How Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income Differs from Communism: A Comprehensive Look

Conceptually, communism is defined as a society where the state, social classes, and money do not exist. Production and distribution are collectively owned, leading to a lack of income and, consequently, no universal basic income (UBI). However, even without a government, UBI isn’t a purely state-funded initiative. It’s a framework that doesn’t inherently require a state to function, making it a more flexible approach to social welfare.

Differences Between Communism and Universal Basic Income

Communism and UBI represent vastly different economic ideologies. In communism, the state controls the means of production, aiming for a collective ownership of resources. UBI, on the other hand, is a system that taxes government resources (such as natural resources) or value-added taxes (VAT) to pay every citizen a set amount, regardless of their contributions or productivity. This difference in ideals is significant and underlies the distinction between the two systems.

Communism envisions a world where every citizen is a controlling shareholder of all companies, fostering a collective rather than individual economic model. UBI, by contrast, provides a basic financial safety net to individuals, allowing them more freedom and flexibility in how they contribute to society. This fundamental difference leads to a wider ideological gap between the two systems.

Political Discussion on Guaranteed Basic Income

The topic of guaranteed basic income (GBI) is a contentious one within leftist political circles. Some leftists see it as a positive move towards achieving more equitable social policies, while others view it as merely a temporary fix for capitalism. Left-wing supporters of UBI generally see it as a step toward socialism or even a tool to create inflation, benefiting those with negative net worth.

Support for Universal Basic Income

Leftists in favor of UBI often see it as a concrete step toward socialism, eliminating barriers to accessing basic necessities. They believe UBI can empower workers by reducing economic barriers. However, they stress that UBI should not be used as an efficiency tool to replace existing social benefits, like pensions, healthcare, subsidies, and disability supplements. Instead, it should be a complementary measure that enhances these existing systems.

More radical leftists may view UBI as a tool for creating inflation, which can be beneficial to individuals with negative net worth. This inflation can erode the value of debt, thereby benefiting those who are deeply in debt. However, UBI retains its limitations and is not seen as a panacea for economic inequality.

Critiques of Universal Basic Income

Not all leftists support UBI. Some are skeptical of its long-term impact or the potential harm it might cause. Critics argue that it traps people in a money-exchanging system, perpetuating the capitalist framework that communists wish to dismantle. Instead, they advocate for a universal maximum income and the provision of essential services such as food, housing, electricity, and communication services.

In the Soviet model, the focus was on providing people with the means to live, rather than solely on the exchange of money. This approach emphasizes the fulfillment of basic human needs and access to services, rather than the accumulation of financial resources. Cuba is another example of this, where home ownership is divorced from commerce, resulting in high rates of homeownership despite limited market access.

Conclusion

In summary, while some leftists, particularly those closer to social democrats and democratic socialists, view UBI as a positive step towards more equitable policies, others, especially communists, see it as a tool to trap people in a money-centric system. The ideological divide between communism and UBI is significant, and understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the complexities of current and future social welfare initiatives.

Keywords: Universal Basic Income, Communism, Socialist Ideology