It should be known, that socialism and communism was not “invented“ by Karl Marx, but there had been thoughts before him about a more just and social society. Marx distanced himself from such ideas, and (together with Engels) called his thoughts “scientific socialism,” which were later described from the outside world with the term “Marxism.” This means the (“scientific”) analysis of the civil society and of the requirements for a socialistic development – caused during the lifetime of Marx and Engels – in the 19th century.
Today – about 150 years later – we may ask whether it is enough to deal only with the Marxist ideas to understand and to solve the given crisis with a sustainable effect. It should be considered that Lenin adapted Marxism to the historical requirements of the former Russian society and realized them in the project “Soviet Union,” which failed eventually.
Because of this, it is worth having a look to thinkers, which Marx called “utopian socialists”. Among them are e.g. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and Joseph Charlier (1816-1896).
The main difference to Marx is that they did not want to rebuild the “old property situation,” but claimed for a more just distribution. They believed that the “civilization” owes everyone a subsistence, who has no possibility to satisfy his needs (by money). Therefore the idea of a Guaranteed Basic Income was proposed.
While the slogan “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” describes communism, the idea of a Basic Income formally inverts this watchword: “to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.” This means that the basic needs must be satisfied at first, thereby each can fulfill his individual abilities.
In fact, the essence of the present crisis is that a lot of people lack resources to satisfy their basic needs (through money). At the same time there are enough goods, but not everyone is able to sell his abilities (for money) as work. If we look to the phenomena of money it can be recognized that it is used to limit the amount of goods, which a single person could take (without reward). Therefore the problem is that all humans have basic needs, but not all have enough resources to satisfy even these basic needs.
The capitalistic economy is based on the principle quid pro quo – somebody, who is giving, should get an adequate compensation. This leads to another principle: do ut des – things are only given for receiving a compensation. Both principles shape the capitalistic economy today and lead such people to a crisis, who have nothing to give, respectively that, what they are ready to give, is not remunerated with a compensation.
The idea of a Basic Income breaks on the one hand with these principles, because the payment is not linked to a compensation, but on the other hand, the principles are kept within a society, because goods stay only available for a compensation. This means, too, that each can earn money additionally to his/her Basic Income.
But what, if somebody gets enough, that he/she is not motivated, doing services (e.g. to work) for a compensation? And what happens, if such a mentality is growing within a society? Who would work – even if he/she gets a high (monetary) compensation?
With these questions we recognize that the amount of a Basic Income significantly influences the willingness to work of (receiving) people. Because of that, there are proposals, to relate the amount of a Basic Income to the common effort of a society and to start thereby a self-regulation of supply and demand. If a society is working hard (supply is increasing), the basic income is reaching a level where more and more people seduce to do nothing, whereby the common effort of a society – and respectively the amount of Basic Income – decreases, which leads to a situation that more and more people work harder again to satisfy their demand.
While socialistic countries enshrined the “right to work” in their constitutions, today we should consider to guarantee a “right on income” by a state. The mentioned principles of a (capitalistic) society are entrenched, but a Basic Income could conciliate them with the socialistic ideas. What would Marx say about this?
