by Andre Coelho | Jun 26, 2017 | News
Photo: Peter Knight
The global network Sufficiency4Sustainability (S4S), which advocates for sufficiency as a path to sustainability, was just founded in late May this year. It is composed of a web of thinkers, researchers, professors and professionals devoted to promoting “the development of public policies to provide enough for all and curb overconsumption.”
Founding members of the S4S network include economists like Ricardo Abramovay and André Lara Resende, ecology specialist Torrey McMillan, ecological economists Herman Daly and Clovis Cavalcanti and political scientist Sergio Abrantes. Peter Knight coordinates the network and serves as its webmaster, while also being an economist specialized in the use of information and communication technologies.
Knight believes that there are critical areas of human knowledge that are, at the moment, treated separately in general, and that humankind would benefit if these were more integrated. In short, these are sustainability, exponential technologies, sufficiency, artificial intelligence, universal basic income, public policies, changing values and alternative economics. Short explanations of these areas are given at S4S website.
In representation of basic income in the S4S network, Peter Knight contacted and got the interest of BIEN’s International Advisory Board Chair Phillipe Van Parijs. The former has also developed, over the years, a close relationship with Eduardo Suplicy, also a former member of BIEN’s Executive Committee and still active basic income activist.
The S4S network is an open ended organization, whose members “are exploring how changing values and public policies might result in lower material and energy use by the relatively well-off while raising the consumption of the poor to a level sufficient to meet basic human needs, resulting in a total worldwide material and energy consumption that is ‘sustainable’ in the sense that the planet can bear it without a massive die-off of population due to exhaustion of material and environmental resources”.
More information at:
The Sufficiency4Sustainability website
by Furui Cheng | Jun 15, 2017 | News, Research
In an article published in the Journal of Political Ecology, Professor Alf Hornborg of the human ecology division of Lund University proposes that each country establish a complementary currency for local use only, which would be distributed to all its residents as a basic income. In this way, humanity as a whole would regain justice and sustainability.
In pre-modern societies, monetized exchange was largely limited to long-distance trade in preciosities, while most basic needs were met through socially embedded relations of reciprocity and distribution. Radical institutional changes in the nineteenth century then made money a medium for obtaining all kinds of goods and services – what we might call “general-purpose money”.
Efficiency is the inherent logic in general-purpose money. Adam Smith identified the benefits of general-purpose money at the local level. Yet when such efficiency is pursued at the level of a globalized economy (possible because fossil fuels have minimized transport costs), the potential for power differences, polarization, exploitation and collateral damage is vastly greater. In this way, the claimed “efficiency” is perhaps even inverted. As long as we subscribe to the assumption of general-purpose money as the medium of exchange organizing human societies, exploitation and underpayment are inevitable implications of production processes.
Economists often deplore such negative aspects of globalization: environmental damage, increasing inequalities, growing regulations, and resource depletion. Yet few tend to consider general-purpose money as a cultural peculiarity to which there are alternatives. Not even Adam Smith drew this conclusion, nor did Karl Marx.
Hornborg suggests that current concerns with climate change and financial crises offer a historical moment for reflection on how the operation of the global economy might be reorganized in the interests of global sustainability, justice, and financial resilience. The societal objective must be to strike a balance between such distinct interests and concerns as market principles and capitalism, everyday local life versus global finance, and long-term sustainability and survival versus short-term gain. In Hornborg’s opinion, the solution is to establish ways of insulating these competing values from one another, rather than allowing one to be absorbed by the other.
To increase sustainability, reduce vulnerability, and diminish inequalities, he advocates a complementary currency issued as basic income. To the long list of questions one may have regarding this policy proposal, Hornborg provides some preliminary answers in his article.
In fact, addressing the negative aspects of general-purpose money itself is not a new idea. Silvio Gesell (1862-1930), a German-born entrepreneur living in Buenos Aires, was an early pioneer of this endeavor. John Maynard Keynes mentioned Gesell in his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
“It is convenient to mention at this point the strange, unduly neglected prophet Silvio Gesell, whose work contains flashes of deep insight and who only just failed to reach down to the essence of the matter. …their significance only became apparent after I had reached my own conclusions in my own way. …I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The preface to The Nature Economic Order will indicate to the reader, if he will refer to it, the moral quality of Gesell. The answer to Marxism is, I think, to be found along the lines of this preface.”
“Gesell’s specific contribution to the theory of money and interest is as follows. In the first place, he distinguishes clearly between the rate of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital, and he argues that it is the rate of interest which sets a limit to the rate of growth of real capital. Next, he points out that the rate of interest is a purely monetary phenomenon…This led him to the famous prescription of ‘stamped’ money, with which his name is chiefly associated and which has received the blessing of Professor Irving Fisher. According to this proposal currency notes would only retain their value by being stamped each month, …with stamps purchased at a post office… The idea behind stamped money is sound… But there are many difficulties which Gesell did not face.”
From the above, the reader can identify the similarities between Hornborg’s and Gesell’s proposals, from different perspectives, for redesigning and constraining the power of ‘man-made’ general-purpose money.
Alf Hornborg, 2017, “How to turn an ocean liner: a proposal for voluntary degrowth by redesigning money for sustainability, justice, and resilience,” Journal of Political Ecology.
John Maynard Keynes, 1936, Chapter 23 of “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” Palgrave Macmillan.
Article Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
by Cameron McLeod | Apr 28, 2017 | News
Charles Eisenstein is a degrowth activist, speaker and author of several books including “Sacred Economics,” and “The Ascent of Humanity” (some of which are available online for free), as well as a long time proponent of “alternative narratives,” political and economic ideas that challenge our current system. His work combines an interest in ecology with biology, earth healing, and the psyche. His podcast “A New and Ancient Story” airs every few weeks.
In a recent article on his personal website, Eisenstein asks, what is technology? “A fix,” Eisenstein suggests, maintaining that technology has become an addiction for our society, incapable of solving the problems we face today. “The entire scientific-industrial system has created” a “mindset of quantification, engineering, and control.” Eisenstein suggests that instead of pursuing the traditional “technology of separation” we must begin to pursue the “technology of reunion:” an expanded definition of technology. We must transcend the “story of separation” and enter instead into “the story of interbeing,” where “humans are not separate from nature,” and where “what we do to the world, we do to ourselves.”
Included in his examples of technological reunion are regenerative agriculture, homoeopathy, as well as the truth and reconciliation process. Alongside these, he places a “universal basic income (UBI) and community-based forms of resource sharing.” According to Eisenstein, the Society of Separation is sceptical of UBI, asking, “If basic needs were met, what would compel people to work?” He suggests UBI instead should be thought of as a way to support the impulse to grow and create things for the betterment of society, something Eisenstein believes one must take as given before UBI can be considered. UBI also supports “contributions that are hard to quantify,” such as lovingly raising children, caring for the elderly, or creating art and music.
UBI then fits into Eisenstein’s larger narrative of “the new and ancient Story of Interbeing”. “Some of these technologies will sound outrageous,” admits Eisenstein, who includes alongside UBI “sacred architecture; sound healing; hypnosis and mind/matter techniques; nonviolent communication; compassionate listening; sociocracy, holocracy and other group decision-making methods.” They may be difficult to take seriously because, on Eisenstein’s view, they “come from outside the boundaries of what we as a society have agreed to be real.”
For Eisenstein, UBI is a part of a new conception of technology, one of restoration rather than separation.
Article: Charles Eisenstein, “Institutes for Technologies of Reunion.” charleseisenstein.net, April 5 2017.
Credit Picture CC Taco Ekkel
by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 9, 2017 | News
The French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Ségolène Royal, has expressed some support for Socialist candidate Benoît Hamon’s basic income proposal, and noted that the idea has been “unjustly caricatured”.
As recently covered by Basic Income News, Hamon’s proposal involves introducing an unconditional basic income of 600 euro per month for young people in 2018, before eventually rolling out to all citizens and increasing to 750 euro per month.
In a television interview for France 3, Royal had the following to say:
“I find that this idea has been unjustly characterised. Eminent economists have shown that it’s not about calling into question the society of work, that it wouldn’t be a tool to discourage work – on the contrary, it’s a symbol that underlines the necessity of securing employees. […] I think that the idea is interesting – that ambiguities must be lifted, [but] that unjust attacks have been directed against universal income.”
A prominent member of the Socialist Party, Royal was famously defeated in the 2007 presidential election against Nicolas Sarkozy.
Her position in 2017, however, remains uncertain. Royal says that she remains open to supporting either Hamon or the more centrist Emmanuel Macron in the upcoming presidential election, depending on the candidates’ finalised manifestos.
Macron still hasn’t publicised his full platform. Although he previously indicated openness to basic income, the former Minister of Economy has since dismissed basic income on the ground that it might promote laziness. Macron now instead backs the proposal for a decent minimum income that has been pushed forward by the Leftist think tank Terra Nova.
The two-round election will take place on 23 April and 7 May. These candidates go up against the far-right Front National’s Marine Le Pen, the Conservative’s François Fillon, and the Left Party’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
The full interview, in French, can be viewed here (discussion of basic income begins at 6:45).
Read more:
“Ségolène Royal soutient le revenu universel de Benoît Hamon” [Ségolène Royal supports the universal income of Benoît Hamon], BFMTV.com, 6 February, 2017.
“Royal salue les «idées neuves» de Hamon et «attend» le projet de Macron” [Royal salutes the “new ideas” of Hamon and “awaits” Macron’s project], 20 Minutes, 5 February, 2017.
Genevieve Shanahan, “FRANCE: Hamon becomes Socialist Party presidential candidate following basic income-focused campaign”, Basic Income News, 30 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election”, Basic Income News, 22 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Minister of Economy says he is open to basic income”, Basic Income News, 26 January, 2016.
Additional reporting by Stanislas Jourdan
Photo: Ségolène Royal CC 2.0 by Ségolène Royal
by Jason Burke Murphy | Feb 3, 2017 | Opinion
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy: Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Written by: Katja Kipping
[A long translator’s note: Katja Kipping is chair of the Left Party (Linkspartei) in Germany and a member of the national parliament. She has served as spokesperson for Germany’s Basic Income Network (Netzwerk Grundeinkommen). Within the Left Party, she organized the “Emancipatory Left” faction and writes for the libertarian socialist magazine “Prague Spring” (Prager Frühling).
Kipping presented this lecture “Grundeinkommen als Demokratiepauschale” at the Basic Income Earth Network Congress in Seoul, Korea, July 19th. She has frequently argued for basic income throughout Germany and has helped organize a “Basic Income faction” that includes most political parties in parliament.
I have translated this with the hope that left organizations worldwide will pay attention to her vision of basic income as a core component for the democratic left. Basic income would provide a clear sign that the left has learned from problems wrought in the past by bureaucracy, technocracy, and authoritarianism. Kipping draws from a constitutional republican tradition of investigating institutions that promote robust citizenship and deliberation. See Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015. She also links her hopes with that of the degrowth movement. I see basic income, as Kipping presents it here, as an antidote to alienation and right-populism. Social analysis shows basic income to be part of the design of truly public institutions.
Any lapses in quality or argumentation should be attributed to me.
Please note that Kipping also presented in Dublin at the 12th Basic Income Earth Network Congress in 2008. “Moving to Basic Income (BI) – A left-wing political perspective” can be found at BIEN’s website.
You can a video of Kipping presenting the original German speech at https://bien2016.org/en/video-basic-income-and-politics-of-democracy/.
The text of her speech can be found at: https://www.katja-kipping.de/de/article/1112.grundeinkommen-als-demokratiepauschale.html. ]
Basic Income as All-inclusive Democratic Subsidy
Securing the Social Freedom and Economic Power for All People
Contents
- Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
- Economic Might for All – basic Income and democratic institutions
- Closing Remarks on social transformation
1. Social Freedom and Democracy – radical democratic approaches to basic income.
Radical democratic approaches to basic income pay close attention to the connections between people and to their mutual dependencies within a community. The community is here understood as something public and political. It is oriented towards the well-being of all and should be shaped by all. From this it follows that freedom should not be understood as a mere absence of intervention or interference. On the contrary, freedom should be understand as independence over against any arbitrary authority [Fremdherrschaft]. Freedom, in this sense, implies no arbitrary interventions or interference on the part of state institutions and also no possibility of such interventions and interference. Intervention is arbitrary if an intervention comes whenever the intervener wills it.
Freedom, on the other hand, is fulfilled primarily through self-governance. Self-governance is formed by social and individual organization and also by monitoring these potential interventions and the institutions capable of them. Individual freedom, viewed in such an intersubjective political context, is also social freedom. The highest value is active participation of all in the res publica – a collective deliberative democratic self-determination. This naturally implies social equality and the securing of social freedom, which implies preventing any economically grounded dominance and dependency. Laws and institutions also need to reflect, promote, and enable the common good and self-governance. (See Socialist Party South Korea 2009, Patry 2010, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2012, Cassasas/De Wispelaere 2015).
The following six theses on the establishment of a basic income as an all-inclusive democratic subsidy can be derived from these basic principles of radical democracy and social freedom.
- Basic Income must secure what a political community requires from each citizen in terms of money. This includes securing existence, social participation, and participation in political life. This unconditional guarantee of existence and participation has a monetary component. Non-monetary components also exist, such as free access to public goods, and to public infrastructure and services. These monetary and non-monetary components do not exclude each other but rather they complete one another. Both these monetary and non-monetary forms should, first, provide people socio-economic independence and, second, preserve their status as citizens with economic negotiating power whereby they can participate in the formation of society. Without the adequate safeguarding of free and equal conditions of social participation, no democratic participation is possible – formal possibilities for participation are not enough.
Whoever does not have enough material resources is first of all excluded from political participation and, secondly, doesn’t have enough negotiating power within political processes. This means that basic income, like all vital services, needs to be provided long-term. As I see it, this is not a problem in a time of high productivity and surplus. At most, it is a problem for those who do not want to give up economic privileges and political power. There is enough for all—worldwide!
- From a radical-democratic perspective, the basic income on a regular basis is preferable to single disbursements, like with a stakeholder grant or starting capital. Only regular payments can guarantee a lifelong income and its corresponding participation.
- The right to an unconditional basic income must be combined with a modern understanding of citizenship. A distinction between a majority of citizens and a minority of immigrants with regard to elementary socioeconomic rights and opportunities would lead to a problematic division of the community and a majority’s dominance over a minority.
- From a radical democratic viewpoint, people receive the unconditional basic income as equal members of the political community, not as part of a needy group that depends on the state. Any particular stigmatization of population groups splits the community and is a source for domination. That would still be true with a partial basic income (or transfers that do not secure survival or make social participation possible) that is supplemented by need-tested, income-tested, or asset-tested social benefits in order to reach a sufficient level.
It is clear that a person, who must make him or herself a stigmatized petitioner at the social office has a significantly harder time taking an upright path towards the political formation of the community. As Zygmunt Bauman formulated it: “The decisive argument in favor of the basic income is that it is the conditio sine qua non of a republic, as it can only exist in the union of people with self-confidence, of people without existential anxiety. A basic income which actually secures existence and allows social participation would establish a principle of citizens’ rights, rights that are not subject to a divisive and disqualifying ‘access test’ by need tests.” (Bauman 1999). [Note: this is a translation of the Bauman quote as found in Kipping’s speech. –JBM]
Therefore 5 holds: All citizens only have their rights fully recognized reciprocally through a sufficient basic income. This also means that more affluent citizens are comparatively more likely to contribute to the financing of the basic income than the less well-off citizens. This poses the question of the redistribution of economic resources and economic power.
- Basic income is not tied to any condition. An obligation towards any social or political participation would be sources of new domination. These would enable arbitrary interventions. The question of what makes something socially recognizable, and what does not, opens up a considerable amount of bureaucratic discretion. A citizen’s right to a basic income that included a direct citizen obligation would also transform voluntary engagement into regulated compulsory participation.
I would like to end this section with a quote from a German supporter of basic income who is also a politician. “It is farcical that MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] claim to maintain their substantial independence through relatively high salaries in order to make themselves non-extortionable but most of these deputies do not consider it necessary to ensure such independence and non-blackmail for the sovereign, the people” (Spehr 2003, 105). Basic income’s individual guarantee of a secure existence and participation is, alongside other forms of universal security for people (such as free access to public goods, social infrastructure, and social services), an indispensable prerequisite for social freedom, democratic and political engagement and the negotiating power for all people. It is an all-inclusive democratic subsidy!
2. Economic power for all – basic income and democratic institutions
Whoever says A must also say B. Who calls for basic income so that people can enter the public sphere with negotiating power must also call for the public shaping of our political foundations, economy, and everyday life (see Casassas and De Wispelaere 2012 and 2015). We need this to secure a basic income and other sorts of public services. Arbitrary interferences in human affairs through economic power, by endangering survival, health, and natural resources is not acceptable. An economy that is deprived of public organization, an economy that is privatized, is unacceptable. That also means that an economy and a financial sector that is immune to democratic control and influence is likewise unacceptable.
An imbalance in power through the deprivation of the public (privatization) in one form or another reaches deeply into real political and social power relations and removes the political and therefore citizens from the formation and control of public affairs. On the one hand, this includes power that arises from economic distribution—income, assets, and investment opportunities. This certainly also includes power in the realm of shaping and administering the economy and the financial sector. Who actually determines the use of natural resources, production resources, investment and the way in which economic activities are taxed? Who is exercising an alienated domination over the people today with real, unequally distributed, forms of design and control, and who subjects society and the economy to the will of a minority?
In addition to basic income and other forms of life and of participation for all people, social freedom requires the self-government of the citizens: by means of joint and individual control and appropriate intervention possibilities, which are secured by appropriately democratic institutions. These institutions must give all people the opportunity to shape social and economic life individually and collectively (see Cassasas / De Wispelaere 2015).
Economic power for all means basic income, including other unconditional support for existence. It also means the safeguarding of the economy and society for all and the institutionally secured public and political shaping of the economy and the society by all. This makes a democratic social transformation all the more necessary and urgent. Tomorrow, I am speaking at another conference about the challenge that this entails for the European left.
3. Concluding Remarks on Socio-Ecological Transformation
Poverty and exclusion, power over the many by the few, and destruction of the natural foundations of human life – that is the situation.
The international degrowth movement, which is committed to a world with significantly less natural resource consumption and to a rollback of ecological destruction and damage to our planet, therefore argues for the cohesion of ecology, democracy and social security of all people, and thus for the convergence of the various social movements and political actors (see Blaschke 2016).
It seems to me that only with this complex point of view and a committed relationship between social movements can the challenges of the 21st century be countered. Basic income, which in fact assures material existence and enables social participation, is an important component of a social-ecological transformation, which seeks to also be a democratic transformation!
Literature:
Bauman, Zygmunt (1999), In Search of Politics. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Blaschke, Ronald (2016), Grundeinkommen und Degrowth – Wie passt das zusammen? https://www.degrowth.de/de/2016/02/grundeinkommen-und-degrowth-wie-passt-das-zusammen/
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2012), The Alaska Model: A Republican Perspective. In: Karl Widerquist / Michael W. Howard (Ed.): Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Examining his Suitability as a Model, New York, 169-188.
Casassas, David / De Wispelaere, Jurgen (2015), Republicanism and the political economy of democracy. European Journal of Social Theory, September, 1-18.
Kipping, Katja (2009), Ausverkauf der Politik. Für einen demokratischen Aufbruch, Berlin.
Patry, Eric (2010), Das bedingungslose Grundeinkommen in der Schweiz. Eine republikanische Perspektive, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien.
Socialist Party South Korea, Unconditional Basic Income and General Social Care, Party Program, Supplement No. 1, 2009 (Translation of Socialist Party of South Korea, “Basic Income for All und Universal Welfare”, translation by Min Geum, https://www.grundeinkommen.de/ Content / uploads / 2010/08 / 10-05-22-bge-program-socialist-party-korea-endrb.pdf
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Spehr, Christoph (2003), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, in: Christoph Spehr (Hg.), Gleicher als andere. Eine Grundlegung der freien Kooperation, Berlin, S. 19-115.
Translated by Jason Burke Murphy, Elms College
