"There has never been a social policy without a social movement capable of imposing it" - Pierre Bourdieu, acclaimed French sociologist
‘Citizen’s Income Toronto’ was founded in 2007 to make a start at building a new social movement. The idea of ending poverty by simply ending it, by ensuring everybody has enough money to live on without condition, is old. It has been simmering away for centuries but has been coming to the boil in this century. There is a growing realisation around the world that the capitalist/ imperialist/corporatist age is coming to a close. For the first time, there is a world wide consensus about what the alternative is. It is not a Marxist, anarchist, socialist, pacifist, or libertarian utopia, but takes ideas from all of these. There appear to be three arms or basic principles to this evolving order. One is participatory democracy. One is an ecologically balanced, co-operative, and steady state economy. The other is a guaranteed, basic, adequate, unconditional income for everyone. None of these will work without the others. To have a participatory democracy, everyone must have the time and material well-being to be able to participate. People will never consent to an end to growth and to the overuse of the natural resource base, unless they can be guaranteed an equitable sharing out of the limited wealth available from the natural world and our existing technology. The only way to negotiate an equitable distribution is through a true democracy, in which everyone can really participate. Canadians are starting to understand that there cannot be infinite economic growth in a finite world. We also have a movement for democratic reform in Canada. Several attempts have now been made to establish a proportional representation voting system in provincial government. Canadians are starting to be aware of the concept of participatory government. A few of our municipal governments have experimented with it. The model for it is the system of Porto Allegre in Brazil. There, the entire population is allowed to participate in local planning councils which decide the city budgets and many planning issues. What people from places where participatory democracy is in use notice when they observe political meetings in Canada is that we rush decisions through, without taking time to hear all points of view. What these people tell us is that true democracy takes time and we have to give ourselves time. But Canadians are among the most overworked people on earth. Our civil society, community groups, neighbourhood associations, have largely collapsed because there is no one to keep them going. The command of our economic masters to work, work, work, or be thrown literally into the gutter, is as much about social control as it is about productivity. There are many reasons for the voting reform and economic/ environmental movements to support each other and the citizen’s income movement. When everyone who wants to can participate, these movements will become unstoppable forces. People must win for themselves the time to be active citizens in a participatory democracy, as well as to enjoy more time for themselves. And a shortened work week is the solution for over production and depletion of the environment. In the next fifty years humanity will either transform into a new kind of society and economy based on co-operation rather than competition, or will collapse into a dark age. In western civilisation, we have had examples of free citizens managing their communities; the Greek city states, the free cities of the middle ages. They failed because of outside pressure but also because the need for productivity forced some people into subordination to others. Now technology gives us a global world and frees us from most of the need for work. The idea of active citizenship in a participatory democracy gives us the principle for managing this new kind of society. ‘Citizenship’ still seems absurd to those Canadians in precarious employment. But if our situation is going to improve, we need to become active citizens. A guaranteed income will not be graciously bestowed upon us. We need to learn the self organising skills that will enable us to gain it, and then to maintain it. naming the rose Right now the great debate is on over what exactly to name the concept of giving everybody enough money to either survive or to live adequately. The terms ‘Basic Income’ and Guaranteed Income’ and ‘Guaranteed Adequate Income’ and even ‘Guaranteed Annual Income’ are now popular. ‘Mincome’ and ‘Guaranteed Minimum Income’ are falling into disuse. There is also debate about the amount to be ‘guaranteed’ and how often the amount should be given and how. People try to drag in various ‘philosophic’ problems which are not serious and show their continuing commitment to a competition-based society. All these issues can be dispensed with quickly. People need their incomes in regular instalments at least every month and preferably biweekly. This precludes any ‘negative income tax’ scheme. It will be a cheque in the mail or a direct bank deposit, for everybody. The correct term for such a government program is ‘demogrant’. The amount of the demogrant is that which enables a person to be a full citizen of society; nothing more, nothing less. Once that is achieved, the aim is not to raise it further but to reduce the cost of maintaining this condition. People talking about ‘basic’ incomes are looking at the demogrant as a more efficient ‘welfare’ delivery system. Those talking about guaranteed incomes are looking at it through a lens of Keynesian economics, as a way to keep ‘demand’ and ‘growth’ going. The only real argument raised against ‘Citizen’s Income’ is that it ‘sounds Republican’, meaning it evokes the populist/libertarian or ‘Ron Paul’ wing of the American Republican party. Like many schools of thought, libertarianism has something to offer, especially the idea of a locally based egalitarian political system. Association with the negative aspects of populist Republicanism are a problem of framing and can be solved by effectively reframing the idea of citizenship. It is often asked if a citizen’s income would apply to new immigrants. Of course it would; just as the protection of law and provision of health care and education apply to all, regardless of citizenship status. The problem is that different groups in Canada have developed their ideas about a demogrant in isolation from each other, and become locked into them. They do not know enough about the related issues of full democracy and environmental balance. They are generally ignorant of basic economic concepts. Beyond Canada, there is argument about whether ‘Basic Income’ or some variant of that, or ‘Citizen’s Income’, is the ‘right’ term. ‘Basic Income’ has an edge now because the main international group promoting the concept, based in Belgium, calls itself Basic Income Earth Network. The tendency is to use ‘Basic Income’ in countries where there is a well developed welfare state and a cultural acceptance of the right to exist. In these countries it is basically seen as a more efficient form of welfare administration. Yet the main U.S. group calls itself “Basic Income Guarantee”. Citizen’s Income is the word used in the United Kingdom, which has a strong movement, and in many Latin American countries, some of which have already started a limited form of Citizen’s Income. Citizen’s Income tends to be used where such basic human rights are still under challenge. Everyone should know how Canada fits in. ‘The Idea’ has been floating around for a long time in Canada. Every few years, there is some public discussion of it, but it fades away. It is time for this third arm of the post corporatist order to develop into a real social movement in Canada. So, the organisation ‘Citizen’s Income Toronto’ will continue to be called that. A ‘Citizen’s Income Canada’ may develop. We do not want to debate about names. We would like to be able to have research done into ‘framing’ the demogrant concept, to learn how best to ‘sell’ it to the public. But we do not want to water it down to where it is ‘acceptable’ but meaningless. We aim to move public opinion to us. And when the legislation is finally passed enacting a Citizen’s Income, it will not matter how it is named. tr _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
