Speech by Katja Kipping (Vice-president of the LEFT Party and member of the German parliament) at BIEN CONGRESS, JUNE 2008
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for being invited to the 12th BIEN Congress and thus having the opportunity to give you a left-wing political perspective on the idea of Basic Income (BI). In order to discuss the question of how a BI can be achieved, we first of all need to analyze what our position is within the hegemonic political struggles. That's why I propose to give you a brief survey of the debates in Germany before answering the questions on how a BI can be put into practice and achieved.
Over the last five years, the idea of Basic Income has gained in popularity. The BI has become a topic for discussion both in talk shows and in newspapers. Political foundations with very diverse backgrounds are putting this topic on their agendas.
The network was founded in July 2004 at the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin, at the same time as the Hartz IV package of unemployment benefit reforms was adopted by the Bundesrat (upper house of the German parliament). This setting was very symbolic! While the political class was adopting a package of legislation increasing the repression and exclusion of the unemployed, some representatives of the civil society came together to support the idea of a BI.
At its foundation, the network comprised around 50 members with very different backgrounds: representatives of the jobless-movements, church groups, scientists und various political parties. In 2008, i.e. only 4 years later, the network has more than 1500 members. And regional network groups are being founded in more and more cities.
The German network is not in favour of a special model of BI. However, when establishing the Basic Income Network, the founding members agreed on four criteria which must be fulfilled by any model worthy of the name UNCONDITIONAL basic income:
1. It has to provide livelihood security. We don't mention a specific amount, but there is rough guidance: a Basic Income should at least prevent people from living a life in poverty.
2. There must be an individual entitlement.
3. No means testing at all! Nobody should have to prove that he or she is poor in order to receive the BI.
4. No requirement to work in return for the BI!
To a certain extent, the growing interest has been caused by G–tz Werner, a successful businessman, owner of a chain of drugstores. His way of arguing against the requirement to work is very convincing. But from a left-wing perspective his role is also ambivalent. I mention this not in order to put blame on him, but just in order to make it easier for you to understand some of the debates ongoing among left-wing people. In a talk-show, he was once asked, whether ‚ after the introduction of a BI ‚ he expects to pay his employees lower or higher wages. His answer was:" Of course lower." As you can imagine, from a left-wing perspective, it is very alarming when a businessman is planning to pay lower wages.
There are some organisations which support the idea of basic income as a whole organisation, e.g. the Catholic employers' movement and the Catholic Youth and the Green youth organisation. However, in most of the organisations, the basic income is a topic of heated debates and even polarizing conflicts. In the same organization you will find people totally convinced, that a basic income is the ONE AND ONLY solution to our problems and you will find people convinced that BI is worse than the devil.
The trade union officials are fighting against this idea. Sometimes, it seems that in this fight they are following all the advice given by Machiavelli in his book "Il Principe". Nevertheless, one could say that even within the trade-unions the number of BI-advocates is growing ‚ especially within the trade-union youth organisation and the groups representing the unemployed within the trade-unions. If you want to familiarize the trade-unions with the BI, contact the youth organizations. They are usually more open-minded than the officials.
In the 80s, it was the Green party which discussed BI. But then this idea was forgotten for many years. After many years of silence, it was the former PDS, the Party of Democratic Socialism, one of the main sources of members of the new LEFT-Party, which put this topic back on the political agenda. We did not push the debates to a decision. So it is hard to say whether the majority within in the PDS was for or against it.
Over the last few years, more and more Green politicians have re-discovered their fascination for the idea of BI. Maybe this development was also encouraged by the fact that I, as a representative of the PDS, was associated with the idea within the German basic-income scene. Anyway, it is fine if the competition between the parties helps in promoting the idea of BI. We now have friendly co-operation between the left-wing and the green supporters of the BI.
Within the Social Democratic Party, there are a few local branches which are advocating the idea. But I have not found a Social Democratic member of parliament who openly supports the idea of BI. While in my parliamentary group there are six convinced supporters and several interested people and in the Green parliamentary group there are as many as 10 supporters. That is progress. However, we are a long way from having a majority in the German parliament in support of the idea of BI.
I consider the foundation of the LEFT Party to be good for left-wing aims in general. But, due to the rising influence of old-school trade unionists, the arguments against the BI have become tougher. Nevertheless, we have managed to ensure that the idea of BI is mentioned in our founding programme as an issue worthy of discussion. In the founding programme you will find the sentence: "We will further discuss the issue of BI with various social groups."
To be honest, I doubt whether, at a party convention, the majority would approve a proposal for the BI. And even if 51 percent were to vote in favour, the other 49 percent would consider such a decision a reason for leaving the party. To sum it up: The BI is a very polarizing topic. That is a pretty challenging situation for BI-fans.
Within the Left Party, there is a very active Federal Study Group dedicated to the idea of Basic Income.
I would now like to introduce the BI model which the Federal Study Group on Basic Income within the Left party is in favour of. I personally am in favour of this concept, too. But keep in mind that is not the position of the whole of the LEFT Party.
Ö At the final stages, this concept provides a basic income of 950 euros to every person aged 16 or over. The amount is based on the poverty risk threshold.
Ö The basic income can be combined with all other income sources without being reduced in its amount.
Ö The BI will be financed by an additional tax of 35 % on all sources of income + a tax on luxury goods + a primary energy tax. To sum it up, the richest third part of the population will pay for the introduction of a BI, while the middle and the lowest third of the population will profit from the introduction of a BI.
Ö The key factor determining whether an individual is entitled to claim the BI or not is place of residence rather than citizenship.
In the context of gaining the support of a majority of socially committed people, we should point out that the introduction of a BI is combined with the following additional conditions.
1. The BI needs to be combined with general minimum wages of at least 8 euros per hour. We want working people to earn good wages. The BI is not meant to be a substitute for wages.
2. The BI needs to be combined with a reduction in working hours in order to promote the redistribution of the work which still exists.
3. The BI should be embedded in a general struggle for gender equality. Today, women are still responsible for the major part of social reproduction work. This has to be changed! We want at least 50 percent of social reproduction work to be done by men. Social reproduction work has to be equally distributed. On the subject of the politics of time, I have to mention a theory which I found really fascinating: the four-in-one perspective developed by the left-wing feminist Frigga Haug. According to this perspective, the working week should consist of four parts: 1. labour, 2. social reproduction work, 3 social or political activities, 4. time for creativity, love or self-qualification.
4. Without doubt, the BI would replace several of the existing social benefits, for example social assistance or student assistance. However, in the interest of parity and solidarity in burden sharing, social insurance should remain in place after the introduction of the BI. From a left-wing point of view, the BI is not meant to be a replacement/substitute for the existing forms of social insurance, such as pension, health, nursing-care and unemployment insurance systems. The BI which I support is meant to be an addition to the existing forms of social insurance.
5. For people with special needs, such as the disabled, we still need additional forms of assistance to be available which reflect their specific circumstances.
6. The struggle for a BI should be embedded in the struggle for BI as a global social right.
7. The BI should be combined with new educational ethics. The existing educational system is still very much dominated by the methods of pressure and compulsion. What we need instead is an educational system encouraging self-determination.
We only have a chance to win a majority in the parliaments if we first of all win a majority within civil society. If the majority of the population were convinced, then we could rely on the tendency towards opportunism within the parties. In order to win over civil society, we need to underline the advantages of the BI. That is what I would like to do from a left-wing perspective.
Ö In political debates, equality and liberty are often considered to be in contradiction with each other. But the BI is a project that brings both aims together. A BI would liberate everyone from hardship. The humiliation of having to ask for assistance would fall away. And the BI brings about the right to self-determination.
Ö The existing social benefits are considered to be stigmatizing and repressive. The BI is the opposite of this, neither stigmatizing nor repressive. As a result of this, the problem of hidden poverty, or what might better be termed "ashamed poverty" will be resolved.
Ö Liberation from the fear of hardship puts people in a better negotiating position towards their bosses. Nowadays, low wages and additional working hours ‚ even unpaid ‚ are often accepted. Since those people who still have a job are afraid of becoming unemployed. And being unemployed still means falling into a system of poverty, exclusion and repression. The introduction of a BI would therefore strengthen the position of employees; it would strengthen their bargaining-power. The improved negotiating position could lead to higher wages and a reduction in working hours and could even start a process of democratization of working conditions.
Ö As already mentioned, the BI makes a general reduction of working hours easier. It allows people to spend more time in qualifying themselves further or to take sabbaticals.
Ö The security afforded by the knowledge that an income is provided in every life situation has the potential to encourage forms of solidarity-based economic activity. By guaranteeing a minimum level of financial security, the BI makes people less vulnerable to extortion.
Will the BI act as a Trojan horse and lead to the collapse of capitalism from within, or can it comfortably be incorporated into the capitalist framework? This is a contentious issue. What is certain, however, is that it breaks with the "usefulness" logic inherent to capitalism. The introduction of a BI is no guarantee of systemic transformation, but it would create far better conditions for economic forms which look beyond the profit motive.
I doubt whether we will achieve the introduction of BI straight away. I therefore recommend a dual strategy: We should continue advocating the idea of BI in general and try to convince more and more people. And in the political field we should fight for concrete first steps towards introducing a BI.
Maybe BI for children, for pensioners or for students could be first introductory steps? A next step could be the introduction of a sabbatical with full pay. Furthermore the existing social benefits for the unemployed have to be improved, have to be developed in the direction of BI. This means sufficient conditional transfer. This means limiting means testing as much as possible and also eliminating the requirement to work.
In this way, step by step, we can achieve a situation where the majority already lives in circumstances close to BI. And it would then be easier to introduce BI for the rest.
And so I have a dream. One day people will tell each other: "Just imagine, once upon a time, a time long ago, people could not imagine life with BI. Now we can not imagine life without BI."
That is a day I am looking forward to.
Thank you for your attention!