Capitalism with a Humanist Interface: A leftist critique of UBI

 Zizek, UBI, and the American election

With the upcoming American presidential election, it is increasingly evident how change, as a concept, is interwoven in the political landscape. On one hand, to return to the political environment of the pre-Trump era, voters can choose to elect Vice President Joe Biden, but wasn’t this the exact climate that gave us Trump in the first place? On the other hand, voters have the option to re-elect Donald Trump, who needs no introduction to his list of defects. This can take us back to Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s quip about Stalin: “back in the late 1920s, Stalin was asked by a journalist which deviation is worse, the Rightist one (Bukharin & company) or the Leftist one (Trotsky & company), and he snapped back: ‘They are both worse!’” Isn’t that the case with the options of Trump or Biden? “They are both worse!”

But if both are worse, is there a “better” option? Just like the main character in the movie The Matrix, we are given two choices: a blue pill, which can represent the usual Democratic Party candidate and/or their liberal policies, and a red pill, which does the same for a Republican Party candidate and/or their conservative ideas. But, just like Zizek in his documentary A Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, “I want a third pill.” The question then becomes who or what is that third pill, especially for those who consider the red and blue pill as being essentially the same option in different colors.

When Senator Bernie Sanders became the frontrunner in the Democratic Party primaries, he had been proposing a series of policies that could potentially create a change by working within the system: Medicare for All, Housing for All, College for All, etc. However, the establishment of both parties did and continues to do, everything possible to preserve the status quo, which included deterring him from securing the presidential nomination. In other words, the establishment must change the system to maintain it. For example, when Biden was asked after the pandemic had started, what he would do if the House passed a version of Medicare for All, he responded by saying that he would veto it. Not surprisingly, when Biden won Super Tuesday, which led to him securing the nomination of the democratic party, healthcare stocks went up. Or recall when the Democratic presidential candidates were asked whether the candidate with most votes, but not a plurality, should become the nominee and all candidates except Bernie said “no.” Again, changing the system to preserve the status quo. On the other side of the same coin is Trump, who is trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while the U. S. keeps breaking record numbers of daily COVID-19 cases. In other words, one candidate would actively stop progress while the other one has been actively trying to revert it. All of this is happening while most Americans support progressive policies (Medicare for All, College for All, boosting the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, government-funded childcare, etc.).

Here we encounter the paradox of change. It becomes evident that two options can impact our system due to its unstable politico-economical structure. Agents can either actively engage with the system to maintain it or not change it to transform it. For another example, recall how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi didn’t want people in Congress to endorse primary challengers against incumbent House Democrats. In fact, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee stated that the political strategists and vendors that supported said candidates would be cut off from the party. However, when Rep. Joe Kennedy ran against Sen. Ed Markey, Pelosi broke her own rule and endorsed Kennedy, who represents the Democratic establishment over his more progressive opponent, while citing that her family and herself had worked with different generations of the Kennedys as the reason for doing so. Again, actively engaging the system to retain it. Otherwise, there would be a gradual erosion induced by its structural imbalance if left alone. Specifically, one of the pillars of this unsustainability is our current economic system, which facilitates these changes or the lack thereof. Currently, as a reaction of the establishment in a panic, policies keep being proposed and enacted that extend its lifetime. But before delving into the policies that prolong its collapse, we should explore what makes it unable to stand the test of time.

Multiple characteristics define this unsustainability. One of them is that capitalism always pushes towards unskilled labor. Since employers want to increase their profits, they can either increase the price of a product or decrease the cost of manufacturing said product. The former is not always a viable option since consumers may not be willing to pay more for a product when there’s an option to purchase a similar and cheaper one. Instead, employers have attempted different ways to attach additional charges to the main product such as offering the option of accessories that are to be used in combination with it. For example, in the videogame industry, new physical copies are typically available for $60, but to increase revenue, publishers offer the option of additional content that gets charged as paid DLC, microtransactions, collector’s editions, season passes, etc. This at first might seem fair, but a common practice between publishers is to remove some of the original content of the game and sell it separately after its release date. Or recall similar avaricious practices conducted by EA, a videogame publishing company, when they introduced advertisements into the videogame UFC 4 after the game was released, which were removed following an outcry from its player base. Similarly, the game NBA 2K21 introduced unskippable ads one month later after its release (when reviews have been published). After an outcry from its community, the publishing company reported that it was a mistake and that they will place them on different sections of the game in future installations. As it becomes evident, this might not be the most cost-effective strategy. Employers then have, as mentioned before, the option to cut the cost of production, which is usually done by underpaying workers. The first time this culture was made public in the videogame industry was in 2004. An anonymous author, known as EA Spouse, wrote a post detailing how workers at EA, who became the first company to consecutively be awarded Consumerist’s poll Worst Company in America, were not being paid for their overtime work. This letter eventually led to a $14.9 million settlement to programmers for overdue overtime. Another letter published in 2010 by a different spouse, detailed the same type of work culture at the publishing company Rockstar. This letter also led to a class-action suit where the publisher settled for $2.75 million with over 100 ex-employees due to unpaid overtime too.

Evidently, this second option of crunch culture also leads to companies bleeding money due to illegally cutting costs. This drives employers to look for appropriate ways, in the eyes of the law, to reduce production costs. One way to do this is to replace skilled labor with unskilled labor and unskilled labor with automation. Let’s look at the food industry as an example. In the food documentary Ugly Delicious, Chef David Chang visited the pizza chain Domino’s to observe how they operate after he discussed with other chefs the differences between traditional cooking methods and the incorporation of technology into cooking. After seeing Domino’s cooking process (e.g. a tracking app takes into account the information of an order, it calculates the time left depending on the oven setting, and once it is dispatched, it can calculate how long it took to leave), he comments that it’s obvious how it’s “years and years of a lot of people’s efforts to make it as streamlined as possible.” Chang comments at the end of the scene that Domino’s is no longer a food chain, but rather a technology company.

Technology has always been creeping into the workplace. There was a time when most cooks had to know how long to cook ingredients for them to be ready, and cashiers needed to be able to perform mental calculations. Now, cooks wait for a cue in the form of a light or a sound to know when the food is ready to be flipped, and cashiers have a machine that does basic arithmetic for them. An example of this is how McDonald’s now includes screens next to its cashiers as an option for people to order by themselves. This sort of automation saves companies money for three main reasons. The first reason is that they can produce the same product for less money due to three causes. The first one is that machines replace workers since the purchasing and maintenance of machinery costs less than their training and employment. The second cause is that the work becomes unskilled labor, which is cheaper than skilled labor. The last cause is that employers need fewer employees than before to create the same product. Returning to the reasons why automation increases profits for companies, the second reason is the conversion of employees into an unskilled labor force. This means that they are easily replaced due to employers having access to a larger pool of possible employees and lacking the need to train new hires. Thus, if a group of cashiers goes on a strike because they wish the minimum wage was raised, their employer can fire them and replace them through a fast and inexpensive process since it is unskilled labor. The third reason is that whoever has the means of production has the power. For example, in California, a group of graduate students from the University of California went on strike for higher wages. The students, who did not hold the means of production, were fired from their teaching assistant positions even though they’re from a part of the skilled workforce. With automation, employers hold securely the means of production because the employee is no longer manufacturing the product, but rather machinery owned by the employer. All of this makes it evident how we are moving to a point where employers are systematically replacing skilled workers with unskilled ones and those for automation.

This has increased dramatically the rate of unemployment, which creates a problem for the capitalists. True, the capitalists can increase profit margins by paying less for labor while getting the same product, but an increase in unemployment means that there are fewer consumers able to buy their product. What capitalists need are consumers and with the rate of unemployment increasing, they lack this fundamental group to continue “earning” money. This is where we reintroduce the paradox of change (changing things so they remain the same). On the conservative side, you have people like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who advocated for restrictions on A. I. with the ability to drive cars, in a conversation with conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro for two reasons. The first one is that wages for truck drivers are going down. The second reason is that with self-driving cars, those jobs would disappear, which would be devastating to the working class since truck driving is the most common job held by men with only a high school diploma in the United States. Here it is exemplified two of the reasons described before why automation increases profit margins for employers. And with this discourse, we return to the idea of stopping progress to maintain the system by actively changing it (e. g. restricting developing technology in the form of A. I. to leave unaffected the working class represented by truck drivers through action shown as new policies).

On the other side of the same coin is the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI), which at first appears to be a light at the end of a tunnel in this series of economic problems. However, the underlying reality is that the light is from an oncoming train. UBI is similar to other policies that delay the collapse of capitalism while simultaneously driving us deeper into the system that created the problems in the first place. UBI, who entrepreneur Andrew Yang calls the Freedom dividend, consists of providing a monthly payment to citizens. In Yang’s plan, Americans would receive monthly checks of $1,000. As mentioned before, this appears to give power to the working class. One reason why UBI is advocated for is that individuals have more freedom and flexibility to pursue more non-lucrative jobs that they were interested in by receiving economic help. However, this is nothing more than ideology and for Zizek, explaining this starts with a cup of Starbucks coffee.

There’s guilt attached in transactions under capitalism since workers have to be exploited. This is what the phrase there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism refers to. For example, customers could ask themselves why they engage in purchasing a product, or in this case a coffee, when the money could be spent in a more moral/ethical way. Capitalism, however, found a solution to alleviate this guilt. Ingeniously, capitalists have attached an idea to the product. In terms of the previous example, this would be ethical conduct. Could the coffee at Starbucks be cheaper? Yes, but now every time someone purchases it, a donation is made to remove the guilt. An example of this is their One Tree for One Bag initiative, which ensures that a tree is planted for every sold coffee bag. Of course, Starbucks is not very vocal about the fact that the trees that are planted are coffee trees, which expands their business and reduces costs. But even if the company did, the purpose of the act is to benefit the company. Ideology masquerades from people how the world functions while simultaneously shapes how people interact with it. Recall one of the episodes in The Simpsons when Bart falls in a well and, instead of truly helping him, celebrities engage in symbolic behavior by singing a song for him. Isn’t this similar to what happened during the pandemic when model and actress Gal Gadot gathered an array of celebrities to singalong to Imagine? The emptiness of the gesture is noticeable with the joke made by stand-up comedian Tom Segura in a podcast with Joe Rogan when he said, “I lost my job at the meatpacking plant but Gal Gadot sang Imagine.” Or recall when celebrities uploaded a video of themselves urging citizens to vote while being naked. This is what ideology is.

 Another similar act is philanthropy. It appears like it benefits people, specifically the working class when in reality it only helps the donor due to them receiving tax breaks. It is true that Jeff Bezos has donated to charity, but the need for these charities is caused by the system that made him able to accumulate wealth in the first place. For example, by underpaying workers, he can have enough money to donate to a fund that aids in paying school tuition for kids whose families cannot afford it due to being underpaid in the workplace. Additionally, in Arizona during 2017, one in three Amazon employees was receiving food stamps. All of these “socially conscious” billionaires donate not because they have an interest in helping people, but rather because they want the economic benefit of appearing to help. Even if they had the intention of helping, this would be irrelevant since real help would not increase economic inequality. Again, we return to the topic of ideology and the interest of the capitalists in engaging in symbolic gestures.

Another example of this is Elon Musk who, even though constantly warns of the threat new technologies pose to human dignity and freedom, has invested in Neuralink, a company that is exploring the idea of implanting devices in the human brain to merge human beings with software. Or consider the article Forbes wrote regarding him pledging to donate half of his fortune to charity (Forbes did not count two donor-advised funds with tens of millions of dollars “because these funds are a bit like philanthropic bank accounts, without any requirement for annual distributions to charities nor any requirement to publicly disclose when grants are made”) while simultaneously creating a rocket that can deliver weapons anywhere in the world within the hour. War, which he appears to favor (recall his tweet “we will coup whoever we want” regarding Bolivia’s coup), tends to be one of the causes that necessitate these charities.

This description of ideology also applies to UBI. It appears to aid people but is in fact worsening what it’s trying to solve. At first glance, this is not apparent. Especially considering the differences between providing something non-material (celebrities singing a song) and something material (economic resources). But the reason why this is so is beautifully illustrated in the anecdote of Catherine the Great. When she was “informed that her servants were stealing wine and food behind her back, even going so far as to mock her, she just smiled, aware that occasionally dropping crumbs of enjoyment for them kept them in their position as servants.”

The purpose of this critique of UBI must not be misunderstood as a liberal one. It’s not making a reference to the number of crumbs being too small and advocating for a constant (monthly) larger ($1000) number of crumbs (This bread metaphor can make a reference to the metonymic phrase “bread and circuses” by the Roman poet Juvenal, which talks about the people need in order not to revolt). A liberal critique would point out the fact that government aid would be replaced by UBI. This means that individuals who receive food stamps would not receive the paycheck in its totality. In fact, they might not see an extra cent from UBI, which contradicts its original purpose of helping working-class individuals. All of this would happen while the class of people who don’t need it, the millionaires and billionaires, would receive it intact. Instead of liberal critique, a leftist one will be made, which would be that workers would now be even farther away from the means of production.

              One of the reasons why Yang proposed UBI was because of the problem of automation, which as mentioned before increases the amount of wealth creation while simultaneously preventing most people from receiving the benefits of this wealth. The conservative solutions have already been discussed, which include the prevention of progress or the return to a system before said development. The blue establishment’s proposal includes UBI, which has only been analyzed in terms of ideology, but not in the context of automation. As mentioned before whoever holds the means of production holds the power.

If unfair or unethical events occur in the workplace, workers would no longer possess the ability to strike. If structural unemployment increases due to automation where would the money come from to fund UBI? The answer is from the bourgeoisie. In fact, Yang proposed a VAT tax to aid in funding UBI. This already starts painting a picture as the big businesses playing an even bigger role in the economy in terms of them increasing their profits. Employers would no longer have to pay for employees’ salaries, insurance, retirement plans, etc. Instead, employers would just have to provide a small portion of those profits to be distributed to the working class so they can afford to buy their products again. This makes it glaringly obvious why rich businessmen like Bill Gates, etc. support this program. Yang cites in his book Gates saying, “A problem of excess [automation] forces us to look at the individuals affected and take those extra resources and make sure they’re directed to them in terms of re-education and income policies.” He also cited Elon Musk saying “I think we’ll end up doing universal basic income… It’s going to be necessary… There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.” And Mark Zuckerberg saying, “We should explore… universal basic income so that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.” These comments emphasize the desire of the upper class to preserve the status quo. Yang continues by saying “you know what’s really expensive? ... Revolution.” Again, these comments can return us to the anecdote of Catherine the Great of keeping the people who are getting crumbs in their position.

Now, we return to the original question. What is the better solution? What is that third pill? It would be a radical critique of the democratic establishment. People have increasingly become not just temporarily unemployed, but structurally unemployed and automation has exacerbated the effects of capitalism. These problems won’t be solved by voting for Biden and obviously not by Trump either. The former is not only one of the precursors of the current state of affairs but one of the reasons why Trump is in the oval office too. If voters choose to return to the pre-Trump era, they will not only return to a place where symbolic gestures are celebrated while the working class reaps none of the benefits (ideology), but we might get a worse Trump. A Trump that is eloquent, that is politically correct, a Trump that, in the same vein as Biden, fucks the proletariat, but is celebrated as a compassionate and well-mannered commander in chief. We might get a competent Trump.

The ending of this essay received several revisions. One of the drafts emphasized the need for praxis. It encouraged voters to not settle for Biden and to vote for policies that the voters wanted (recall that said policies fell in the progressive side of the political aisle). It shared some information from third-party candidates and encouraged voters to look up sample ballots in their state so they could also participate in their local elections. It remarked that it wasn’t an accident that they ended up with the same two candidates that they always do. These two options are a consequence of the establishment. Similarly to how the DNC advocates for Biden because another Trump administration will be catastrophic, the establishment argued in the French elections that the best option should be Macron while emphasizing that a Le Pen election with its right-wing policies would be a catastrophe for France. In addition, it showed evidence of a pattern of the DCN manipulating the elections so the establishment could secure the presidential nomination. So, praxis is necessary, but valueless without good theory to support it. In a conversation with a close friend, he mentioned supporting Biden because he was going to enact progressive policies, specifically Medicare for All. And even though in the last debate with Trump, Biden stated that the idea that he supported that program was “ridiculous” my friend still supported Biden. He was engaging in what he thought would have the most beneficial consequences, just like Gal Gadot singing imagine, just like Zuckerberg advocating for UBI, just like the rich donating to charities, just like the Catholic church when it hid the cases of sexual assaults, attacked the victims in court, and advocated against a bill that could increase the statute of limitations for rape charges while simultaneously creating support groups for the victims. Attempting to help while participating in the system that necessitates said help. A radical critique of the Democratic establishment doesn’t start by praxis, it starts by having supporting theory. The usual motto of “don’t think, act” has gotten us in trouble before because we support policies like UBI, which might seem helpful at first, but they just end up being hurtful. In this case, the phrase would be “don’t act, think.”

Yang is right with his observations that attempt to identify the problems that are caused by automation, but these are only problems under the current system. An MIT study found that for simple mechanical tasks a reward improves performance and a better reward made the outcome even better. However, the results were not similar on cognitive tasks. It seems like the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to remove money off the table. Capitalism with automation creates larger profits for whoever holds the means of production. That is not the problem. The problem is how the money is distributed. When Marxist Professor in economics was a guest show in Fox’s Stuart Varney show, he mentioned a possible solution for the problem of automation, which was making the workplace a democratic setting. If workers, owning the means of production, divided the profits two things would happen. The first one would be that the money would not be distributed unequally. The second one would be that once automation enters the workplace, instead of wondering who they had to let go, the conversation would be centered around the idea that now they wouldn’t have to work the same amount of hours to get paid the same amount of money. A normal working week might be reduced to fewer days or maybe fewer hours per day. But again, this would be not a change within the system, but a change of the system. Otherwise, employees would be at the mercy of the big companies like they are now. This makes it evident why the current system is in itself unsustainable. Yang proposed an idea to delay its fall, by providing money to the displaced workers. But, quoting again Zizek one last time, “should we take the humanitarian side and take care of those behind or should we tackle the most difficult task of changing the system that generates them?” In other words, Yang might have been telling the truth, although not as intended when he opened his book by writing “I am writing … to let you know we are coming for your jobs.”