MLK's "Guaranteed Income": Is Now The Time?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
MLK's Last Speech To the SCLC: "Where Do We Go From Here?" Watch from 29:50 if you wish to skip 'introductory" remarks regarding "the past" and steps already taken.
Full text of speech
speech text from 29:50 mark only
This speech really gets me.
But, specifically to the topical point, IS NOW THE TIME FOR THIS?
AND HE CONTINUES:
Along time ago I would have laughed at this suggestion, but now I'm not so sure. Now I'm not so sure at all. IS NOW THE TIME FOR THIS?
King's ultimate point here is that in two major ways "handing out money" will solve fundamental problems of society:
1. the abolition of dire want through the guarnateed income will elevate the SPIRIT of man
2. the removed imposition of menial employment to feed himself allows man freedom in time to respond to the more pressing needs of humanity generally. To contribute REAL good, not just menial labor, to the "economy" (ultimately, to society globally).
Of course there are some problems, and questions worthy of consideration in the *implementation* of this notion, but is not the notion itself sound in some fundamental way?
Consider that what is wrong with the economy right now is not a lack of ability, of man power, or of materials, but a lack of FREEDOM for most of those in the economy to DO what otherwise might be of benefit. Currently our resources (all of them, especially HUMAN) are MISAPPROPRIATED, bound up in debts unpayable, and otherwise confined by systemic ailments which in all likelihood can not be addressed in any way other than to RADICALLY alter the system itself.
Full text of speech
speech text from 29:50 mark only
This speech really gets me.
But, specifically to the topical point, IS NOW THE TIME FOR THIS?
MLK wrote:Now a lot of us are preachers, and all of us have our moral convictions and concerns, and so often we have problems with power. But there is nothing wrong with power if power is used correctly.
You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites, polar opposites, so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused the philosopher Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject Nietzsche's philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love.
Now, we got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. (Yes) Power at its best [applause], power at its best is love (Yes) implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love. (Speak) And this is what we must see as we move on.
MLK wrote:Now we must develop progress, or rather, a program—and I can't stay on this long—that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. Now, early in the century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. And in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.
AND HE CONTINUES:
MLK wrote:The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold: We must create full employment, or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available. In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote in Progress and Poverty:
The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by that of a taskmaster or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.
Work of this sort could be enormously increased, and we are likely to find that the problem of housing, education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished. The poor, transformed into purchasers, will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.
Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life are in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he knows that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife, and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.
Now, our country can do this. John Kenneth Galbraith said that a guaranteed annual income could be done for about twenty billion dollars a year. And I say to you today, that if our nation can spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight an unjust, evil war in Vietnam, and twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth. [applause]
Along time ago I would have laughed at this suggestion, but now I'm not so sure. Now I'm not so sure at all. IS NOW THE TIME FOR THIS?
King's ultimate point here is that in two major ways "handing out money" will solve fundamental problems of society:
1. the abolition of dire want through the guarnateed income will elevate the SPIRIT of man
2. the removed imposition of menial employment to feed himself allows man freedom in time to respond to the more pressing needs of humanity generally. To contribute REAL good, not just menial labor, to the "economy" (ultimately, to society globally).
Of course there are some problems, and questions worthy of consideration in the *implementation* of this notion, but is not the notion itself sound in some fundamental way?
Consider that what is wrong with the economy right now is not a lack of ability, of man power, or of materials, but a lack of FREEDOM for most of those in the economy to DO what otherwise might be of benefit. Currently our resources (all of them, especially HUMAN) are MISAPPROPRIATED, bound up in debts unpayable, and otherwise confined by systemic ailments which in all likelihood can not be addressed in any way other than to RADICALLY alter the system itself.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Many would simply label this a "redistribution of wealth," and, therefore, would reject it.
This is interesting: "And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis."
Programs were proposed (moreso in the UK) to make welfare and unemployment recipients work while receiving benefits. For example, an individual on welfare can clean a city park, the city streets, or help a church with a food drive. This is performing a social good. The problem today is that these programs seem to have gotten away from us; i.e., it seems that it is very difficult to enforce a program like this. Unfortunately, in order to reform programs like welfare, medicaid, unemployment, we need to pump some money into them. An analogy would be remodeling an old home.
This is quite heavy:
"In other words, "Your whole structure (Yes) must be changed." [applause] A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will "thingify" them and make them things. (Speak) And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. (Yes) And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. (Yes) [applause]"
and if you go down to southside Chicago and start handing out free money to "remove the imposition of menial labor to feed himself", that is, to remove the imposition of working for what one desires, I do not think it would have the stated effect of allowing the man more free time "to respond to the more pressing needs of humanity generally. To contribute REAL good".
Sorry.... but I don't see it.
That being said, RIP MLK. Your unwavering dedication to non-violent ways are an example for us all. And the African-American community, indeed all communities, need you now more than ever.