Review of “Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution,” by James Ferguson

Review of “Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution,” by James Ferguson

Give a Man a Fish: Reflections on the New Politics of Distribution, by James Ferguson (Duke University Press Books, 2015).

James Ferguson’s latest book focuses on the rise of social welfare programs in southern Africa, in the form of grants to low income and vulnerable groups, primarily the elderly, women and their children, and the disabled. Post-apartheid South Africa has led the way. It has an extensive system which administers grants to 30 percent of the population. Other countries like Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Mozambique have also implemented nationwide programs, while pilot programs are being tried elsewhere in the region.

Ferguson’s goal is not to provide an extensive ethnographic treatment of these developments, but rather to analyze their implications and the field of political possibilities they might open up. Half comparative ethnography, half political pamphlet, Ferguson’s impressive narrative is a tour de force questioning, deconstructing and reconstructing classic and contemporary notions of poverty, development and the welfare state in the region and beyond. Through a focus on direct cash transfers, the author brings together the anthropology of southern Africa, with the latest debates in development practice and anti-poverty activism.

Written in a highly readable style, the book is structured around a series of self-contained chapters, originally given as the Lewis Henry Morgan lectures in 2009 at the University of Rochester. One can easily read the chapters independently or as part of a larger whole.

Ferguson’s starting point is the contradiction between dominant narratives on the relentless expansion of the neoliberal state, and the substantial extension of state social provisions through grants. The modest size of these social payments sets them apart from more comprehensive welfare measures in Nordic countries, yet the author believes that this phenomenon marks the rise of what can be legitimately called “welfare states” in southern Africa. While their impact might be limited in the present form, the systems in place lay the foundations for more radical possibilities.

Breaking away from conventional welfare and poverty interventions, grants are not delivered with the final goal of reproducing a healthy and productive workforce in the cities, or creating a class of productive farmers in the rural areas. The eligibility criteria are simple – mostly age for pensions and child care grants – and do not include conditions like searching for employment or investing in productive activities.
This hints at economic structures that affect the vast majority of southern Africans: the rural areas are witnessing a constant decline in agricultural production, while the formal sector in urban areas, even when experiencing high growth, simply fails to absorb most people who are in need of employment. Far from being a temporary situation that can be rectified through economic policies, this is a chronic feature of contemporary capitalism in southern Africa and increasingly in other parts of the world, including Northern economies like the US and Europe.

The author points out that production remains the dominant paradigm in economic anthropology, development discourse and practice, and radical left thinking. He calls for a radical shift away from “productionist” tenets towards distribution. His wide-ranging critique builds on a re-elaboration of key themes in classic and contemporary southern African ethnography, from kinship-based reciprocity across the rural-urban spectrum to a mix of moral and economic concerns at play in sex, love and intimacy in times of precarious livelihoods.

The “distributive political economy” mapped by Ferguson is characterized by a myriad of acts of wealth distribution, entangled in multiple and complex relations of dependence influenced by configurations of gender, kinship, labor, community, ethnicity, society and the state. Rather than producing more wealth, this “distributive labor” is primarily directed at dividing sources of wealth into “smaller and smaller slivers as they work their way across social relations of kinship, clientage, allegiance, and solidarity” (p.97). It is this kind of activity that sustains and reproduces society, more than engagement in production as defined by macro-economic frameworks centered on the labor of able-bodied men in the formal sector and the reproductive work of women as wives and mothers. One powerful example of this reversal in South Africa is the shift from dependence of women, children and rural relatives on remittances from men working in the mines in the heyday of the apartheid economy, to the central distributive role played today by women and elderly people. The latter are the main beneficiaries of state grants, and disenfranchised men at the margin of the productive economy have increasingly come to rely on them.

Establishing and maintaining dependence on others who have access to wealth becomes a full-time job for those who are excluded from the benefits of middle class life. Dependence, in Ferguson’s treatment, has more to do with sharing than either gift or market exchange. Sharing and dependence cannot be easily subsumed under the conventional opposition between equality and inequality. These relations hint at a “new politics of distribution” beyond these two poles.

Within this framework, Ferguson convincingly reinterprets varied political movements calling for redistribution in the region, from the populist socialism of new radical movements in South Africa to the region-wide basic income grant campaign, and debates around land reform and resource nationalism. Calls for redistribution go beyond narrow views of African patrimonialism. People demand what Ferguson labels their “rightful share” in wealth that is owned collectively. Legitimate participation in this process can be framed along citizenship lines at the state level, but there are other levels of belonging too when local communities and traditional leaders are involved. These claims are not exercised from a position of inferiority or supplication. People own collectively all the resources of their community of belonging, hence they have a claim to a share of the wealth produced from these resources.

By inserting the normative and political dimensions of these movements into a long history of local idioms and practices, Ferguson provides a different angle on activist discussions around radical measures like the basic income grant (BIG). BIG is argued from a variety of perspectives, ranging from radical Marxism to left-leaning libertarianism and technocratic social democracy. The distinctive feature of a basic income is that it should not be tied to any condition and everybody should be entitled to it. The ideal world imagined by BIG activists is one where all human beings receive a basic income that would afford them a decent livelihood, with no compulsion to work for a wage or generate income through other activities. This is a radical break from existing welfare measures that tie unemployment benefits to the reintegration of beneficiaries in the labor market. In line with other activist scholars, Ferguson notes that these emerging state systems of cash distribution provide an essential infrastructure for the possible establishment of BIG. At the same time, his anthropological analysis develops moral and political arguments in favor of BIG that are grounded in local discourses and aspirations, a dimension often missed by global activist groups and regional campaigners.

Ferguson joins a growing number of anthropologists who subvert the conventional boundaries between analysis and engagement. With his creative and flexible analysis, he provokes thinking for action beyond narrow ideological boundaries. One could imagine enthusiastic endorsements of his work by Marxist campaigners, World Bank technocrats and traditional leaders alike. This highly original book is likely to leave a lasting mark not only on contemporary anthropological debates around poverty and development, but also policy and activist thinking in southern Africa and beyond.

This review was originally published in Anthropology Book Forum.

Book review: Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson, Modernising Money: Why our monetary system is broken, and how it can be fixed

modernising-moneyAndrew Jackson and Ben Dyson, Modernising Money: Why our monetary system is broken, and how it can be fixed, Positive Money, 2012, 0 9574448 0 5, pbk, 334 pp, £14.99

A bank loan is a change in the electronic digits attached to my bank account number. The bank has simply created the money that it has lent to me. The message of this book is a very simple one: This shouldn’t be allowed. The only institution that should be able to create money is an independent public body.

Modernising Money recounts the history that gave rise to the current state of affairs; shows that 97% of money exists in the form of bank deposits; and discusses the factors that determine how much banks lend, and therefore the size of the money supply. Much of the money created by the banks buys assets that are in limited supply, such as houses, and it therefore creates price bubbles. Too little of it is employed as investment in the productive economy. If the loans are not repaid, then lending stops and a recession is the result. Interest on public and private debt transfers money from the poor to the rich and so increases inequality; and the payment of interest requires climate-changing economic growth: but attempting to reduce the level of debt reduces the money supply and can lead to recession.

Clear and persuasive diagnosis is followed by a clear and persuasive prescription. Banks should be prevented from creating money, and an independent body should be charged with creating money and spending it into the economy as government spending, tax reductions, debt repayment, payments to banks on condition that the money is lent to productive businesses, and direct payments to citizens. Chapters then discuss the transition between the current system and the new economy that would be created by the new method for creating money, and the impacts of the new system on democracy, the environment, household indebtedness, the banks, and businesses are debated. As the concluding chapter puts it, ‘the monetary system, being man-made and little more than a collection of rules and computer systems, is easy to fix, once the political will is there and opposition from vested interests is overcome’ (p.283).

In some ways the situation relating to money creation mirrors the one facing our tax and benefits systems. Both have evolved over time, both exhibit complexities, both are tangled up with a wide variety of other aspects of our society and our economy: and genuine reform of both is resisted because the transitions look difficult and the effects of change are difficult to predict. It is precisely these aspects of the two situations that make it so difficult to generate the necessary political will to create the necessary change. Both fields would benefit from Royal Commissions or similar wide ranging consultation exercises. In both cases, the international effects of making the recommended changes would be important matters for discussion, as would be the details of the transitions that would need to be managed between the current situation and the future situations envisaged by the authors of this book and by the Citizen’s Income Trust.

The book has no index, which is a pity: but otherwise it is a well-produced, informative and well-argued essay that deserves attention.

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Debt: The First 5,000 Years, by David Graeber (New York: Melville House, 2011). Review by Brent Ranalli

Most histories of money are histories of coins, tokens. But coins come and go with empires. Money has much deeper roots in the forms of obligation that bind together even the simplest societies. It takes an anthropologist to write a truly universal economic history, and that is what David Graeber has accomplished with Debt: The First 5,000 Years. With its wide scope, Debt offers valuable perspective on contemporary issues. The problem of economic insecurity that makes Basic Income so urgent today is not a unique feature of modernity or capitalism (though modern technological advances make possible for the first time a universal Basic Income as a solution), but has been with us since the development of money per se-that is, financial credit, or debt-at the dawn of civilization. The number of people that get into debt today because of money issues and not being able to earn enough to live, is astounding. Luckily there is help out there, such as advice from Debt Consolidation USA, reading books like Debt, etc. to help people get back on their feet if they have had to take a financial blow. They may advise you on the best strategies to removing yourself from such a stressful situation with tools that are available to you, such as life settlements. If you are over the age of 65 you can sell your life insurance policy for a little extra cash and subsequently pay off any debts you may have. There are other ideas too, this is to name but one. The important thing is for people, who have got too far into debt that they find themselves in a situation where debt collectors are at their door, is to ensure that they are aware of the debt collection state laws so that nothing bad happens during the process so that it is all above board.

The book is divided into two parts. The first is analytical, and the second is synthetic. Graeber begins by demolishing conventional myths of economic history, starting with the notion that before money and markets were invented, barter was the normal mode of exchange. In fact, as anthropologists have tried to explain to economists for over a century, barter is almost unheard of in traditional societies. Within communities, food, clothing, tools, and other everyday items might simply be distributed freely from one person to another in accordance with a strong sharing ethos, or distributed from a communally managed stock, or exchanged in a tit-for-tat fashion (so-called “gift economies”), or exchanged as debits and credits in a “virtual” currency that never actually changes hands. Many so-called “primitive currencies,” high-status items like cattle or hand-woven cloth, change hands primarily for purposes of rearranging human relationships (e.g., sealing a marriage contract or compensating the family of a murdered individual). Barter, when it does occur in traditional societies, tends to crop up on the margins of economic life, when people trade with strangers and potential or actual enemies. The modern triumph of money and markets can be seen to represent, in a way, the remaking of society as a collection of strangers or potential enemies a la Hobbes.

Similarly, Graeber turns on its head the conventional notion that the state and the market stand in opposition. In the grand scheme of history, markets (where strangers meet to buy and sell) have been handmaidens of the state, especially the war-making state that needs to provision armies. Only in rare circumstances (e.g, medieval Islam) have markets been sustainable without being substantially propped up by the state for enforcement of contracts, etc.

Meetings of strangers (at the interstices of traditional societies, and in the ancient and modern marketplace) always hold the potential for violence, and one of the themes of the book is the actual violence and constant threat of violence that went into making the seemingly polite modern bourgeois economic order: from the degradation and dispossession of women, whose exchange holds together traditional patriarchal societies, to debt-peonage and debt-slavery, to the war-making that created a demand for markets that could satisfy the appetites of soldiers carrying state-minted coins and war booty, to the extraordinarily harsh laws of early modern England (for example) that criminalized traditional credit-based modes of exchange.

Credit systems preceded the use of coined money in the ancient civilizations of Eurasia. But regardless of whether money is tangible or virtual, the normal, predictable course of events in every society that employs money is for money to be lent (often at interest–an ancient Mesopotamian innovation), and for some or most debtors to become trapped in debt. And the normal endgame of debt in the ancient world was for the debtor’s family members, and in extremis the debtor himself, to be reduced to slavery. In both the ancient and modern worlds, Graeber chillingly demonstrates, enslavement (and other forms of compulsion–peonage, indentured servitude, wage slavery) and trade in slaves has been intimately bound up with debt. Time and again, debt has been the siphon that sucks victims into the system of exploitation, and also the motor that drives the exploiters–both the grand masters (monarchs, conquistadors) and the petty functionaries–to take the desperate step of destroying others’ lives.

The story of civilization is in large part the story of how different societies have coped with the perennial debt trap that afflicts all societies that employ money. Mesopotamian kings offered periodic amnesties, erasing personal debts and freeing slaves to return to their families. The ancient Israelites adopted the practice and formalized it in the custom of Jubilees. Some groups prohibited the charging of interest, or set conventional bounds (that interest should not exceed five percent, or that the total interest charged should not exceed the value of the principal). The ancient Greeks and Romans met their debt and slavery crises by programs of imperial expansion that generated viable new economic opportunities for younger sons and filled the public coffers with booty and tribute–money that could be directed to the poorer classes of citizens to prevent them from falling into the debt trap, via direct payment (like the stipends Greek democracies paid their citizens for jury service, a sort of BI for the demos) or subsidies (like the Roman breads and circuses). Through custom or law, some societies took the more radical steps of abandoning or outlawing slavery and/or establishing bankruptcy protections for debtors.

Graeber detects a general pattern in the (Eurasian) history of monetary practices and debt-coping strategies, and the second half of the book is devoted to explicating that pattern–essentially, retelling the traditional story of civilization through the lens of money, debt, and slavery. The earliest Mesopotamian civilizations were pioneers of the use of money (credit money), and early victims of the debt trap, which their leaders periodically reset with general amnesties. Desperate debtors not infrequently took matters into their own hands as well, and fled with family and flocks to the outlying hills to join the fearsome “habiru” (a word that meant outlaw, fugitive, mercenary). Periodic waves of these groups descended to prey on and take control of civilized urban Mesopotamia, as their presumed counterparts the Hebrews to their West descended in strength upon Egyptian Canaan.

The “axial age” is a recognized watershed in Eurasian history. There was simultaneously in China, India, and the Mediterranean world a flowering of empire and cultural creativity. Graeber convincingly links these political and cultural developments to the (still mysteriously simultaneous and independent) invention of coined money. With the invention of coin and the establishment of markets, ancient states could raise, feed, and field massive armies, and engage in wars of conquest on scales previously unknown. The use of coin facilitated anonymous economic transactions, and deepened and widened the debt trap (except for the lucky subsidized few in the successful imperial powers like Athens and Rome, at least while those empires continued to expand). Expansive war also meant taking large numbers of captives, and these too became slaves. Slavery became an enormous and intrusive social institution, part of the fabric of everyday life.

As coined money entered public consciousness, intimating that everything could be weighed and measured, materialist philosophies arose in all the great ancient civilizations. And idealistic and humanistic philosophies and religious movements arose in defiant protest, these latter being the great philosophies and religions for which we remember the axial age–Greek philosophy against the sophists, Indian Buddhism against Vedic ritualism, Chinese Confucianism against legalism.

Graeber traces the contours of a gradual and staggered transition from the axial age to the “middle ages.” The general story is that the axial empires run out of steam and collapse, coin is replaced by credit (often still denominated in old imperial currencies), pre-market forms of traditional exchange (trust-based, community-based) re-emerge into prominence, social and/or state safeguards are developed to minimize or eliminate the debt trap, and the institution of slavery is abandoned. The story varies from region to region though, providing some interesting contrasts and highlighting the ingenious variety of different societies’ solutions to common problems. In China, for example, the axial imperial system never collapsed–it merely adapted, and used state power in various ways to marginalize the merchant class and protect the poor–or be overthrown by a new regime pledged to do a better job. In India, the state more or less shriveled away, and rural society governed itself via custom and caste–again, the money-managing merchant class being put in its place among the lower orders. In Islam, a thorough and unprecedented separation was achieved between church and state. Merchants took a leading role in religion, and collectively abandoned the practice of usury on religious grounds. As the merchant class was effectively governed by a religious code of honor, no intervention by the state was necessary to enforce contracts. Rather than meddling in economics or religion, then, the state in the Islamic world devoted itself to continued imperial conquest–and continued to capture and employ slaves, paradoxically arming them and employing them as soldiers for further conquest (a practice that religious leaders condoned, since captured enemies–unlike debtors–could legitimately be regarded as having forfeited life and liberty, and using foreign slaves as soldiers eliminated the messy business of Muslims bearing arms against Muslims). In Europe, markets, money and state shriveled nearly away and traditional modes of exchange blossomed. The Church (at least at first) took a hard line against usury; popular sentiment militated against the institution of slavery.

Around 1450, the pendulum swung the other way again. There was a new era of imperial conquest, of war-oriented cash economies, of mining and minting, and of slavery, centered in Europe. As sophisticated credit instruments imported from Islam were married to a metals-based cash economy, yawning new debt traps opened up, ensnaring people of all station, from kings and magnates to common soldiers and traders, while tearing apart other societies on multiple continents. There was at the same time a new cultural Renaissance in Europe, with a surge of materialism and an attendant backlash of more humane philosophies and religious movements.

Graeber perceives, or anticipates, a shift in our own day back in the other direction, away from imperial war, cash, and markets, back in the direction of stability, community, safeguards against the debt trap, and new and traditional forms of trust-based credit. He is light on predictions, and contents himself with arguing that our contemporary global financial system is in a likely terminal crisis (which, for the sake of convenience at least, he dates from Nixon’s 1971 decision to make the dollar a free-floating currency).

The book is an extraordinary feat of synthesis, and most of it is convincing and well-argued. I take issue with only a small handful of points. The weakest point, it seems to me, is Graeber’s conviction that capitalism is necessarily doomed. He makes a strong case that capitalism is by no means the end of history, that it is morally flawed, and that the financial sector in particular is careening out of control in a manner that could destabilize the whole. But his confident and repeated assertion that capitalism with free wage labor is impossible, that under capitalism the world’s population could never, even in principle, achieve middle class living standards, appears to be special pleading. In world history, the institution of the market had its origins in war and violence, but today (as Graeber himself acknowledges) it has left those roots behind and become tame and bourgeois. Capitalism too is historically rooted in brutal exploitation. But could not capitalism too eventually become as tame, hasn’t it already made extraordinary progress in that direction since the days of Dickens and Marx? If every last Chinese peasant finds a job with a dental and retirement plan, it would seem to signify not the demise of capitalism, only that consumers will pay incrementally more for Chinese products. Graeber’s pronouncements about the imminent demise of capitalism are particularly ironic, coming as they do practically in the same breath as his observations that for centuries economists and industrialists have been expecting the system to collapse and it has not done so.

Graeber has essentially acknowledged in post-publication interviews that the collapse of the ~1945-1975 “deal” that gave U.S. and European workers a modest share of the economic pie was not a matter of structural limits: rather, it was a matter of what concessions those at the top of the pyramid were willing to make. Those at the top might have made other choices, and one might argue that they were foolish not to continue investing in expanding the pool of middle-class consumers. They still might make better choices, or their hand might be forced, without anything that resembles an end to the current economic order. Establishment of a Basic Income Guarantee is one scenario that would facilitate transition to the less exploitive economy Graeber envisions while leaving the current system of finance and production intact.

Graeber’s analysis of debt and slavery helps us to make sense of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. Politically and morally we moderns find slavery abhorrent, and as a global society we have succeeded in legally abolishing it. But the logic of debt continues to push many participants in today’s economy close to the edge of slavery and sometimes over the edge; the legal and moral and political consensus starts to buckle. Globally we see a flourishing traffic in poverty-induced sex slavery and illicit organ harvesting. In the U.S., we see the political class weakening bankruptcy protections while consumer debt and student debt soar to crisis levels. And the poorest and most vulnerable in the U.S. are liable to be sucked into a burgeoning prison industrial complex whose work programs constitute de facto slavery. We do appear, as Graeber suggests, to be living in a period of transition; it remains to be seen whether the moral and legal sanctions against slavery will hold up under stress, and whether the debt burden that contributes to the stress can be moderated or eliminated in a timely fashion by policies like Basic Income.

Credit photo: CC Steve Rhodes

Greece budget proposal 2015

Introduction.

This budget does not take into account the debt problem. The author thinks that the only realistic way out of the crisis is to give a debt moratorium of 5 years and discuss that topic 3 years from now.

The depth of the Greek crisis is an opportunity to depart from the classical views regarding the organisation of a state, dating back to the 1950’s, to implement a system taking into account the two recent and biggest revolutions in mankind:

  1. the human brain aid (computers, pda ..) replacing in part the brain power of humans, like motors did replace the muscles of Man and horses 200 years ago.
  2. The word wide free and fast communication network.

Today, only 8% of the population is needed to produce everything: food, industrial products and buildings. The model of the fifties is “job-centric”. The model presented here is the model of 2015: it is based on distribution of purchasing power. Jobs will follow the purchasing power (the current doctrine is that we should create jobs to generate purchasing power), for those who are still thinking in terms of jobs.

Greece, like many other countries, has a long history leading to 2015, the age were machines largely replace man to produce goods. Any citizen has the right to benefit from the heritage of his country, which is now capable to produce all goods we need with just 8% of the population.

We have created a huge social capital. Every citizen should get a dividend from that capital. We call it the social dividend or “basic income”, an income where we don’t need to work for, just like rich people live from their heritage. All citizens get this social dividend. Some part in cash, some part in kind. The amount in cash depends on their age (see table in the budget).

The amount in kind is given in education checks, healthcare checks and “coaching” checks. Citizens choose their education, healthcare and coaching service provider who gets money from this “social dividend in kind” fund within the state budget.

Both education and healthcare will see drastic changes the coming years, due to aforementioned massive global revolutions. The country will witness an unprecedented increase in education and healthcare – entrepreneurs.

Those services may even attract customers from abroad.

Every citizen will have the right to be “coached”, which will help all citizens to address problems and opportunities in their lives. This coaching system will hugely reduce criminality and improve productivity.

Since working people will get a social dividend of 350 € per month, somebody earning 1100 € net now would have the same total income if he/she gets a net salary of 750 €. The basic income system makes labour less expensive for the employer, the employer being public or private.

That is why the in the budget figures, the cost for public servants, but also for education and healthcare looks so low: a part of their salary is paid, so to speak, by the social dividend.

social security social dividend : basic income
age cash cheques total number cash dividend coaching
€ pp pm € pp pm € pp pm billion €/year billion €/y billion €/y
0-17 75 50 125 2270000 2.0 1.4
18-25 250 50 300 1180000 3.5 0.7
26-60 350 50 400 5130000 21.5 3.1
61-67 400 50 450 1020000 4.9 0.6
68 + 500 50 550 1400000 8.4 0.8
11000000 40.4 6.6 47.0
sum
public service employees (remuneration on top of social dividend)
net € pp pm billion €/y
salary soc divid. total budget
national 1050 350 1400 100000 1.260
local 800 350 1150 100000 0.960
army 1050 350 1400 1000 0.013
police + 900 350 1250 100000 1.080
justice 1050 350 1400 10000 0.126 3.4
311000
Public investments and current purchases 16
Total public expenditure except loan repayments 66.5

 

Obviously, some assumptions have been made regarding numbers of people kept in public service and the reorganisation of public services relating to security (police, army, ..) which could be looked at in a different way. Education, healthcare and coaching are paid by the government through the social dividend in kind. The demand side remains “public” and fully subsidised. The “offer”–side becomes, to some extent, market driven. The cost is only 6.6 billion because a significant part of the cost of these salaries is paid through the basic income grant to the people working in those branches.

 

subsidised by social security cheques
education 800 500 1300 240000 2.304
healthcare 800 500 1300 240000 2.304
coaching 800 500 1300 200000 1.920 6.5

On the public income side, VAT is increased to 30% and collected better to move it from 14 to 24 billion €. Other consumption tax is increased from 10.7 to 15 billion € mainly by increasing prices for fuel and a new consumer tax on electricity of 10 eurocent per kwh should bring 4 billion €. Social security contributions are abolished. Payroll tax will be levied only above a net income -including basic income- of 1150 € per month . It is expected that the majority of the employees will not pay payroll taxes anymore. However, anything earned above that threshold will be taxed at 50%. We expect this tax to generate 14.4 billion €. Corporate income tax is replaced by corporate eco-tax. This is a tax on energy consumption mainly, but not exclusively. Taxes on property should generate more and a tax on financial transactions should bring another 1.5 billion €

TAXES PLAN NOW
Consumption billion €/y
   VAT 23 14
   Other 15 10.7
   tax on electricity 4
Labor
   sociial security levy 0 22
   personal income 14.4 13.5
Corporate/Wealth
   Corporate income 0 2.2
   Corporate ecotax 4
   Property 5 3.7
   Financial transaction taxes 1.5
Total 66.9 66.1

 

United Kingdom: Cambridge Students Discuss BIG

On 30th January 2015, Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) Women’s Campaign hosted ‘Feminist Fightback workshop on Anti-capitalist Feminism and Basic Income.’ Three women from ‘Feminist Fightback’ collective introduced history of the idea and current campaigns on basic income, and also their own anti-capitalist feminist struggle. Around 30 people turned up and had good discussions.

 

For CSUS Women’s Campaign, see:

https://www.womens.cusu.cam.ac.uk

 

For Feminist Fightback collective, see:

https://www.feministfightback.org.uk

 

from https://www.feministfightback.org.uk

from https://www.feministfightback.org.uk