HOME PAGE
– CONFERENCE
PROGRAMME – ARCHIVE OF
PAPERS – REGISTRATION
– ACCOMMODATION
– WEBSITES
UNA SOLA MOLTITUDINE: STRUGGLES FOR BASIC INCOME AND THE COMMON LOGIC THAT EMERGED
FROM ITALY, THE UK, AND JAPAN
by toru yamamori [University of
Cambridge]
1.
Introduction
“All of us are guaranteed to
Basic Income without any condition!” This is the demand called by various
names; Basic Income / Renta Basica, Citizen’s Income / Reddito di Cittadinanza
/ Guaranteed Income / Revenu Garanti / Revenu D’Existence / Allocation
Universelle, etc. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri describe this demand as one
of three programmes of the multitude. This paper is written as a response to
the three following situations: First, critiques against Hardt and Negri
(hereafter H & N) do not understand this demand properly. Second,
while recent developments within academic literature
concerning this demand should
be
welcomed, the fact that one of roots of the demand is radical
grassroots’ movements in 1970s is usually ignored with a few exceptions. Third,
while experiences of Lotta Feminista, Autonomia
Operaia and other spontaneous movements in Italy are
recognized as an example of people making such demands
among participants of this conference, experiences outside of Italy are might not recognised as such.
The argument will go as
follows: I will start by introducing current academic discourses on this demand
(Section 2). This will help to point out mis-understandings within the critiques against H & N.
Then the argument by H & N will be introduced with a brief reference
to struggles in Italy in 1970’s (Section 3). Then some points of scepticism concerning Basic
Income are overviewed (Section 4). Is Basic Income the cunning of
Empire? It might be, so the context of the introduction of Basic Income is crucial. Thus we can learn
from the struggles for Basic Income. I will look at the experience in the UK (Section
5), and in Japan (Section 6).
2.
Recent Arguments for Basic Income
2.1.Many names and one
content
As I mentioned at the
beginning of this paper, the demand for guaranteed income is given various different names. Here I mainly use the term
“Basic Income” due to the convenience derived from the
fact that this is the term most widely used within the academic
literature, and with no intention to give privilege to neither
this terminology nor academic discourses. The
recent development of academic discourses on
Basic Income can be traced via an academic community; the Basic
Income Earth Network, which started in 1986 as
the Basic Income European Network. [1]
Basic Income is an unconditional guaranteed income
for all. Philippe van Parijs defines it as “an income paid by a government, at
a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society.” It
is paid “irrespective of whether the person is rich or poor, lives alone or
with others, is willing to work or not.” (van Parijs 2001, p.5) [2] There are three reasons
why Basic Income is called
“basic”: First, it is a basic platform
which “[a]ny other income - whether in cash or in kind, from working or saving,
from the market or the state - can lawfully be added to (van Parijs 2001,
p.6).” Second, it helps to satisfy “basic human needs.” [3]
Third, it is an entitlement derived from “basic human rights.” The name
“guaranteed income” could be a source of the overlooking of significant differences between Basic Income and existing/existed welfare
states (cf. Boron 2005), because one of the main tasks of the latter has been
“the minimum income guarantee”. We could say that this name itself reveals that welfare states have failed to do this, and also reveals the existence of “second class
citizens” who are not guaranteed minimum income. By the name “allocation
universelle”, we can see continuity and discontinuity of
Basic Income from existing welfare systems.
2.2.
Continuity and discontinuity
Let us
look at the continuity aspect first. The direct income transfer system under
existing welfare states consists of three different types of provision: social
insurance, social assistance, and social allowance. Social insurance requires
two conditions: a contribution beforehand (e.g. monthly payment for certain
period) and eligibility (e.g. having been injured at the workplace). Social assistance requires a set of tests which
should be cleared: a means test, a work test, and (usually implicitly held) a
behaviour test. Social allowance does not require these kinds of
conditions. However, usually it is
not for all people, but people who fall into certain categories (e.g. having a
child / children under a certain age).[4] Logically
there is no huge gap between social allowance and Basic Income, so if we expand this third type of provision to all
people, it could be a first step to
Basic Income: from social allowance to universal allowance (allocation universelle).
Now we
turn to the discontinuity aspect. In order to understand this clearly, we need
to look further into the characteristics of the welfare state. The three
transfer systems are never considered equally. Among them, the social insurance
system is at the core of the welfare state. This insurance system covers
“risks” in peoples’ lives. There is an assumption that these risks are
temporal. It was not expected that people (meaning “male bread winner” for the
planners of the welfare state) would be out of waged work for long period.
People should and can work. Some
people termed the welfare state with two names; the Keynesian-Beveridgean
welfare state. While Keynesian economic theory corresponds to
the “can work” aspect, the following statement by William Beveridge
corresponds to the “should work” aspect.
[T]he correlative of the State’s undertaking to ensure
adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earning, however long, is
enforcement of the citizen’s obligation to seek and accept all reasonable
opportunities of work” (Beveridge, 1942, p.58)
The
other two systems (social assistance and social allowance) are thus
supplementary at least normatively speaking. We can see this clearly in the
fact that the main social assistance
programme in the UK was called “supplementary benefit”
for a long time. The norm that “people should work” stigmatizes claimants of
social assistance as “second class citizens”. This divide between “first class
citizens” who can access decent social insurance programmes and “second class
citizens” who cannot access it them and whose “risk” cannot be properly covered
by them alone, is also gendered and raced. Because the adequate social
insurance programmes usually come with secure full time employment, this divide reflects the
divide between the “primary labour market” (secure employment in the formal sector) on the one hand, and the
“secondary labour market” (precarious employment both in the formal and the informal sector)
and exclusion from the labour market, on the other hand. Many women belong to the latter group (Fraser
1997, ch2). The same can be said in the case of racial division and the abled / disabled divide.
Thus
we can say that the notion of contribution is essential to the welfare state,
and wage labour is at the core of this notion. In terms of this priority or
duty of work, Basic Income is totally
different from the welfare state as we know it. Basic Income will guarantee income without any condition,
although there are some variants: some
Basic Income advocates think we could abolish any other kind of income
transfer, and others think we could have other complimentary income transfer
systems. Some critiques against H&N argue that their recommendation of Basic Income is not far from the welfare
state (Boron 2005, pp.89-90). But this is simply wrong.
This
difference of Basic Income from the
welfare state on the treatment of wage labour is at the centre of the argument
about the pros and cons of Basic
Income. I will briefly come back this issue later, but first let us see Hardt
and Negri’s argument.
3.
A Programme
of Multitude and Italian Experience
Hardt
and Negri listed Basic Income as one of
three programmes of the multitude (H&N 2000, ch.4), and also referred as “a constituent
project aimed against poverty” (H&N 2004, p.136). The calling for Basic Income is rather widespread as we saw
in the last section, but their justification is unique.
The
demand for a social wage extends to the entire population the demand that all
activity necessary for the production of capital be recognized with an equal
compensation such that a social wage is really a guaranteed income. (H&N
2000, p.402)
Under
the current mode of production - biopolitical production - “the production of capital converges ever more with the
production and reproduction of social life itself (H&N 2000, p.401)”. Thus,
(1) not only the industrial working class, but the multitude as a whole, which
includes houseworkers and the unemployed, produces values, and (2) these values
cannot be measured in the sense of the traditional labour theory of value. So
we, the multitude, are entitled to a guaranteed income.
From
the logic offered to us in Empire, we can directly arrive at the
provision of a guaranteed income for all (i.e., Basic Income), and do not need to come via a social wage. Then
why do H & N mention social wage at all?
We can understand this through Italian experiences and Negri’s
articulation of these in his earlier writings.
“Refusal of work” was a slogan which
symbolically covered varied struggles by diverse agencies; from factory workers
to the unemployed, students and housewives. While they refused wage labour,
they tried to make it explicit that they were engaging in another kind of work,
which should be paid. For example, Feminists demanded a “salary for housewives”
(Bono and Kemp 1991). This political moment (demanding a recognition for unpaid
or invisible work) explains why the demand of the multitude of Italy took the
form of a social “wage”.
Another
reason why it was social “wage” (not directly basic “income”) can be found
Negri’s articulation of refusal of work. Negri’s earlier theorization of it
took the form from his reading of Marx. It eloquently told us that there was
(and I think still is) a difficulty for those who identified themselves as
“Marxists” to understand this form of uprisings and resistances. This tendency
can be called “naturalisation or mystification of work / labour”. Through
reading Marx’s Grundrisse, Negri emphasizes there is no concept of work
that we could rescue. He concluded that “Marx insisted on the abolition of
work. Work which is liberated is liberation from work (Negri 1991, p.165)”.
This argument itself seems to support directly a Basic Income rather than a social wage. However, what Negri tried
to do is not only justification of the refusal in terms of Marxist tradition,
but also giving a meaning via reading Marx. As he later articulated with Hardt (clearly referring Diane Elson’s work)(H&N
1994, p.9), a labour theory of value is also a value theory of labour. While
the former is losing explanatory power, the latter enables us see the
singularity of diverse movements. The dichotomy between the traditional class
struggle, which is usually explained in Marxist terms, and the new social
movement, which is usually explained in post-structualist terms is a misleading
one, and both are the struggles over the determination of labour, and then of
value. In this theoretical line, again as same as in the case of practices in
Italy, we once again need the concept of social wage before reaching Basic Income. [5]
4.
The Cunning of Empire?
As
we saw in section 2, the main discontinuity
from the current welfare state is on the location of wage labour. This is
located at the centre of the welfare state, but it is not in the case of Basic Income. Most of the skepticism towards
Basic Income centers on this
issue. Will people stop working once we have
Basic Income? Isn’t it a denial of a right to work? Isn’t it the cunning
of Empire that threatens our unity and solidarity as the working class? We would not get the singular answer to these questions from Basic Income as an institution. Through
plural imaginations that conceptualize
Basic Income, we will reach plural answers.
4.1. On the incentive to wage labour
First, there is a discussion on neutrality of Basic Income. The golden rule of liberalists
is that social institutions should be neutral to preferences of individuals.
From this point of view, the current system is criticized on the grounds that
it isn’t neutral about individual preferences on labour and leisure, and it
favours preference to labour. Some critique argue against Basic Income insisting it will reduce the
incentive to (wage) labour. But nothing is wrong with reducing this incentive.
The social institution should not convey any incentive which affects individual
preferences, because it isn’t neutral. Phillipe van Parijs, an eminent advocate
of Basic Income, argues in this line
(van Parijs 1995).
Second, some other advocates also are happy with less
incentive to wage labour in Basic
Income, but from different points of views. Some ecologists favour Basic Income because less incentive to wage
labour might be good for the transformation from an industrious society to a
post industrial one (cf. Gorz 1999). [6]
Third, obviously enough, less incentive is also
welcomed by Hardt and Negri. Wage labour is to be abolished. Why should we be
motivated towards wage labour?
4.2. Ambiguous Effects of Basic Income
Isn’t Basic Income the cunning of Empire
that threatens our unity and solidarity as the working class? Well,
yes and no. Worries about Basic Income
in this line argue that Basic Income
justifies precarious labour and undermines the material condition for workers’
solidality. [7] First of all, we could say that in the same manner that some
trade unionist demands such as “full employment”, and “equal pay to equal value
labour”, and their form of solidality based on waged labour justify
discriminations against people who do not or cannot work. The positive effects
of any demand can only be understood by looking at their specific context.
Second, some of them might argue the following. Yes,
we are worried in this particular context about neoliberalism dominance. It
makes labour more precarious, less well paid. Milton Freedman, self-claimed
neoliberalist advocated the negative income tax, which is similar to Basic Income. Because of this, some would
argue that Basic Income must be
neoliberalist product, or the cunning of Empire. Yes, Basic Income could be used in this way, just
as the notion of “worker’s power” has been used by Stalinists, and the notion
of freedom and democracy has been used by Neo-conservatives. We have to be cautious of misuse in this way, but it makes no sense to
negate notions themselves. If we closely study the radical movement around
1968, we will find that most of their demands, like freedom against
bureaucratic states, were stolen by neoliberalists later. But this fact cannot
deny the value of their demand.
Let me give one other example. No progressive authors
say anything positive about the Speenhamland system in England, which was
introduced in 1795 and lasted about 30 years. This system gave an income which
met the gap between subsistence income and their wage to the poor. It is
usually said that employers began to pay less to their workers because they
could get income from this system, and workers were “demoralized” because they
did not need to work hard for their survival. The latter part of this critique
makes no sense for us. This normative labeling might disguise the resistance
that existed against the market economy, and the potential for the emancipation
of the poor which wasn’t realized. The former part of the critique should not
be ignored. A similar thing would happen in the case of Basic Income. But we can learn from history.
The Speenhamland system was introduced with the legislation that criminalized
the formation of trade unions or whatever form of worker solidarity. This fact
tells us two things. The first, because the ruling class knew the “danger” of
the Speenhamland system in potentially giving power for emancipation, they
introduced it with the other legislation. Second, we should deliberately fight
for Basic Income and shouldn’t
compromise or give up some other demands. The context in which Basic Income will be introduced will be
really critical. We could learn from the experiences of the grassroots
movements on what kind of other legislation should come with Basic Income. I cannot enter into this in
this paper. Instead, let me briefly describe two struggles other than the relatively
well-known Italian case.
5.
“Abolition of the Wages System”: Claimants Unions in the UK
It
has been said that the claimants union movements appeared in London around the
end of 1960’s. Here “claimants” means
the people who claim various social benefits and services; pensioners, the
disabled, the sick, social assistance recipients, single parents, students, the
unemployed, etc. While these people were not perceived as having a common
interest before, claimants unions sought
to make their common interests explicit through having the same enemy; i.e.,
the department of social security, and then having the same demand; i.e., Basic Income. The fact that this collective identity wasn’t apparent, and was
pursued by the claimants unions, can be seen in their publications at that
time. For example, at the beginning of their handbook for pensioners, they
emphasised their usage of “we / our” means
not only pensioner but also all claimants (The National Federation of Claimants
Unions, the year of publication unidentified).
They
insisted that their banner should be changed from “a fair day’s pay for a fair
day’s work” to “abolition of the wages system (The National Federation of Claimants
Unions, p.5)”. They problematised unpaid
work based on sexual division of labour and work ethic combined with waged
labour. This work ethic was imposed not only by the welfare authority, but also
by “poverty industries” such as charity organizations and other voluntary
groups.
This
handbook is written by “the national federation of claimants unions”, which is
explained as “merely a network of all those Claimants Unions which have
affiliated together”. They shared the four common demands known as the
“Claimants Charter”. These are;
1.
the right to an adequate income without means test for all people.
2.
a socialist society in which all necessities are provided free and which is
managed and controlled directly by the people.
3.
no secrets and the right to full information.
4.
no distinction between so-called “deserving” and “undeserving”
(The National Federation
of Claimants Unions, p.3.)
The
first demand is about Basic Income, and
it was repeated as the first demand among 13 demands specific to pensioners; “a
free welfare society, with a guaranteed adequate income per individual as of
right (The
National Federation of Claimants Unions, p.37)”.
The welfare state at that time was criticized because its aim was to control
people.
Unfortunately it is not clear when and how
the demand for Basic Income was introduced
in this movement as a whole. Instead, I will introduce an episode from one of
local claimant unions. In Newton Abbot, south west of England, a claimant union
was formed around 1971 and lasted for about 4 years. This union seems to be
different from typical claimants unions in three ways. [8] First, in terms of size; around 400
people joined this union at the peak of movement. It was therefore quite big
compared to the average size of claimants unions. Second, in terms of class
composition, it did not include any middle class people except the secretary,
partly because there wasn’t any university there. Third, the
following two things were severely criticised by other claimants unions at the national
federation meetings: growing vegetables in an allotment (others insisted that
we should not do any kind of work) and having a voluntary secretary who was not
a claimant (others felt that they should not include anyone who was not a
claimant).
At
one of the weekly meetings in the early stage of this union, some members who
knew that some other claimants unions had demanded a Basic Income, decided to discuss
Basic Income in the meeting. They weren’t sure that what other members
would think about this, and expected that there might be some objections. But
during the meeting there wasn’t
any objection and people really supported for this proposal. The secretary
later said to me that it was a good surprise and was ashamed that he had
doubted popular support. Some ex-claimants said that members shared the same
belief that we should not be deprived humane life because of unemployment,
disease and disability.
However,
usually these people demand a decent job
or a decent
allowance for his or her
own category. Why could they reach the common demand of Basic Income? We can see two reasons for
this; the one is an objective condition, and the other is about subjectivity.
First, all of them were forced to be in the common situation of being excluded
from wage labour. At the same
time, the possibility of accessing wage labour varied among members. Because of
having both this commonality and difference, they reached the universal demand
of Basic Income, instead of aiming at
employment like usual movements
of the unemployed or trade union’s struggle on behalf of them, and instead of only
aiming for particular benefits for specific people.[9] For them, class divide
was not (only) between capitalists and workers, but (also) between
capitalists/workers and claimants. In the same
way the discourse that workers
should become entrepreneurs is simply wrong (though this rhetoric became more
prevailing under neoliberalist dominance), the discourse that claimants should
become workers is wrong (though this is still prevailing belief among the left
wing). However, generally speaking objective material conditions are not enough
to form a collective class identity. This is my second point; in this case,
through communal activities, like allotment or protest, they were able to
respect varied situations among members and to share the common identity/subjectivity
as claimants at the same time.
The
common interest and subjectivity in this case wasn’t an eternal one, though. As
relatively young members who were short term unemployed returned to employment,
the Newton Abbot Claimants Union lost most of its active members. It ended around 1975. Almost of other
claimants unions also diminished in the mid 1970’s. Although some of them
restarted claimants movements later, and
though there were several efforts to form a national network
and a couple of claimants collectives are still struggling today, the demand
for Basic Income isn’t within their
programmes anymore.
6.
“Living itself is Labour”: Blue Grass and disability movements in Japan
Here
I would like to turn from the same demand to the same justification. When I
read their justification of Basic
Income in Empire, it echoed phrases in radical movements of the disabled
people in Japan; “Rolling over is labour”, “Living itself is labour”, and so
on. “Refusal of control” is also one of their underling reasons, so it also has
similarity with Claimants’ Union movements. They also demand a kind of Basic Income; “All of us are entitled to
Guaranteed Income without any condition!”. Here “all of us” is basically about
“the disabled people”, so it isn’t a
Basic Income in a strict sense. However I would like to pay attention to
the similarity with the cases in Italy and the UK
Around
1970, movements of (not “for” or “on behalf of”) the disabled became active
significantly different from before. Tomoaki Kuramoto summarised this new wave
as “not liberation from disability, but liberation from discrimination”
(Kuramoto, 1997). Aoi shiba no kai (if literally translated to English, Blue
Grass Collective, so hereafter Blue Grass), which was started as a
peer self help group in the late 1950’s, turned to a radical action group
around 1970. Their programme which first appeared 1970 eloquently explains
their thought. That is:
1 .
We identify ourselves as people with Cerebral Palsy (CP).
We
recognize our position as "an existence which should not exist", in
the modern society. We believe that this
recognition should be the starting point
of our whole movement, and we act on this belief.
2 .
We assert ourselves aggressively.
When
we identify ourselves as people with CP, we have a will to protect ourselves. We believe that a strong
self-assertion is the only
way to achieve self-protection, and we act on this belief.
3 . We deny love and justice.
We
condemn egoism held by love and justice. We believe that mutual understanding, accompanying the human
observation which arises from the denial
of love and justice, means the true well-being, and we act on this belief.
4. We do not choose the way of problem
solving.
We
have learnt from our personal experiences that easy solutions to problems lead to dangerous compromises. We
believe that an endless confrontation is the only course of action possible for us, and we act
on this belief.
(Aoi Shiba no Kai Kanagawa Rengo Kai, 1970) [10]
They
protest against the able-bodied majority and the system, both of which are
understood to sympathise with parents
who murdered their disabled children because of the underlying perception that the heavily disabled
should not to be born. It
was a material threat for them (“When
will my parents kill me?”),
caused by the perception of the majority of society. At the same time it also
made their self-affirmation difficult, through internalizing this perception.
The first and second points of the programme reflect the need for struggling
against this situation.
The
third part is a good summary of their demands. They saw that the disabled
people were negated by the
imperialist-capitalist mode of production, and this negation is “fixed and
enforced by people’s perception” formed by this mode of production (Kansai Aoi
Shiba no Kai, 1975). When they deny love and justice, “love” means this
perception, for example, parents’ “love” to kill children as mentioned above,
or voluntary people’s “good will” which negates autonomy of the disabled. The
“justice” which should be denied is the current system, i.e., the welfare
state, which segregates and controls disabled people. They refused to be put
into institutions, and started their “independent living”. They demanded
“inclusive” education. The welfare policies, law and medical practices based on
Eugenics were criticized. In order to live outside of institutions, in other
words, to survive everyday life like able-bodied people, they had to demand a
lot of things; from accessible public transportation to income.
The
fourth part explains their
strategy well, but due to time constraints I have to omit further study of this aspect. Let me note only one thing in order to avoid possible
misunderstanding. Apparent from this programme (especially part 1 and 4), we
could say their politics can be called “politics of difference”, if we adopt
the terminology in modern political philosophy. However, from this if someone
conclude that they are mere separationalists, and were refusing communication
with the able-bodied majority, it isn’t true. They tried to “make a platform
for the common future through mutual criticism between us [them] and workers,
through recognizing our [their] and worker’s history correctly. We transform
the value of labour by bringing the issue of the disabled into any
workplace (italics mine)”.
To “transform the value of labour” echoes Negri’s
logic which justifies Basic Income. The
demand of income for living and payment to personal assistants are, however,
mainly pursued by another organization, called National Claimants Union for
Guaranteed Personal Assistance, which formed in 1980’s. It is said that
there and elsewhere, demands similar to
Basic Income are discussed.[11]
The
Blue Grass collectives still exist today, and they have fought for a
wide range of matters. They are “usual” in the sense they are for “usual every
day life” for them, and at the same time “radical” in the sense that they fundamentally differ from the
perceptions of the majority. What I would like to pay attention to here are the following two things. In
the first place, their logic expressed in the form such as “living itself is
labour” is quite similar to Negri’s argument. Secondly, the difference with
Negri and Autonomia is
that the emphasis by Blue Grass is the difference between the disabled
and the able bodied. This is also different from Claimants Unions in the
UK, which tried to create a common identity across various claimants. However,
the Claimants Unions also emphasized the difference between claimants
and workers. The politics of difference adopted by Claimants Unions in
the U.K, and Blue Grass in Japan, called for struggling against the
dominant perceptions of workers
(in the case of the former) and of the able bodied (in the case of the latter).
In this sense, there is similarity between these two struggles.
7.
Concluding Remarks
These three movements (each of which are also plural)
differ from each other especially with regard to the identity of the main
active subjects. Further they are remote from each other and there does not
seem to be good contacts between them. Nonetheless, we have found similar
demands in each and a same logic that justifies these demands. This fact
reminds me the following analysis in Empire:
The tendency created necessarily a potential or
virtual unity of the international proletariat. This virtual unity was
never fully actualized as a global political unity, but it nonetheless
had substantial effects. In other words, the few instances of the actual and
conscious international organization of labor are not what seem most important
here, but rather the objective coincidence of struggles that overlap
precisely because, despite their radical diversity, they were all directed
against the international disciplinary regime of capital. The growing coincidence
determined what we call an accumulation of struggles. (H&N 2000, p.262-3)
What does this “objective coincidence of struggles”
tell us? What do we need in order to
actualize this “virtual unity”? I would like to keep these questions open for
discussion in this conference.
Instead, let me conclude (or repeat) with a few
things. First of all, Negri’s (and later with Hardt) theorization on refusal of
work is also the logic that came out from the movements we saw outside of
Italy. So although some who argue against Negri (and
Hardt) try to
provintialise his (their) argument by labelling it “Italian Ideology” (e.g. Brennan 2003), this
criticism can only be possible when other struggles such as those I described
in this paper are ignored. [12]
Second, Basic
Income can be the cunning of Empire. In order to avoid a case that Basic Income would function in this negative
way, I suggest learning from historical experiences such as those outlined in
this paper. It is important to bring these experiences into the discussions of
the emerging academic network on Basic
Income. But this is only one of many things that should be done. Needless to
say, communicating and joining the current and future movements on Basic Income is crucial. [13]
Finally, political subject(s) who have fought for Basic Income are “one” and at the same time
“many” (Una Sola Moltitudine [14]). The meanings of this experience to
our politics of the multitude are worth interrogating, and this is open to
discussion in this conference and future.
Acknowledgements and a general note
The
earlier version of this paper was published in Japanese (Yamamori [2003]). I
omit here my acknowledgement that I wrote there, except to people from
ex-Newton Abbot Claimants Union, ex-South Shields Claimants Union, Edinburgh Claimants, and some other claimants movements.
Because I respect their tendency to prefer
anonymity, I try to
avoid mentioning any names. However, let me note my thanks to Bill Jordan and Jack Grassby, whose books
(Jordan 1973 and Grassby 1999) are valuable records of
claimants unions movements. Their help was really essential to this research.
The part on the struggles in Japan (section 6) was almost newly written
(ironically enough) after I moved to Cambridge. The homepage on disability movements
and studies mainly written by Shinya Tateiwa was extremely helpful for accessing resources from remote Cambridge.
Also this section was inspired by communication with him a long time ago. During the rewriting
process, I re-read Empire with people of the Cambridge Autonomous
Study Project. The critical discussion there gave me an opportunity to
reflect what is/are vital in Negri’s thought in the context of contemporary
autonomous activism. Also my
thanks go to Rosie Vaughan, Mishko Hansen and Thomas Lalevée for their help and
encouraging comments. Any mistakes are my responsibility
alone.
NOTES
1. See
the following homepage for the details. http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/Index.html
2. The membership mentioned here is “not only citizens, but to
all permanent residents (van Parijs 2001, p.5)”. Almost of academic
literature on Basic Income do not
problematise
the exclusive
aspect of citizenship, i.e. the problem of membership. H & N is one
of the few
exceptions to this tendency with Jordan and Duvell 2003.
3. While we can find a multitude of examples which
connect Basic Income with basic needs both in social
movements and academic literature, van Parijs delinks these two.
4. Some countries such as Japan and the U.S.A. do not have this third type of
provision.
5. As far as
more detail of Italian experience is concerned, this conference has two papers
related to Basic Income by Italians
(one of them is Negri himself), and has other participants who have been
involved in this experience (Andrea Fumagalli and Maurizio Lazzarato, who wrote
on Tute Bianche / White Overall which demanded Basic Income in 1990’s), so I leave it to them.
6. The earlier
recommendation of Basic Income by Gorz
came with some conditions of individual contribution. Similarly some
communitarians and feminists are happy with less incentive to wage labour, but
not happy with less incentive to contribute to society in the form of care
labour or voluntary work. Basic Income
is favoured over the current system for them, but it should come with some
requirements for individual contribution to society. Anthony B. Atkinson’s
adovocacy of Participation Income is an example of this type of argument. It is
different from the welfare state, but also different to Basic Income which we are discussing here,
so I omit this.
7. I frequently heard this from
friends and activists in trade unions.
8. I interviewed ex-activists and ex-claimants from
several claimants unions. The reason I described the case of Newton Abbot is
not that this union is typical one, but that the interviewees remember well the moment that Basic Income was adopted as their programme.
9. Of course,
they struggled for particular benefits for each individual, and sometimes they
won. My emphasis is on only.
10.
The fifth programme added later. That is: “5.
We
deny able-bodied civilization. / We recognize that modern civilization has
managed to sustain itself only by excluding us, people with CP. We believe
that creation of our own culture through our movement and daily life
leads to the condemnation of modern civilization, and we act on this
belief.”
11. Taught by Shinya Tateiwa. For further details, the
voice of the disable activists who were involved in should be heard.
12. Let me note in order to avoid possible misreading.
This claim does not mean that the logic out of these movement should or can be
reduced to the writing by H&N.
13. The
struggles on Basic Income are on the
process. For example, we will see the clear demand for Basic Income at the coming Mayday
demonstration in Tokyo.
14. Maiko Enomoto taught me
that this phrase is used for the title of the Italian version of Fernand
Pessoa’s poetry collection edited by Antonio Tabucchi.
Basic
IncomeBLIOGRAPHY
Aoi Shiba no Kai Kanagawa Rengo Kai, Ayumi, no.
11. p. 1., 1970 (translated by Osamu Nagase, http://www.arsvi.com/0d/ask-e.htm, 2002).
Atkinson, Anthony B, “The Case for a Participation
Income”, Political Quarterly, 67, 1996.
Beveridge, William, Social Insurance and Allied
Services, Cmd 6404, HMSO, London, 1942.
Bono,
Paola and Sandra Kemp, Italian Feminist Thought: A reader, Basil
Blackwell, Oxford 1991.
Boron,
Atilio A., Empire & Imperialism: A critical reading of Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri, Zed Books, London
and New York 2005.
Brennan, Timothy “The Italian
Ideology”, in Gopal Balakrishnan (ed.) Debating Empire, Verso, London,
2003.
Fraser, Nancy, Justice Interruptus: Critical
reflection on the “postsocialist” condition, Routledge, New York and
London, 1997.
Gorz, Andre, Reclaiming Work: Beyond the wage-based
society, Polity, Cambridge, 1997.
Grassby, Jack, Unfinished Revolution: South
Tyneside 1969-1976, TUPS books, 1999.
Hardt,
Michael and Antonio Negri, Labor of Dionysus: a critique ot the state-form,
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1994.
Hardt,
Michael and Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press,
Massachesetts and London, 2000.
Hardt,
Michael and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire,
Penguin Group, New York, 2004.
Jordan, Bill, Paupers: the
Making of the New Claiming Class, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1973.
Jordan, Bill and Franck Düvell,
Migration. The Boundaries of Equality and Justice, Polity Press, Cambridge,
2003.
Kansai Aoi Shiba no Kai Rengo Jounin Iinkai, Kansai
Aoi Shiba no Kai Rengo,
vol.2, 1975 (http://www.arsvi.com/0m/k0102.htm). (Written in
Japanese)
Kuramoto, Tomoaki, “Unfinishing Disablity Culture: Thought and Body of Kouichi Yokozuka (Mikan no Shougaisha Bunka: Kouichi Yokozuka no Shiso
to Shintai)” in Shakai Mondai Kenkyu, vol.47-1, 1997.
(Written in Japanese)
Negri,
Antonio, Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse (translated by
Harry Cleaver, Michael Ryan, and Maurizio Viano). Bergin and Garvey, South
Hadley, 1991.
The
National Federation of Claimants Unions, Pensioners Struggle: A handbook
from the claimants union movement, Leeds Community Press, the year of
publication unidentified.
van
Pariis, Philippe, Real Freedom for All,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
van
Pariis, Philippe, “A Basic Income for All”, in his editing book, What’s
Wrong With A Free Lunch?, Beacon Press, Massachsetts, 2001.
Yamamori, Toru “Basic Income: on the second programme
of the multitude” in Gendai Shiso, vol.31, no.2, 2003. (Written in
Japanese)