On March 31, 2012, a collective called POURS (“Pour un revenu social” – “for a social income”) organizes a large conference on basic income as a guaranteed right to existence.
Details : 9h30-18h, 31 March 2012, La Maison de l’Arbre – 9, rue François Debergue – 93100 Montreuil (Métro 9- Croix de Chavaux)
See also www.pourunrevenusocial.org
On March 29, 2012, a general strike was organized in Spain. At this occasion, Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark published a short document in which they link the demands of Spanish workers to the idea of a basic income. The authors ask: “Would it be madness, in these times, to propose that every member of the population should have his or her material existence guaranteed by means of a completely unconditional cash transfer? By a basic income?”
The full English version is available at: https://www.nodo50.org/redrentabasica/textos/index.php?x=967
This event will take place within the framework of the “Science Cafe”, a platform for panel discussions taking place at the Selxys bookstore in Maastricht. It provides a link between students, scholars, the academic world and the reality of people’s life.
In the 2 hour evening discussion, the audience will be invited to ask questions and to interact with the panelists. Five guests are going to discuss Basic Income in its sustainable dimension – as a solution to the to the problems our world is facing due to the unsustainable governance in the environmental as well as the social realm.
Guest speakers include:
Felix Coeln, chaiperson of Kölner Initiative Grundeinkommen (Köln, Germany), who shall look at the core philosophical idea of of separating income from working for a livelihood.
The German activist Bernd Hildebrandt, who will approaching the topic with from the bottom-up perspective, following the idea of “empowering” the least well off in society.
The Italian philosopher Emanuele Murra (currently at the Hoover Chair, Louvain university) will look at the link existing between material conditions and freedom, claiming that some economical right has to be considered as fundamental right.
Adrian de Grootruiz, an economics professor from Nijmegen, will incorporate the economic dimension in the debate.
Rene Gabriels, a Dutch philosopher, will have a critical look at the idea.
The event will take place on Tuesday 17 April, 20h00 at the Selexyz Bookshop, Dominikanerkerkstraat 1, Maastricht.
For further information:
https://www.sg.unimaas.nl/programma.asp?action=detail&id=777&lang=en
Most readers here will agree, that Basic Income would be a good way to solve many problems which exist in our societies, but why is the idea not supported by the populace? Even worse! It seems there is a strong resistance against.
Isn’t it strange, that an idea, which suggest to benefit every individual, cannot find broad support? For instance: more than 311 million people in the United States live, but the USBIG-Network has only around 300 Facebook-fans and roughly 250 official members – and not all of them are from the States. In other countries the situation is similar. The portion of people who are active BI-supporters seems to be in the scope of one thousand or even less…
Of course, we could say, quantity does not equal quality – it is better to have some hundreds of high qualified scholars than millions of followers believing in their personal advantage. But this view misjudges the reality of our democratic systems with their majority voting.
At all times every great thought, every good idea which shook the world later, had to walk a hard and sometimes dangerous way against existing resistances. But the democratic system makes it even more difficult. While to contradict a monarch requires some courage, to disagree with a current opinion, the risk of being considered as insane or in the worst case, to be banned, extends the needed courage ad infinitum.
In the past, Basic Income had many more supporters – for instance in the time of Martin Luther King and the citizens’ movement of the 1960s. But we still have nowhere a country-wide Basic Income scheme and maybe hence only orthodox believers kept the idea alive.
Does it mean we who support Basic Income are all brave and open-minded heroes, because we fight the good fight? Or does it rather mean, we are only too dense to find a way of making people more interested in the idea?
I think, this does not reflect the truth. Of course, it would be great to have catalysts in terms of people like Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Lady Gaga or George Clooney who are publicly known for their social commitments and who represent a kind of authority for many youths.
But globally people are searching for alternatives to the current systems. And the number of BI-supporters grows slowly, but steadily. More and more supporters suggest how to bring the idea into the general public, out of the often so called “ivory tower of science.”
One of the main problems is that there is no specific target group which is essential for marketing strategies. Another problem is that those who are affected by poverty are too busy to survive. And other people can choose between countless leisure activities. Most of them do not want to think about social solutions in their rare spare-time. Much less if the idea sounds utopian and for the near future not practical. Furthermore they elected a government exactly for the reason that it would deal with such issues.
Now we could say, it is the fault of governments not implementing a Basic Income scheme. But frankly speaking, governments are not elected to make trials. And there should be no doubt that Basic Income for all would change a lot; it might even cause people to begin to rethink the purpose of their life.
Further I want to question the necessity for governments to promote Basic Income. They got the mandate to maintain their respective society and not to affect the life of millions of potential voters.
As long as their is no insight into the necessity of the end of Basic Income, there is no reason to support this idea. The strongest resistance against Basic Income is the current situation which is considered as unchangeable and while we are powerless it is not wanted, but accepted with all its injustice.
However, the more people get acquainted with alternatives, often caused by their own circumstances, the more they question the given condition.
Maybe we should take this quote from Chekov to heart:
It is unfortunate that we try to solve the simplest questions cleverly, and therefore make them unusually complicated. We should seek a simple solution.
Unconditional Basic Income and Real Democracy lay the foundation for a society, in which we will live together in a free and creative way. The exceptional film project THE BIG CHANGE focuses on the spirit of the times producing an exciting political thriller. Designed as a non-profit-project, the future audience participates in the feature film, is a substantial part of it and will be able to view the film as a free download after completion. The new way of cooperating is finding its way into the film business and opens the way to a balanced society. System change on many levels – be part of it!
THE BIG CHANGE – the idea for this feature film existed long before it became a world-wide public movement. Till Schmerbeck [Resist! Intern Rebellion| Aufstand der Praktikanten] produces a political thriller after a screenplay by writer and director Peter Benkowitz.
The film creates awareness, supports a new way of thinking and the active participation in a socially just society. The volatile topic of distribution of power in our democracy, the forceful keeping of outdated structures from the last century – there are many reasons to question our system. We show a way to change it.
More Information and how to participate: www.THE-BIG-CHANGE.com
