Do fewer hours on the job combined with a guaranteed minimum income equal preservation of the environment? When there are numerous crises going on at once, we need tangible utopias.
.jpg "Does 'unconditional basic income' aid in combating climate change?") |
| [Unconditional Basic Income] |
Former Sigmar Gabriel, head of the SPD, is known for his love of stirring up controversy, and he recently voiced his view in the daily Bild that Germans should work for longer hours. This was a separate demand for a party that has spent its entire history advocating for the opposite, namely a reduction in working hours without a corresponding loss in income. Gabriel gave his justification for this demand by saying that there is a shortage of qualified workers and that the economic crisis has led to a loss in income. Not only was the plan foolish in terms of social policy, but it was also unimaginative in terms of environmental policy, which is something that a former environment minister should really avoid doing. The proposal was swiftly scrapped.
The idea that a decrease in working hours, for instance in the form of a normal four-day work week, would result in a major reduction in the ecological footprint is one that has been supported by empirical evidence for a considerable amount of time. This labor policy measure, which has already crept in as common practice in many wealthy countries, represents a much greater lever for the transformation to sustainability and a much greater contribution to climate protection than many small-scale changes in behavior regarding consumption and in everyday life (without one should do without them.)
This is primarily due to the fact that a nationwide reduction in weekly and monthly working hours would make a significant contribution to the long-overdue traffic turnaround by reducing commuter mobility for trips to and from workrestricts. In other words, this would make it easier for people to get to and from their places of employment. The requirement is, of course, that such savings in kilometers are not utilized to prolong other trips in private transport connected to leisure activities. Anyone who takes into account the increased amount of traffic on Sundays and public holidays is likely to have some reservations about this.
The concept of "free time" conjures up images of severe limitations and significant costs for many individuals. This brings us back to the sociopolitical discussion that took place in the 1970s, during which the trade union postulate of reducing the number of working hours was paired with the idea to implement a basic income that was not based on employment. Socialist theorists such as André Gorz were the first to discover the possibility of realizing the utopia of the kingdom of freedom in the midst of a capitalist economy. According to a well-known Marxian formula, "today this, tomorrow that," it is possible in a capitalist economy to "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, herd in the evening, criticize after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, herdsman, or
societal romance?
Beyond the confines of wage labor, Gorz conceived of the multi-activity society, which he described as follows: "... social time and social space must be shaped in such a way that alternating or simultaneous activities and corresponding affiliations appear normal to everyone, desired and expected by everyone." In order to ensure that everyone is a part of a cooperative self-sufficiency company, a self-help network, a scientific research group, an orchestra or choir, a workshop for theater, dance, or painting, a sports club, a yoga or judo school, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., Is that what you mean by "unconditional"? The answer is yes, given the assumption that competition and selection are not the emphasis either at work or in leisure time, but rather "excellence as the common objective of everyone," an old theme that also informed Hannah Arendt's political thought, for example in her late book " Vital activa."
It only works with the radical decoupling of (wage) work and income, which remain in the pandemic (which is neither "over" nor the last crisis of this kind will) is already mapped out by various state transfer payments and the "citizen's income." The four- or three-day workweek is therefore not a goal in and of itself; rather, it is only feasible with the radical decoupling of (wage) work and income. In a nutshell, all people who are residents of a community that has been established should be guaranteed an income that would allow them to maintain their standard of living throughout their whole lives. This is accessible to him or her as an individual legal claim, and as such, it is not attached to a duty to work or to a prior evaluation of the need for income and assets, origin and education, employment and age. It is thus open to him or her. In a nutshell, everyone, even a newborn infant, a student who comes from a wealthy family, a successful manager, and an 80-year-old billionaire, is eligible to receive a basic income.
This concept is as mind-bogglingly radical as it is straightforward, and because it runs counter to common sense, it is notoriously controversial. Despite this, it is being discussed politically across parties, given that some members of socialists, conservatives, liberals, and libertarians have supported it, while other members of the same groups vigorously oppose it. People who do not work but are nevertheless permitted to eat may seem to be naive, but this is the most extreme interpretation of the normative concepts of freedom, equality, and fraternity that is even remotely imaginable. The publicly recognized right to leisure time activities ought to provide solutions to essentially all of society's problems.
The devil, as is so frequently the case, is in the details. However, in light of these normative underpinnings, it is not necessary to first demonstrate that an unconditional basic income can be achieved directly under existing circumstances in a given nation and can be paid in a meaningful budgetary fashion. Of course, this confirmation adds to the idea's appeal, as do significant studies and pilot projects that have been initiated and assessed to varied degrees and intensities in recent decades. A (periodic) "right to do nothing" must be maintained in principle just as much as a "right to work," which contemporary working cultures cannot and will not guarantee at all time, anyplace, or for everyone without being normatively challenged. It would be premature to incorporate such a right to do nothing in constitutions before it even seems conceivable to be realized, which, like the right to work, must be fought for in social fights. In any event, a lengthier transition period to the age cohort of those born today may be envisaged.
Gabriel's proposal demonstrates the limited imagination of a left that has become defensive, that in the face of multiple crises relies solely on traditional redistribution measures, and that lacks concrete utopias in light of the digital society, in which wage labor will presumably be eliminated further. In this manner, the field of protest is handed to the anti-democratic right, from whom no ideas for reform are to be anticipated. Bodo Hombach, another Schröder-era social democrat who has most likely already left the tanker SPD, recently praised the concept of two application-oriented social scientists, Rolf G. Heinze and Jürgen Schupp, who believe that "the globally rampant virus (can) act as an accelerator for development processes that were already taking place quietly and are now becoming visible." Universal basic security, along with an infrastructure that meets the demands of the public, may be seen as a framework to promote social change processes, opening up possibilities for a presently idealistic welfare state model."
The basic income first looked as a luxury notion of the golden years of prosperity; but, in the midst of the crisis, the concept may begin to take impact. The conventional left has either disregarded or opposed the concept that the discussion over basic income should be renewed, not least for environmental reasons.
The author Claus Leggewie is a Professor at the University of Giessen in Germany.
Source: IPG