A long time ago in California…

It was a sunny afternoon in the San Francisco Bay Area when I first heard about Universal Basic Income (UBI). I was sitting outside chatting with a PhD student in philosophy. After almost a decade, most of our conversation is now a blur in memory—I must have decided early on that the views of my interlocutor were insufficiently critical and his research unserviceable to the world’s urgent intellectual problems (I do confess to feeling that often in graduate school). Maybe he also sensed my tacit censure, so he began to talk about his support for some kind of unconditional monthly income for everyone, and bingo, I pricked up my ears instantly.

Sure, even back then I wanted nothing less than transforming the entire economic system….overnight, but the proposal for UBI seemed good enough in the meantime.  Although as a single measure, it is neither comprehensive nor truly radical, but as far as stand-alone initiatives were concerned, it has as good of a chance as any for triggering something much bigger and more profound.

The seed was thus planted, so to speak. 

Fast forward to 2019, I found myself waking up one day to discover that UBI has not only taken root but grown into something lush and exciting. These days, hardly a month goes by without some news of UBI being experimented or discussed by governments around the world (see Kenya, CanadaFinland, the Netherlands, Spain, IndiaScotland, and Italy).

At my last stay in China, some locals were so enthusiastic about the idea that they were grateful for any information I could share. In Berlin, where I currently live, UBI meetings are held on a regular basis, attracting devotees from all walks of life. At the last one I attended, some techies announced that they have already released an UBI virtual currency into circulation (e.g., SwiftDemand, Greshm), also stressed the import of controlling money democratically (e.g., manna, duniter).

Just the other day, in a smoky but quaint neighborhood bar, a girl sitting next to me told me what she is working on: a thesis on UBI. She pointed out that a candidate in the upcoming US presidential race—perhaps the first Asian American who will be in primary debate—is running on a UBI platform, in a country that doesn’t even provide public healthcare!

The question thus becomes…

As the saying goes: this is the best of times, this is the worst of times, and whatever it is, I figured it is certainly time to do my part for the cause. Others have already done an excellent job covering the historical background of UBI as well as its feasibility and desirability.  In comparison, my contribution will be more dialectical and past-oriented. Since it is no secret that I turn to the ancient Greeks for everything, this thought exercise should be no exception. The question thus becomes: would the ancient Greeks approve of such a scheme and would it be consistent with their values?

The greatest objection from UBI opponents is that people are intrinsically lazy and dishonorable.  When money is being handed out for free, everyone would just sit around and stop working until the system collapses. This line of argument is not only used against UBI, but also other public services and programs in general. There is no easy way to falsify this claim: after all, we cannot turn people into lab animals and manipulate them back and forth as we like. But here is where history comes to the rescue: it allows us to search previous experiences for clues on human behavior in entirely different circumstances.

Lucky for me as usual, it turns out that Ancient Greece would be a fantastic example of what happens in a society that endowed its members with abundance and entitlement. To be precise, UBI did not exist in ancient Greece in the form of regular financial payment issued to everyone from the government. But the Greeks did favor an economic system that tried to minimize scarcity and insecurity, and to increase personal dignity and satisfaction—values that have much in common with the underlying philosophy of UBI.

In case you are wondering about the name…

In the premodern world of a typical Greek city-state, land was the single most important resource, the key to livelihood and security. Most Greek city-states distributed land to the population in a manner that supported as many independent and self-subsisting households as possible.[1] The Athenian democracy, which stood out for its extensive social programs, provided subsidies for games, theatre, and grain to make life more enjoyable and dignified. This “pleasant” life, however, did not generate a bastion of slothful individuals who were bent to do as little as possible.

One of the most striking features about ancient Greece is the high level of voluntary action and self-organizing. The typical Greek city-state did not maintain a professional army or bureaucracy. The citizens, in addition to managing local affairs in their villages and neighborhoods, also fought in battles and ran the government without financial incentive or desperation (sustenance pay for hoplites and jurors was introduced at Athens only to boost the participation of the poor). In Athens, where people had a lot of freedom to do what they desired, philosophy and the arts flourished, leaving us an invaluable collection of the classics. Indeed, we have good evidence about one particular old man who spent many of his days chattering away with friends and passersby, rather than proving his worth by working hard and incessantly at his job. In case you want to know the name of this “parasite,” it was Socrates.

Under a system that reduced scarcity and competition and increased abundance and leisure, the Greeks did not become lethargic and unambitious. On the contrary, no other people were as competitive and fond of excellence as the Greeks. The difference is that once they no longer had to worry about basic needs, they channeled most of their energy into contests in athletics, creativity, and public service. These agonistic competitions of non-material pursuits enrich and bring together the community rather than establish “losers” for punishment.

The answer from ancient Greek democracy is not coercion and surveillance.

The Greek case suggests that when society trusts its members, provides them tools and resources, immerses them in a culture of mutual aid, goodwill, and public service, people will strive to contribute and become more able to realize their potential as individuals.

This dynamism offers stark contrast with contemporary thinking, which employs the twin sentiments of fear and charity—fear to keep people on their toes and force them to perform economic activities against their will, and sympathy for children, disabled and other vulnerable groups who are unable to (yet) bear full punishment. What is missing in this discourse is a vision of trust and empowerment, which calls for a reversal of the current logic.

Instead of asking how to avoid theft and abuse by others, we should ponder what sort of social conditions will inspire people to do good on their own, for themselves and for humanity. The answer from ancient Greek democracy is not coercion and surveillance (their unforgivable use of slaves not withstanding), but an environment of material abundance and security guided by a strong civic ethic of honor and service. In short, let us ask how to inspire saints, not how to circumscribe sinners.

On this ending note, I want to circulate a global petition in support of UBI, appealing especially to artists, academics, and intellectuals. As professions that rely heavily on the mind and the heart, we know well what it would be like to do what we love without institutional pressure and economic insecurity. Also, as individuals who often enjoy more privilege than the rest, we also have a duty to put collective action that benefits all before the pursuit of individual careers in an already damaged system. Then let us be united, let us fight for UBI, and let us even surpass the Greeks: they sometimes resorted to slavery and imperialism in order to pass on labor-saving gains to their citizens, but we can grant even more dignity and security to the people solely from technological advancement and fair distribution.

An idea has traversed

From a sunny afternoon in California to a cold April morning in Berlin, from the streets of ancient Athens to the blogosphere of the 21st century, an idea has traversed far and wide in my small universe—now it calls out to you.

About the Author: Donni Wang received her B.A. in Economics from U.C. Berkeley and her Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University. Her first book, Before the Market: The Political Economy of Olympianism, came out in February 2018.  An excerpt of it can be downloaded from academia.edu. Her research interests revolve around a series of hard and urgent questions that are critical of both the market and the nation-state. She currently lives in Berlin and hopes to expand her academic oeuvre as an independent scholar.  In her spare time, she writes popular history (most of which in Chinese), goes to ballet classes, and carries out her duties as a citizen of the emergent global democracy.

Photo credit: www.basicincome.org

If you value The Economic Historian as an educational resource and want to help keep it going, consider signing up for the newsletter.

[mc4wp_form id=”228″]

Notes:

[1] For details, see Chapter 2 in Before the Market: The Political Economy of Olympianism.

4 Comments

  1. Kevin Laughlin Reply

    For UBI to work, you would need a society based on a strong moral and cohesive collective who would work together to achieve the desired results. Sadly, this is missing in modern society more than any other time over at least the last 100 years.

  2. Toby Mitchell Reply

    I actually don’t support UBI, for two reasons:

    1. Even a bare subsistence UBI would be so expensive it would destroy all other social programs, including targeted welfare programs for people who can’t work like the elderly or children.

    2. It leaves all pricing power in the hands of employers, who immediately set their wages one notch above UBI in a race to the bottom. This is the reason that it’s favored by tech libertarian types: it does not challenge their social power. It may even increase it.

    I support full employment and reduced work hours instead, since it shifts the balance of power away from capital while still making more free time available.

    • On the topic of UBI, I don’t agree with you very much,

      and here is my arguments:

      no.1 depends on the fiscal situation of that country, and ubi can save money by converting all existing social programs into ubi

      and No. 2
      setting the wages one notch above ubi is NOT a race to the bottom, it is a race to one notch of the bottom, and at least with ubi the working class can have more bargaining power thus they don’t have to take the most exploitable jobs.

      and for the idea of “full employment and reduced working hours”.
      i think it is not feasible because in a private company, the business owner will constantly seeking to upgrade his machines so he can save some labor costs and thus reduce the costs of production per unit. now if he has upgraded his machines thus he wants to fire the unneeded employees, the government steps in, ask him to keep the workers, but only make them working 4 hours per day.
      then the result will be :next time this business owner will not upgrade his machines again, because he can gain nothing from upgrading it

      afterall, he can’t reduce the costs of production per unit by replacing people with machines any more.

      So the idea of full employment with reduced working hours is not feasible.

      and the last:
      According to my own reading of that interesting book on ancient greece, Olympianism emphasizing building consensus between different stakeholders, and ubi did gain some support from the business class, but the Neo Marxism ideas of full employment reduced hours certainly didn’t.(maybe I m wrong?)
      therefore I think UBi is a better sollution.

      • Just to correct some grammar mistakes

        Setting the wages one notch above ubi is not a race to the bottom, it is a race to that one notch above the bottom.

        and I want to add more comments on the idea of “full employment and reduced working hours”:

        we are living in a globalized capitalism world, if there is one country already implemented this policy, then in this global economy that country will suffer some major disadvantages because of high labor costs (many people paid to work 4 hours, ) and stagnated tech development ( the business owners will lost the incentives to upgrade the tech because they can not replace employees with machines any more)

        but if that country implemented UBI, then I think that country will enjoy some competitive advantages in a global economy:

        a ubi means business owners can fire employees (made useless by newest techs) with less resistance (the employees already have a ubi therefore he will not become homeless if he was fired). this can make automation spread faster in that country, with automation factories can produce products for mass consumption with a more consistent quality.

        and for less developed countries, an ubi can raise the bargaining power of the working poor, this can increase the labor costs to the capitalist class in those less developed country and with increased labor costs, higher level of automation will come

        (I think one reason why India and many countries are lagging behind in the race for high-tech is because in those countries the labor costs is too cheap (because of huge population and lack of independent trade unions) , the business owners have zero incentives to use machine to replace labor, but with increased labor costs due to ubi, those business owners will think twice about automation.

Leave a Comment