A Response to Rutger Bregman's Utopia for Realists

courtesy of https://thecorrespondent.com/utopia-for-realists

In 2010, Samuel Moyn argues that human rights was the last utopia1. Even though the concept of human rights continues to be the subject of contention, one thing is sure - the majority of the world favors the universalisation of human rights. We will spare the debate about the extent to which the universality of human rights is justified some other times. For now, let's stick to the notion of utopia.

But first, what is utopia? To understand the meaning of utopia we need to go back to the Structuralist way of understanding meaning. According to Structuralism, there is no logical explanation why a word means what it is. Therefore, the only way to know the meaning of a word is by knowing what it is not. Likewise, in order to know what utopia is, therefore, we have to know what utopia is not. Utopia is the opposite of real. In social science, utopianism is the antonym of realism. Therefore, utopia is unrealistic or imaginary reality.

Now, Bregman argues that something that is lacking in our world today is the tenacity to be utopian. For him it is important to nourish the utopian mentality, because the history has recorded that it is the utopian mentality that gives birth to democracy, human rights and other privileges that we today take for granted.

So what is the new utopian ideas that Bregman proposes? In the book, Bregman proposes several things: universal basic income, open borders, and less working hours (15-hour per week). Will these ideas become commonplace in the years to come? Only time will tell. For the time being, let us see what are the changes for these ideas to be realised.

Universal Basic Income 

Upon seeing that the world's economic disparity is quite huge, Bergman concludes that the time has come for the universal basic income to be realised . The world's wealth are concentrated in the minority few. This is true both within the domestic context and the international context. Domestically, the local billionaires own 75% of the national wealth. Likewise, internationally, the world's wealth are concentrated in the global north.

Seeing this fact, one can't help but question: is it ethical to have so much money when people around the world are dying of hunger? (If talking about ethics is even relevant in the context of how the current economic system works).

In the book, Bregman talks extensively about the general myth of the poor. That they are poor because they are lazy. Bregman debunks this myth arguing that poor people are poor because they have rough starting points. Yes, government and civil society organization have made remarkable efforts to address this issue by providing training and such - but, according to Bregman the fundamental thing that makes people poor is the lack of money. So, the only way to solve the issue is giving out free money.

When I was reading this part of the book, I was thinking about the logic behind "Dana Desa". Does Dana Desa have the same logic as Bergman's ? I haven't had any chance to research how successful the project is. But I will keep that in mind.

Bergman argues that giving out money has the highest potential to eradicate poverty, because only poor people know what's best for them. In other words, when poor people are given money, they will use it for things that matter to them. Instead of what the government or the CSOs think are best for them.

What do I think about this? To be honest I was a bit critical about Dana Desa. So, it is only natural that I am also doubtful about this point. I think Dana Desa is great, the only thing missing is guidance. Coming from a small desa in Aceh, I have the firsthand knowledge of how the money has been used. For the most parts, the money has been used for things that are unproductive such as buildings that won't be used at all. In other words,  money is spent without any future returns. I was hoping that the desa officers can get some sort of training on financing and project management.

So, yes - giving out money for the needy is the first step. The next step, they should be guided on how to use the money wisely.

Open Borders

Bergman uses the term the land of plenty a lot in the book, which I presume refers to the global north. In talking about the idea of open borders, Bergman supports the  migration from the global south to the global north. Although migration needs to be regulated, Bergman finds the current migration system that is heavily restricted to be the cause of economic disparity between the global south and the global north.

Here is the logic. People leave their homes, not because the dream about doing it. They leave their homes because they are forced to by the conditions: civil wars, gang violence, sexual and religious-based prosecutions, and poverty.

But, the sad reality is people who need the access the most who are discriminated against by the immigration system. Meanwhile, people who are rich and move to the country because they are going through a phase in life can easily come in and out.

So, should we take Bregman's recommendation seriously?

Less Working Hours (15 hours a week)

How realistic is this concept? I think it is a bit unrealistic to go for 15 hours per week. But I do think that the 9-8 working hours should be reimagined. Plus, with the technology we have today, less office time does not necessarily mean less working hours. It simply means that you take your job home. After all, everyone has laptop and mobile phone, which means that you can still be bothered about works at any time.

All in All

The book incorporates the style of an academic writing with engaging and convincing  story telling. These two elements make us, as readers, really consider Bergman's proposal. Beyond that, the book also presents a lot of philosophical and empirical justifications that make the arguments even more convincing. However, I can't help but notice that Bergman uses a high degree of generalisation and simplification in this book. The reality of our government system and the world politics are very complex - and thus, the are very far for simple. Still, the book makes a lot of great arguments that we should really put a lot of thought into.

Just one last thing. My postcolonial hat is a little bit offended by "the land of plenty" analogy of this book. I won't go into detail about it. Just want to put it out there.

If you are intrigued by this book, I suggest you to check this podcast where the author is interviewed and challenged by Ezra Klein on his political views. Although the podcast talks about Bregman's new book "Human Kind", I think they are still very much interlinked. (An update: just found their past interview on this book) 

Have you read the book? What do you think about it? 

1Moyn, Samuel. The last utopia: human rights in history. Harvard University Press, 2012.