Marxism largely provides two damning critiques of capitalism: alienation and exploitation. Exploitation is loosely defined as the extraction of surplus value from the labourer’s creation by the capitalist. Since the labourer is solely responsible for the creation of this value, they are being exploited by the capitalist in not receiving the full value of their creation.

A common, although unconvincing, reply to this Marxist critique is that since the labourer is freely choosing to accept this job, knowing that they will not receive full value for their services, they are not being exploited. However, it would appear that in some sense, they are still being exploited; this relates to the necessity of work in order to survive. While one may choose any job they like, they are coerced into working in order to provide themselves an income in order to survive and ensure themselves a basic quality of life.

Thus it seems another solution is necessarily for capitalists in order to sidestep the issue of exploitation without completely abandoning ship. While the charge of exploitation as highlighted above does appear to be unjust, as the labourer is forced into working a job that will not duly compensate them for the value they create, it is possible to avoid this while still maintaining strong capitalism. The solution as such is to create a universal basic income in which each adult individual is provided a base salary simply in virtue of being alive, an adult, and human. By doing so, it allows for the exploitation critique to be minimized, or even discharged entirely.

With a universal basic income in place, no individual is forced to work in order to survive, as was priorly possible. This means that in accepting a job, the labourer does indeed consent to having their surplus value extracted, but seem to not be exploited as they are no longer forced into this position due to the necessity of the income to survive. As such, it would appear that the charge of exploitation has diminished weight, if any.

While exploitation may be avoided, there may exist a myriad of other problems in instituting a universal basic income. Firstly, one must worry that the workforce will be so diminished with such a policy that society’s current standards of living, or perhaps even capitalism as a whole, are no longer sustainable. Secondly, there would appear to be an issue of how to properly compensate parents. A single mother with 5 children would clearly need a larger income than a single bachelor with no children. However, subsidizing children too much would perhaps incentivize having children simply for a larger cheque, while subsidizing them insufficiently would appear to not adequately allow for parents to have the ability to focus on their children and not be forced into exploitation.

In regards to the first critique, it would seem unlikely that capitalism as a whole would collapse. While people may be inclined to leave their current jobs due to the decreased need for the income, it is unlikely they would go their entire life unemployed. Work is largely a method of finding fulfillment in one’s life. While one may leave their current job at the time of the instatement of a universal basic income, this will likely only be temporary, as they search to find a job in which they love and can find fulfillment, not simply an income. This would appear to have the benefit of increasing the well-being of society as a whole, as individuals are given the ability to find a job in which they are fulfilled and happy, which would provide may beneficial secondary effects for society as a whole.

While capitalism is likely safe from collapse, it could perhaps be possible that society’s current standards of living may be unsustainable. Many jobs needed to maintain the consumerist culture of today are largely menial, uninspiring and boring jobs that do not help to provide the fulfillment in one’s life that one may opt to search for with a universal basic income. So, it may then be seen that these jobs go unfilled, and many of the products in which we have become so reliant on exist in diminished supply and are increasingly inaccessible to many. This would appear to entail the problem of exacerbating the issues of income inequality. While this highlighted issue is certainly a potential problem, due to technological advances, it would seem that most menial jobs could be fulfilled by technology, machines, or AI. While certainly not all could be filled at this point in time and they may indeed be a slight drop-off in availability of products reliant on labourers filling these positions, the change would likely be small enough that the benefits of universal basic income offset this loss.

In regards to the second critique concerning children, it would seem to be better to overcompensate children than under. While overcompensation may certainly result in the misuse of the institution of child-bearing, this could largely be counteracted by increased penalization for the mistreatment and inadequate caregiving towards children. Perhaps as a requirement for receiving a child credit, it would be necessary to be inspected and ensured that the children are adequately being cared for. Alternatively, it may be possible that a child credit is received in vouchers, rather than income, which are only redeemable on such matters that relate directly to childcare, are are perhaps overseen more, to ensure proper use of funds. Either solution would appear to help minimize the negative effects of providing a child credit, at least enough so that the universal basic income is still a net benefit.

The Marxist exploitation critique certainly highlights some of the inherent injustice in an unregulated capitalism. However, the enactment of a universal basic income allows for this to largely be remedied. While there also may appear to be problems associated with the universal basic income, they appear to be outweighed by the net benefits for society as a whole, and thus is would appear that the universal basic income is the proper next step for capitalist economies to take, so long as they maintain their claim in the fundamentality of justice.