially for those who do not love their job (or do not love work at all). This is an appeal mainly to the generation of so-called millennials (18-30 year olds), because of their tendency, "following their dreams" to choose exotic and unprofitable professions such as lesbian dance therapist, for example. Among them, the idea is widespread that the only measure of whether a profession, product, service is important is precisely their personal feeling that they are doing something important. And if the market (meaning the customers and their lefties in their pockets) does not want to support this product, service, profession, it is important that the support still happens in some (violent) way. Thus BBD comes as the ideal solution to this problem and the leftists do not hide it. During the campaign in Switzerland, the idea of a guaranteed income was defended with the argument that this would give people the time to engage in "socially significant" activities such as environmental protection, poetry, hobby painting, etc.

Which brings us to the new left's other strategic move:

Adopting the "Green Idea"

Currently, green movements worldwide are dominated by left-wing political solutions to environmental problems. Surprisingly, this process began to be felt very noticeably precisely with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Since it is already extremely difficult for leftists to dispute the fact that it is capitalism that guarantees greater prosperity, access to goods, healthcare and technical progress, compared to the planned economy of the Eastern Bloc, the rebranding of criticism of capitalism also begins - it may make people richer, but it is dirty. Ecologically dirty. Dangerous for our environment, Mother Earth, ourselves. Therefore, we must control it, limit it, hate it.

This, of course, is a different picture than the one painted by the left during the Soviet Union. Back then, the symbols of its success were machines, industry, factories. Even for a small country like Bulgaria, the examples of compromise with the ecological balance in the name of “overfulfilling the five-year plan” are monstrously numerous. However, now it is different. The left’s battle is to show that the only way to “save” the Earth is by imposing a centralized power that will force us to limit our “greed”, the drive to consume, technical progress, prosperity. This is how the idea of degrowth appears. In it, in the simplest terms, it says that the role of the state, of centralized decisions, is precisely to limit capitalism, development, progress… in the name of nature. The criticism of the free market is no longer that a planned economy will bring more prosperity and "justice" (because history refutes them), but that the development and progress that the free exchange of goods and capital inevitably brings will damage nature.

Here we should note that the left is definitely achieving success. The infiltration of environmental causes is successfully happening in Europe and the US, with the appeals being precisely to use the repressive apparatus of the state to solve problems, instead of relying on the solutions offered and integrated by free individuals.

Revolution vs Democracy

An interesting observation I have from conversations with left-leaning people is precisely the retreat from the revolutionism of the previous leftists. Victory will not be achieved through terror, blood, a crackdown on the "bad guys", but through popular (if not universal) acceptance of the new order.
This largely reassures the opponents of the left, because there are almost no examples of communists coming to power through fair and democratic elections. The rejection of the BDD proposal in Switzerland by 80% is the latest example of this. Of course, we cannot know whether the lurch towards a more peaceful approach is not just a temporary tactic, intended to justify future violence. We can never know. Everything said in this text aims precisely at that – to show that the communist changes his coat, but his temper – hardly.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!