Advertisement
  
  

Username

Password

Remember me
Password Reminder
No account yet? Create one
Policy
IMC Sask Editorial Policy
Who's Online
We have 59 guests online
Polls
Is climate change affecting you personally?
  
Shoutbox
Syndicate

  


Event Calendar
February 2012
S M T W T F S
2930311 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
Upcoming Events
No events to display
Community Radio

Briarpatch Magazine

Popular
Activista Search


 
    
Pathway ::  Home

Guaranteed Annual Poverty PDF Print E-mail
Contributed by Garson Hunter   
Wednesday, 20 June 2007

A principal flaw with the Guaranteed Annual Poverty (GAP) idea is the lack of historical understanding by its advocates of how social programs came to be in countries with modern welfare states.

One condition necessary for the formation of a welfare state is that only capitalist societies that are heavily industrialized have developed modern welfare states. For obvious reasons, actual socialist governments with socialist economies would have no need for a welfare state. However, industrialization is not a sufficient condition for the development of a welfare state, as evidenced by many nations that are industrialized but have not developed anything we would consider a modern welfare state. The other factor that is important is the threat, either actual or potential, for large civil disruption.

The welfare state is not a gift from the government to help all citizens; the welfare state is what happens when there is a big enough threat from the working population and mass of people to influence a compromise (or social compact) between the mass of working people and business.

The nature of those programs shift and change according to the amount of influence particular groups (working people, business, politicians) in society can exert. The welfare state grows when there is a threat of civil disruption (the depression of the 1930s, the civil rights movement of the 1950s, the anti-war and feminist movements of the early 1970s), and the welfare state contracts (such as now) when business can more powerfully assert its agenda.

Again, social programs are not a gift; they exist because of the disruptions brought about by the masses of people. However, sustained efforts by the masses are difficult to maintain for a variety of reasons, and when social movements wane then the welfare state is peeled back.

How is it that the advocates of a GAP think they are going to achieve a liveable income (Guaranteed Liveable Income or Guaranteed Annual Income) for all?

Go and ask the government, and if the government is given the proper facts then the struggle is over, liveable GAI is brought in, and pass around the sherry? The only approach to win advances for working people and the poor in the market economy that has proven historically to perhaps be effective, and only might with no guarantee, is to assist with organizations of working people and the poor themselves around their issues and to challenge the power structures will real disruption.

Not petitions, not consultation meetings with Chambers of Commerce and governments, not conferences, not ‘sophisticated’ discussions and letter writing campaigns; but with real strategies and tactics of disruptions that have an impact on business owners and politicians. Then, and only maybe, meaningful change will happen.

Comments
Written by Hugo Chavez on 2007-06-21 10:35:38
Alright fine, let's all just give up. We're gonna lose anyways.
The end is near....
Written by www.livableincome.org on 2007-06-26 23:55:16
ABOUT Keynote Speaker Guy Standing: current co-chair of the Basic Income 
Earth Network (BIEN) 
http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/BIEN/EC_temp.htm 
and former Director of Socio-Economic Security, International Labour 
Organization 
 
Author of: "Why unions should campaign for a basic income": 
 
"Trade unionists, as well as all those who count themselves as 
egalitarians and advocates of social solidarity, should support a basic 
income as a right of a good society in which dignified work could 
flourish… A basic income would also enhance real freedom…. It would 
encourage people to gain greater personal control over how they use 
their time. Anybody who counts himself or herself as on 'the left' 
should be keen for the poor and the vulnerable gaining more control over 
the key assets of society and time is one of them. By the same token, 
granting a basic income would help to legitimize forms of work other 
than labour, such as care work and community work… There is a huge 
opportunity to develop a new progressive vision, if we have the courage 
to take it and have open minds… A basic income should be part of that." 
Guy Standing, European Trade Union Institute (TRANSFER), Review 04/2004. 
Go to this web page with link to download the full article. 
http://www-ilo-mirror.cornell.edu/public/english/protection/ses/frame.htm 
 
Guy Standing is also author of the 2002 book: "Beyond The New 
Paternalism" where he "argues for a complex egalitarianism, in which 
basic income security is recognized as a right for all. Work (including 
voluntary, community and care work), and not labor, must be the basis of 
a 'good society,' and policies must be judged by their capacity to 
promote occupational security." 
http://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-New-Paternalism-Guy-Standing/dp/185984345X 
 
He is also co-editor of "A BASIC INCOME GRANT FOR SOUTH AFRICA" 
Standing, Guy & Samson, Michael. (Juta Academic Publishers), 2003, 152p. 
"Edited by Guy Standing (ILO and co-chairman of BIEN) and Michael Samson 
(Director of Research for Cape Town's Economic Policy Research 
Institute), this is the most comprehensive book so far on the basic 
income proposal for South Africa, with contributions by both proponents 
and critics. 
SOURCE: http://www.widerquist.com/usbig/25JAN-FEB2004.htm 
 
And the editor of the 2005 book: "Promoting Income Security as a Right: 
Europe and North America, ( London: Anthem Press, paperback, 601pp.) 
 
He is also Professor of Economic Security, University of Bath, and 
Professor of Labour Economics, Monash University and is one of the 
leading speakers on Basic Income in the world. 
More good news.
Written by www.livableincome.org on 2007-06-29 17:29:56
 
4. FINLAND’S PRIME MINISTER SPEAKS FAVORABLY OF BIG 
 
NewsRoom Finland reports that the prime minister of Finland, Matti 
Vanhanen, of the Centre Party, said that the structure and level of 
basic security should be reappraised, and that the current wide range of 
benefits could be replaced by a basic income guarantee of about 600 or 
700 euros per month. He argued, however, that BIG should be supplemented 
by incentives to encourage those capable of work to enter the labor 
market. According to NewsRoom Finland, “Mr Vanhanen's comment comes amid 
a clash between the Social Democratic Party [SPD], the Centre's main 
government partner, and the opposition Green League over guaranteed 
minimum income.” The Finnish Greens accused the Social Democrats of 
using made-up arguments to reject basic income. NewsRoom Finland 
reported on February 26, “Finland's opposition Green League on Monday 
accused the SDP of deploying trumped-up and populist arguments to reject 
the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. The Greens' critique was a 
response to a report by the Kalevi Sorsa foundation, an SDP-leaning 
organization, faulting a basic income scheme as promoted by the Green 
League. The leaders of the Green League said in a joint statement that 
the foundation's report played down problems related to social security. 
Ville Kopra, a researcher, says in the foundation's report that basic 
income could endanger both universal validity on the labor market and 
earnings-related unemployment security. The Greens say the Social 
Democrats' resistance to change is dividing people into two classes 
where only those in regular employment should enjoy sufficient basic 
security.” 
 
Two reports are on line at: 
http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15100&group=Politics 
http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=15103&group=Politics 
 
 
 
8. SEVERAL GERMANS ENDORSE BASIC INCOME 
 
Several Germans have recently endorsed basic income. Ulrich Beck, 
prominent sociologist in Germany and author of "The Risk Society," and 
Kayja Kipping, chairperson of the left party PDS, have both endorsed 
basic income as a way to give workers greater negotiating power to 
demand more meaningful work. According to Kipping, many leftist are 
uncomfortable with BIG because they suffer from “work fetishism.” Asked 
to explain she replied, “Many think only paid work is a valuable 
contribution. The ideology ‘whoever doesn't work should not eat' is 
malicious. To me, this is a completely strange understanding of 
contribution. Persons in the arms industry do social harm through paid 
work. On the other hand, many activities that are not paid are important 
for society.” Vienna. Should basic security be only for persons willing 
to work and the needy? Ronald Blaschke , a philosopher, sociologist, 
educator, and spokesperson of the German Basic Income Network also 
argued for BIG and against work fetishism in an interview with Beate 
Lammer on diepresse.com. 
 
German businessman Gotz Werner argues has been arguing for basic income 
in recent years. He renewed his support for BIG in an interview with the 
daily die Tageszeitung, last November. The BIEN Newsletter published the 
following excerpts from the interview: 
Journalist: You speak very positively. You own over 1700 drug stores. 
You have annual sales of 3.7 billion Euros. You are one of the 500 
richest Germans. 
Werner: That is untrue. Like almost all entrepreneurs, I wanted more and 
more in the past. Today maximizing meaning is my top priority. 
Journalist: Do you see the world with different eyes? 
Werner: I have read the classics, Goethe, Schiller. I understand my own 
success is not everything. I want to help others succeed. People are 
central, not business. I try to imagine a positive world. 
Journalist: "Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come," you say. 
Werner: Victor Hugo said that. I only quoted him. 
Journalist: Is the time right for your idea? 
Werner: At least the idea could be discussed at last. Two years ago that 
was something for a few experts. The halls are full when I give lectures 
today. 
Journalist: What has changed? 
Werner: The old political slogans have nothing to do with the world 
where people live. Unemployment grows despite temporary announcements of 
success. Unbridled growth damages our resources. If Angela Merkel would 
say "full employment" is possible, nobody would believe her any more… 
Journalist: The unconditional basic income already has supporters in the 
parties - from left to right. Why is this? 
Werner: Because this is the most radical form of socialism and the most 
radical form of capitalism. After one of my addresses, a listener wrote 
to me: "Your basic income model has reconciled my socialist heart with 
my neoliberal mind." 
 
The full interview in German is available at: 
http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/11/27/a0146.1/textdruck 
An English translation is available at: 
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/14/18337615.php 
Other articles on BIG in Germany are on the web at: 
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354533.shtml 
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/353198.shtml 
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/01/352187.shtml 
http://www.diepresse.com/textversion_article.aspx?id=607979 
http://www.mbtranslations.com 
http://www.commondreams.org 
http://www.freitag.de/2006/50/06501501.php. 
 
 
9. EDUARDO SUPLICY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT BASIC INCOME IN CHINA 
 
Brazilian Senator Eduardo Suplicy, one of the strongest supports of 
basic income in any ruling government in the world, recently visited 
China and reports substantial hope for the future of basic income in 
China. Senator Suplicy spoke about basic income with several 
highly-placed officials in the Chinese government. He found that 
elements of universal, unconditional support exist in some current 
Chinese anti-poverty programs, and that there is some hope the China 
will move further in that direction. Suplicy also spoke with Professor 
Tian Xiaobao, who is considered to be the first economist in China, 
author of a 2006 book on Social Security in China. 
According to Suplicy, “It was with Professor Tian Xiaobao that I had my 
longest and very productive three hour conversation. After explaining 
all the advantages of an unconditional basic income to him, after 
describing experience of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend System and 
the perspective of having such a system in Brazil, I asked him whether 
he considered possible to think about having the institution of an 
inconditional basic income for all 1 billion and 300 million or more 
Chinese in the future. Professor Tain Xiaobao answered that he 
considered the Basic Income a very sound and rational proposal, making 
sense and being consistent with the objective of building a harmonious 
society, such as advocated by Confucius 520 years before Christ. It is 
also consistent with the objectives of today's Chinese government. He 
told me, however, that to attain the objective of paying a basic income 
to all Chinese, it would be required a time of preparation for the next 
three quinquenal plans. Thus, a Basic Income would be desirable and 
possible in 2020.”

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!

Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 June 2007 )
< Previous   Next >


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. Opinions expressed in articles within this site are those of their owners and may not reflect the opinion of ActUpInSask.org, its staff, or its associates.