Will an unconditional basic income free Russia from poverty?

As part of the election campaign, the Fair Russia - Patriots - For Truth party decided to implement Elon Musk's forecast on the widespread introduction in the near future of an unconditional basic income (BDD) and not only introduced this requirement into its program, but also sent the basic income "in the amount of 10 thousand rubles. for 82% of Russian families. In the future, it is supposed to add to all retirees and subsequently BDB for each citizen.

Modern society has finally come to understand that the elimination of poverty, as well as the prevention of a new world war, are the most important and noblest tasks of mankind. But will the introduction of the BDB make it possible to at least overcome poverty?



Opponents of the WBD always press on the problem of labor motivation, on the guaranteed growth of idlers and idlers, which is more reminiscent of the propaganda of Protestant ethics than an attempt to understand the issue.

Proponents of an unconditional basic income usually reason from the standpoint of an "ordinary person" on the principle of "pros, cons, pitfalls", that is, without linking the BBD with economic, political, cultural realities. Mironov's party does the same.

What class of phenomena does the BDB belong to?

Supporters of the UBI argue that this measure relates to the implementation of civil rights, such as the right to a dignified life. It is well known that the fundamental defect of civil rights is the lack of a written down mechanism for their implementation at the normative level of their proclamation. In constitutions, the rights of citizens are always spelled out in a very pompous and beautiful way, but in the laws containing the mechanisms and procedures for their implementation, everything is much more mundane. The meaning is often lost. For example, everyone has the right to work and to realize their abilities, but in reality, if you cannot find a job, you will be given a penny allowance and offered a rate for a janitor. Formally, no one tramples on your right, but in fact - a mockery.

Let us assume that UBI becomes the most important condition for guaranteeing a decent life in accordance with the Constitution. However, the consideration of the BDB as a way of implementing civil law is rather formal in nature. Politicians and jurists introduce into the sphere of civil rights those forms of social relations that necessarily follow from economic, less often political, life. Obviously, if we recognize the need to introduce the UBD as a way to realize the right to a dignified life, then this phenomenon cannot be determined from the fact of this very recognition, we should look deeper - at the economic or political reasons for this need.

Opponents of the WBD in the United States believe that this measure refers to the influence on the establishment of the so-called cultural Marxism, that is, a conspiracy of intellectuals aimed at destroying Western culture. Opponents of the WBD are confident that this measure will destroy the American economy and turn workers into loafers.

In our country, the attitude towards BDB is more like Putin's payments: the state will give money, but this will not fundamentally change life, it will not have an impact on the economy.

From an economic point of view, the BDB is an instrument of distributive relations, launching which, for non-economic reasons, the state redistributes part of the income of some persons in favor of others.

The meaning and objectives of social security

UBD refers to a special type of state policy that emerged in the XNUMXth century. and called "social support". The ideologist of this policy is the German sociologist Stein, who argued in his works that the relationship between labor and capital (that is, the forms of distributional relations) must be regulated with the help of the state. The state, according to Stein, is the guarantor of social justice, which is understood as legal equality and social security for the "despicable", that is, those who are kept in a half-starved state by the economy.

The practice of social security was first widely used not by socialists at all, but by terry monarchists - Napoleon III in France, Bismarck in Germany and Disraeli in England, who thus flirted with the factory workers in the struggle of the feudal aristocracy against the entrepreneurial class. They carefully studied the recommendations of Stein, who openly advised the royal courts to introduce social support, otherwise their power would inevitably be overthrown by a hungry crowd in favor of the liberal bourgeoisie.

It should be noted that Stein wrote in an era when theoreticians like him were sure that the broad masses were not able to familiarize themselves with their writings due to illiteracy, therefore he stated his goals directly - by means of the state to smooth out the inevitable economic contradictions between the rich and the poor. France, Germany and England introduced various types of social insurance, pensions, grants and subsidies for the poor.

The political successes of social security policy have been overwhelming, particularly in Germany, where the most consistent practitioner of "social security" Bismarck created a kind of "third way" - the state-socialist model. As a result, the main enemies of the regime - the German Social Democrats - finally split and the influential Lassallean faction supported Bismarck's policy. The German Empire was destroyed only by the First World War, which brought the country's economy to a complete collapse.

But it was mostly a feudal practice of social support. In the XNUMXth century, a policy of social support was gradually formed already in modern states. The main factor in its appearance was, of course, the USSR, which declared itself a state of the poor - workers and peasants, that is, a state of total social security. True, there was a significant nuance in the USSR - there were no rich people in the country, and the state was the guarantor of the functioning of the entire economy. That is, if in Western countries social security smoothed out the contradictions between the poor and the rich in the conditions of market distribution, then in the USSR it was an integral part of state-planned distribution outside of market relations.

In the USA, in 1935, under pressure from the successes of the USSR and the consequences of the "Great Depression", a law on social security was passed. It was a real breakthrough for a puritanical, liberal America.

But the fascists also actively used this tool. A big fan of "social security" was Mussolini, who even called his republic (after the defeat of the kingdom) the "Italian Social Republic".

In the Constitution of Democratic Italy, adopted in 1947, there was also a place for "social security", where the Italian communists were able to write down an almost Soviet formulation that is valid to this day: "The task of the Republic is to remove obstacles of the economic and social order, which, citizens, hinder the full development of the human personality and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organization of the country. " True, there is little sense from it, in Italy there is a rather low level of social support.

In the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, adopted at gunpoint by American soldiers in 1949, it was recorded that the republic is a social state. The same wording, as you know, was written down in the Constitution of Russia.

In general, by the middle of the XX century. in the system of civil rights of many European countries, the right to social security appeared, and by the end of the XNUMXth century. it has already become generally accepted. This is a completely objective process of regulating distribution relations in a market economy.

The essence of the UBI is no different from the essence of social support, formulated by Stein. Most modern states spend money on the poor, first of all, so that there are no pogroms and riots, so that the marginalized strata of society do not become a factor in the growth of radical political organizations.

If we start from the classical liberal doctrine, then the measures of social support are a gross violation of market economic orders. And such a tool as BDB is generally considered an element of equalizing distribution. Therefore, opponents of the UBD with all their might appeal to the undermining of labor motivation, seeing in the UBD a destructive interference in the relationship between labor and capital.

If we start from the economic and political reality, then the property gap between the 1% of the richest people in the world and everyone else is growing at an unprecedented rate. The distribution mechanisms of the global market economy are extremely one-sided. Therefore, government intervention in the economy, especially in distribution, is a common fact of life in the XNUMXst century.

Moreover, this intervention is far from only fiscal in nature or the nature of cash payments. For example, the share of state employees in the workforce of Russia is about 20%, and this is not counting the "bloated staff" of state-owned companies. This cannot be called a feature of Russia, it is a characteristic feature of most more or less developed countries. Critics of the modern bureaucratized state, indignant at this state of affairs, do not understand that the reality is that in a market economy these people are superfluous, capital does not need this labor force, because modern businessmen want to spin money on stock exchanges, and not build factories, factories and ships. Therefore, the state is forced to create jobs, although not always rationally using human labor.

Unconditional Basic Income as Social Security Radicalism

So, BCD is about bringing the social security policy to its logical limit in order to "in one fell swoop" solve the problem of the "despicable", that is, to appease the hungry crowd so that it does not tear the rich to pieces.

The idea of ​​road safety seems very attractive to many: the poor will get money, the rich will get peace of mind that no one will take away their wealth. However, this smoothness on paper may turn out to be imaginary, which will reduce the practical meaning of road safety to nothing.

First, the introduction of the BD will lead to an increase in the prices of consumer goods. As soon as the commodity owners find out that the money supply in the hands of the population will increase, they will immediately raise prices. There is no need to go far for examples: Putin provided the people with "cheap mortgages", corporations immediately raised housing prices, and with them the private owners of the "secondary housing". Thus, the BDI will partly turn out to be a redistribution not between the rich and the poor, as intended, but between the poor and the very poor.

Of course, the state can set fixed prices for consumer goods, but then capital will run out of production. Of course, even in this case, the state can build agricultural enterprises, factories for the production of the products most demanded by the masses. But wouldn't it be easier then to immediately return the USSR? What's the point of doing the same thing, but in some workaround?

Secondly, here, too, the opponents of the UBD are partly right, the hypothetical provision of all people with the minimum of benefits necessary for life contradicts the logic of the functioning of a market economy, since it undermines the motivational basis of work in the form of fear of hungry unemployment. This, of course, will not destroy the economy, but it will activate the employer's craving for exporting production abroad and importing illegal migrants into the country, which, as we see from Mironov's bill, no one will provide for the BCD.

In the current economic and political paradigm, the social problem of poverty with the help of the BBD is insoluble. And it is unlikely that at least one large country will decide to introduce a UBD, primarily because of the fear of an uncontrolled rise in inflation.

Instead of road safety, it is worth looking at the tools China is using to fight poverty. The Chinese authorities are trying to give the poor not money, but work or help in kind: housing, food, household technique, fishing gear, etc.

For example, the Moscow authorities issue a gift set at the birth of a child, the composition of which is objectively necessary for every happy family. You can take money, but the monetary equivalent is inferior to the price of the gift nomenclature, so almost everyone takes baby underwear and clothes, accessories for feeding, changing and bathing, pacifiers, rattles, napkins, ointments, powder, etc. citizen. This is much more reasonable than the "helicopter money" of the BDB.