The Anarchist Case for Universal Basic Income
For a long time, I believed that implementing universal basic income required a centralized state. I considered basic income the most vital libertarian policy, which led me to set aside the anarchist ideas of my youth. However, my continued focus on basic income is now pulling me back toward anarchism. In an anarchist society, we would see directly democratic municipalities (“communes”) linked together into a democratic confederation (or what older anarchists called a “Commune of communes”), in which each municipality retains significant autonomy. Within this framework, it’s plausible that some of these libertarian “communes” would treat land as collectively owned and charge rent for its private use. Naturally, these rents could be distributed as a social dividend, effectively creating an anarchist system that incorporates both land value tax and universal basic income.
Thus, it seems to me that the idea of universal basic income might fare better in a libertarian (anarchist) democratic confederation than it currently does under statist arrangements. My vision of land value tax and universal basic income might have more success in a world of autonomous libertarian municipalities governed via direct face-to-face democracy. If things were radically decentralized, maybe at least some cities would adopt these sorts of policies. Furthermore, the success and prosperity of those municipalities that did adopt these policies would encourage other cities to do the same — and, it’s not altogether impossible that an entire anarchist confederation would adopt a land value dividend (land value tax plus universal basic income) scheme.
I do have some concerns that conservative towns would become little despotic hell-holes but I think the value of having many libertarian social-democratic cities that people could “vote for with their feet” by moving there would outweigh the potential harm. America is far too polarized, with too many people supporting “conservative” (fascist) ideas. It just seems to me that if social-democratic ideas like universal healthcare, land value tax, and universal basic income are going to happen here, then it’s going to have to be done at a more local level, in areas where there are pockets of “liberals.”
Classical Anarchism and Democratic Confederalism
Classical anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin advocated face-to-face democracy at the level of the “commune” (municipality) and the association of communes into a confederation. Mikhail Bakunin speaks of the “spontaneous federation of communes, to replace the domineering paternalistic State.”(The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State) He was convinced “that human groups, once convinced, would organize and federalize spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, of their own accord and true to their own interests, never following a prearranged plan imposed upon ‘ignorant’ masses by a few ‘superior’ minds.”(ibid.) Kropotkin likewise advocated “the independence and free federation of communes.”(The Commune of Paris)
Bakunin writes:
“It has always been thus, and it is exactly this old system of organization by force that the Social Revolution should end by granting full liberty to the masses, the groups, the communes, the associations and to the individuals as well; by destroying once and for all the historic cause of all violence, which is the power and indeed the mere existence of the State….
“The future social organization should be carried out from the bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation. It is only then that the true, life-giving social order of liberty and general welfare will come into being, a social order which, far from restricting, will affirm and reconcile the interests of individuals and of society.”(Mikhail Bakunin, The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State)
Elsewhere, Bakunin outlines the basic structure of his ideal libertarian (anarchist) society:
“K. The basis of all political organization of a country must be the completely autonomous commune, represented by the majority vote of all the adults — men and women by equal title. No power has the right to meddle in its life, in its acts, and in its internal administration. It names and deposes by election all the functionaries: administrators and judges, and administer without any control the communal goods and its finances. Each commune would have the incontestable right to create independent of any higher sanction its own legislation and its own constitution — But to enter into the provincial federation and to make an integral part of a province, it should absolutely conform its individual charter to the fundamental principles of the provincial constitution and to make it recognized by the parliament of that province. It should also submit to the judgments of the provincial tribunal, and to the measures, which after having been sanctioned by the vote of the provincial parliament, would be ordained by the government of the province. Otherwise it would be excluded from the solidarity, guarantee and community, outside of the provincial law.
L. The province must be nothing but a free federation of autonomous communes….
M. The Nation must be nothing but a federation of autonomous provinces. The National Parliament consisting either of a single chamber, composed of the representatives of all the provinces, or of two chambers, one consisting of the representatives of the provinces, the other of the entire national population, independent of the provinces, — the National Parliament, without meddling in any way in the administration and the internal political life of the provinces, should establish the fundamental principles which should constitute the National Charter and which will be obligatory for all the provinces which want to participate in the National Treaty…”(Mikhail Bakunin, Principles and Organization of the International Revolutionary Society)
The Libertarian (Anarchist) Case for A Land-Value Dividend
The idea of a land-value dividend proposes that land ought to be regarded as rightfully belonging to the community as a whole. A way that this communal ownership can be exercised is by having the rent be collected by the community rather than by landlords or bankers (this scheme has been alternatively referred to as “ground-rent” collection or “land value tax”). The revenue from rents could then be divided up amongst the citizens of the community — a land-value dividend.
The idea of communal ownership of land is shared by classical anarchist thinkers. Bakunin says that “land, [the] property of everyone, will only be possessed by those who cultivated it.”(ibid.) Bakunin affirms both communal ownership of land and individual possession of it — these are two components of the land-value dividend scheme. It is not a far stretch then to suggest that maybe a land-value dividend can and will be instituted within an anarchist federation. “Like Proudhon and Bakunin, [Kropotkin] calls for the ownership of the land and factories by the producers themselves in village communities.”(Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Ch. 19)
“If a society, a city, or a territory, were to guarantee the necessaries of life to its inhabitants (and we shall see how the conception of the necessaries of life can be so extended as to include luxuries), it would be compelled to take possession of what is absolutely needed for production; that is to say — land, machinery, factories, means of transport, etc. Capital in the hands of private owners would be expropriated and returned to the community.”(Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, Ch. 8)
Where Kropotkin goes further than Bakunin is in asserting that the municipality (or commune) shall “guarantee the necessaries of life to its inhabitants” and shall do so by taking over ownership of land (among other things). Murray Bookchin’s vision of anarchism is very much in line with Kropotkin’s: “Distribution would be based on usufruct, complimentarity and the irreducible minimum…. all would receive the basic minimum to live…”(Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, Ch. 39) Kropotkin and Bookchin, of course, wishing to abolish the institution of money, insisted on in-kind provision of the necessities of life. Other anarchists, like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Benjamin Tucker, did not seek the abolition of money. Within the framework of market-anarchism, one can imagine the provision of the necessities of life being done in monetary terms, as a cash transfer — or, in other words, a citizen’s dividend or universal basic income. And, it’s worth noting that Bakunin himself advocated a basic income for children, the disabled, and the elderly — he came very close to advocating a universal basic income.
“From the moment that a woman bears a child in her womb, until she has delivered it, she has a right to a subsidy from society, paid not on account of the woman but on that of the child. Every mother who wants to feed and raise her children will also receive from society the full cost of their upkeep and the effort devoted to the children….
“The old, the disabled, the sick, surrounded by care and respect, and enjoying all their rights, both political and social, will be treated and abundantly provided for at society’s expense.”(Mikhail Bakunin, Principles and Organization of the International Revolutionary Society)
Given all of this, it’s not a stretch to imagine some sort of collectivist or market-anarchist arrangement where the community owns the land and where rent is collected from the possessors of land and divided up evenly amongst the members of the community as a dividend. In this case, you would have an anarchist system that essentially has a land value tax and a universal basic income.
Real-World Anarchist Communities
During the Spanish Civil War, there were anarchist municipalities that abandoned the government money but adopted a system of competing currencies issued by the collectives. They did not go the route of Kropotkin and abolish money altogether and proceed to provide the necessities to their members in-kind. Instead, they used money to help them allocate resources, in line with the theories of Proudhon and Bakunin. They also implemented universal healthcare on a social insurance basis, where doctors received wages as remuneration for their services. And, for the most part, they regarded land as communal property. It would have been quite easy for such anarchist communities to implement a land-value dividend given their organization and economic structure. And I imagine that a world of free municipalities, where decisions are made via direct democracy, would inevitably give rise to some communities that do a land-value dividend (or, in other words, land value tax and universal basic income). It also seems to me that those communities would end up being the most robust and prosperous communities in any anarchist federation and, therefore, that more and more municipalities (“communes”) would see their success and try to achieve the same for themselves by likewise adopting a land-value dividend scheme.
Dialectical Libertarianism and Universal Basic Income
Dialectical libertarianism is an approach that evaluates policies not in isolation but within their broader social, historical, and institutional context, judging whether a policy brings us closer to or further from a genuinely free and voluntary society. From this perspective, the implementation of universal basic income within the existing society can be seen not as a betrayal of libertarian principles but as a transitional tool that undermines coercive hierarchies and state/capitalist dependencies. In a world where land and resources have been monopolized through state violence and historical expropriation, basic income can function as restitution or reparations, redistributing unearned rents and reducing reliance on wage labor imposed by economic necessity. While not a final libertarian solution, a universal basic income may help dismantle structural barriers to freedom, enabling people to exit exploitative arrangements and build more cooperative, decentralized alternatives.
Furthermore, as I have argued above, in an ideal world where free municipalities are self-governed on a directly democratic basis, it is likely that some municipalities would adopt a universal basic income — and, it also seems to me likely that other municipalities would see how prosperous such a community is and likewise choose to implement basic income. Thus, in an ideal anarchist world, it seems to me to be the case that universal basic income would become the rule rather than the exception. For this reason, I argue that a state with universal basic income would be closer to the anarchist ideal than a state without one, so that the adoption of universal basic income is a move in the direction of anarchism. Even if we were to assume that anarchist communities would instead abolish money and do in-kind provision of necessities, it still seems to me that a capitalistic/statist system with universal basic income is still closer to that vision than the status quo is. Thus, from a dialectical libertarian perspective, there is a strong case to be made for supporting universal basic income in general.
