Following is a link to a talk he gave in November 2009 in London. After opening with a somewhat general discussion of modern capitalism, particularly the fact that consuming is now a lifestyle activity, he discusses basic income. That part of the talk is great. Zizek mentions developments in Brazil, South Africa, and Europe, and then discusses the work of Philippe Van Parijs, who’s cited in several places at www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

This mostly theoretical talk, which is increasingly abstract after the section on basic income, was featured on New Year’s Day on a popular progressive political website, CommonDreams.org. The basic income idea is spreading, even in the United States.

After that section of the talk, Zizek returns to his theme of the contradictions in post-1968 capitalism, using the work of a contemporary German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk (who I had not previously heard of). Sloterdijk and Zizek seem to believe that the modern social welfare state, with its taxes, infrastructure, rule of law, and so on, must be preserved by the good works of the rich, people such as Bill Gates and George Soros.

Zizek then states that he agrees most with some ideas from Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Modern Man Under Socialism,” specifically the notion that charity degrades and demoralizes and merely prolongs the contradictions and injustices of capitalism.

Thus, asserting that basic income is a form of charity that will leave people envious and demoralized, Zizek concludes that it’s an attractive idea but can’t work. His argument reflects three misconceptions about basic income. First, he seems to think that the basic income is little more than taxing the rich to subsidize the poor, and would therefore prolong or increase envy, greed, and demoralization. He thus ignores the fact that the rich will benefit enormously from basic income, because they will have greater security and a more stable and sustainable society, along with opportunities to become even richer.

Second, the funds don’t have to come from taxing income and labor. Society can charge some rent or fees on what people take from nature and the community. Such takings include oil, land, timber, minerals, electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. The opening section of Zizek’s talk suggests that he ought to be sympathetic to this point. This is the idea of carbon fee and dividend that I’ve posted about a few times in recent weeks, and the idea of Thomas Paine, Henry George, and other people who are discussed elsewhere on this site.

Finally, he seems to view basic income only as a form of charity. It’s not. Instead, it would ensure that everyone can participate as citizens within the economic, social, and political activities of the modern state. It would be transformative in just the ways Zizek and Wilde appear to desire.

I hope Zizek continues to read and think about basic income, and to spread the word. His criticisms, particularly because of their contradictions and blind spots, mostly serve our interests.

The whole tape is 29:24.

Here’s the link:

http://vimeo.com/8073858

(I tried to upload the video so you could view it here, but had some trouble with that. Sorry.)

Steven Shafarman

Sonia Sotomayor has become a household name since President Obama announced her as his pick for the Supreme Court.

Her life story is truly remarkable: Puerto Rican parents, growing up in the South Bronx, the death of her father when she was young, her mother working two jobs to support Sonia and her brother, Princeton University, Yale Law School, a distinguished legal career, and now this nomination.

Along with her story, we are of course hearing a lot about politics and the expected fight over her confirmation. Democrats appear to be uniformly elated, though a few have expressed remorse that Obama didn’t pick someone who’s more of liberal ideologue. Republicans are divided, and portrayed as being in a bind over how to oppose her.

Instead of writing about the politics of this nomination, I’m inspired to focus on a relevant subject that’s too often distorted by ideology – justice for all. That, of course, is the closing phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, which many of us learned when we were kids in school. “… with liberty and justice for all.”

Justice for all is impossible when only a few have real access to elected officials, while many others are mostly excluded. The very rich meet politicians at fundraisers; the rest of us may try to arrange meetings, but in most cases our phone calls are returned only by interns.

Income security for all will help level the legal, social, cultural, political, and economic playing fields.

This shouldn’t be a matter of liberals vs. conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans. After all, the Pledge of Allegiance is nonpartisan.

Here’s how income security for all can work: There will be some baseline amount, say $1,000 a month, and our government will provide that for every adult citizen. It should be enough for food and shelter, but just enough, a basic income, so there will still be strong incentives to work, earn, and produce.

Major reasons for social exclusion are economic insecurity and economic inequality. People who are struggling to pay their bills, typically, cannot afford to be active citizens, participating in politics. Conversely, the very rich can readily hire lawyers, lobbyists, and PR professionals to advance their causes and plead their cases.

Even a basic income, $1,000 a month for every adult citizen, will do a great deal to reverse those injustices.

Sonia Sotomayor is truly exceptional, obviously. Her mother clearly did an extraordinary job in extremely difficult circumstances. Yet in a more just society, such exceptions would do more than prove the rule, they will also seek to help others to also become exceptional. Justice for all may require income security for all.

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor will one day write a Supreme Court majority opinion declaring that extreme economic inequality is, in itself, a violation of our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The complete proposal for income security for all is in my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.

Guaranteed income was a mainstream, even moderate idea in the 1960s. Martin Luther King was a leading supporter, and a plan to provide a guaranteed income actually passed the House of Representatives in 1970 by a margin of two to one. More of that history is on the home page of this web site, IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

Steven Shafarman