In the pandemic period around the world, one of the more effective forms of assistance to citizens was the direct transfer of money to their accounts. In the context of the lockdown and extremely reduced economic activities, such a form of state policy became necessary. Although it was an extraordinary situation, such policies have long been the subject of debate, and advocates of direct money transfers to citizens' accounts are represented almost on the entire political spectrum. Motives and reasons vary, but what binds them is a more or less explicit assumption about the inefficiency of the welfare state. Some criticize her for slowness and paternalism, some for the privilege of deciding what is needed by whom, and some for the decommodification of certain economic branches and services.
Decisions, therefore, should be left to individuals who know best what they want to spend their own money on, call it a "negative tax" like the neoliberals or a minimum guaranteed income like some leftists. The latter see in this a kind of democratization of planning - the state will not decide what human needs are - and the neoliberals see a general dominance of market relations that should result in the optimal allocation of resources. It should also be added that leftists see the minimum guaranteed income as protection against market uncertainties in the form of unemployment or gaining a certain level of autonomy in choosing jobs. There are also groups that advocate a combination of the welfare state and direct transfers. In general, the tradition of discussions and proposals is rich, and the best introduction is the study published this year by Anton Jäger and Daniel Zamora Vargas "Welfare for Markets: A Global History of Basic Income".
Despite the fact that many conservative economists have been quick to attribute inflation to the generous cash transfers to citizens' accounts during the lockdown, such a form of "social assistance" enjoys increasingly pronounced support, or at least is considered a proposal worthy of discussion. Which is not surprising considering the widespread ideological climate that considers the market to be the only objective and rational social institution. Regardless of where the money came from, citizens will deal with it on the market and will not "depend" on the services that the state has prepared for them, allegedly without any consultation, through bureaucratic inertia. In addition to the adoption of market rationality, in the background of money transfers there is also the assumption that with them citizens will also become democratically empowered, that they will become more developed individuals for whom no one cares anymore but themselves. And that they will simply have more time and will for political engagement.
This assumption could be fatal for the development of democracy. Because it rests on the idea that democracy is measured exclusively by the degree of individual autonomy, and not by awareness of communal interdependence and the social division of labor. In a recently published detailed interview, one of the more prominent members of the third generation of the Frankfurt School, Axel Honneth, critically reflected on that assumption and the idea behind it.
Honneth believes that direct money transfers turn citizens exclusively into consumers who view the social world largely from an individual perspective. Thus, social bonds are destroyed and the urge to recognize interdependence is weakened. In a situation where identity is determined to a greater extent by work and not by consumption, there is also awareness of the social division of labor and thus a higher degree of political literacy and recognition of one's own position in society. According to Honneth, the predominance of the consumer identity also contributes to a lower level of awareness of the needs of others and the public interest as such. And these are key elements for the formation of a democratic collective will. Cash transfers can definitely help many vulnerable people, but they threaten the systematic degradation of democratic logistics and political literacy. The focus of consciousness on the decontextualized connection between our own wallet and the products on the shelves makes us idiots, unable to function in public affairs.
Bonus video:
