QUATINGA VELHO AND THE BOLSA-FAMILIA (family allowance) PROGRAM, TODAY AND TOMORROW
An essay dedicated to the Maastricht Congress
(Translation by Monica Puntel, Leonardo Puntel, Carolina Fisher and Revison by Tracy Halls.)
Preview of New Book publish soon very soon :
Basic Income Startup
MicroFinance, Social Banks and Non-Gonvernamental Public Policy
The current essay is not the presentation I would deliver at the Maastricht. It is as follows:
. my letter of appreciation and explanation to the public regarding the future of Quatinga Velho;
· my criticism of the Bolsa-Família (family allowance);
· and the presentation of the fundamentals for the leap from theory to practice regarding Basic Income, with small, independent, replicable and dynamic projects within some networks without borders.
· To conclude, I still present a new example of a practical model so as to carry out what I propose here.
In reality, if I still had something to say to the president or the congress in my country, it would be something like this letter, but I don’t. With this text, I intend to explain Basic Income to those who are interested in it; the following questions have been rather recurrent during the presentations throughout Europe:
1. What are my considerations about the Bolsa-Familia (family allowance)? Are they positive? Negative?
2. On law regarding Basic Income? Why hasn’t anything happened?
3. Will the bolsa família (family allowance) be turned into the Basic Income one day? If so, How?
4. Why didn’t the Quatinga Velho project receive any governmental support?
5. What kind of influence does Quatinga Velho or ReCivitas have on a national level, if any?
6. Doesn’t the ReCivitas believe in governmental programs?
7. What is the best way to reach real unconditional basic income in Brazil and other countries? Pilot projects using Quatinga Velho or bolsa família (family allowance)?
8. What is the future of ReCivitas? And Quatinga Velho?
9. To conclude, that which I consider to be the most important of questions:
What is my concrete proposal for new experiences, not only for developing countries, but for all countries and any corner of the world?
However, for those who are not interested in any of these answers or chronicles, who have no interest in anything about Brazil, ReCivitas, Quatinga Velho, nor the bolsa família (family allowance), and are only interested in learning about what needs to be done to make Basic Income happen, even if without political or with limited financial resources and they do not care if it is for 10, 100 or 1 million people, as long as it is solid and true. If so, skip the acknowledgments and the bolsa família (family allowance) and go direct to the conclusion: The New Quatinga Velho model.
There, I explain how to leap from thesis to practice; I also present the most recent example of everything I am saying. I hope this is good news for all our sponsors and partners.
The Quatinga Velho Basic Income has come back and it is here to stay for good.
The new model has a Permanent Fund. Investors. Income redistribution, dwellers’ contributions, sustainable growth and most importantly: the possibility of emancipation within one generation: 21 years.
Perhaps the only thing that really stands out as important from all that is written here is: On January 28th, 2016 we restarted the Basic Income payment in Quatinga Velho.
Before anything else, I wish to publicly thank the efforts of the Maastricht Congress, with special thanks to Adriaan Planken, who, even worked during Christmas so to enable me to participate in the Congress. I would like this essay to be regarded as my “thank you” as much as my apology for not being able to guarantee my presence.
When (for personal reasons) I needed to cancel my participation, I committed to writing what I had been preparing for the occasion, even in the knowledge that I would not be able to make it. It was the least I could do by way of an apology.
The present essay, however, despite trying to meet this commitment, dealing exactly with the theme that would be presented during the Congress, is no longer the discourse I had in mind. Partly due to the fact that it would not fit the time allotted; and furthermore for it does not exactly match what had been specified — something obviously more general towards an audience who does not have to know the particularities of the Brazilian reality or of our experience. But, of course, it doesn’t end there.
I believe this essay does not fit the Maastricht as I sincerely do not see this discourse suitable either to my position, nor to the venue, even having prepared it for what would have been my lecture at the Congress and idealized as a contribution to the accomplishment of the basic income and its attempt;
As the president of ReCivitas and responsible for Quatinga Velho, I have to remain unambiguous and publish everything referring to the project, but, at the same time, I have to keep my thoughts to myself, if not completely private, at least within the personal opinion scope. This is what I now do.
So, as the representative of an institution, I have to faithfully unveil our consensus, as a free individual, who only speaks on my behalf, I have the sole duty with the same responsibility and honesty to say what I think in accordance with my conscience, at my own risk.
Don’t get me wrong. It is not that I did not wish to hurt the feelings of my country’s authorities’; they are so poorly committed to unconditional organizations, projects and independent activism like the Basic Income. Quite the contrary, I have been doing this more often with authority than prudence recommends, this can be verified here. My concerns differ.
It is exactly because of my respect for Congress, its purpose and the people I represent through ReCivitas that I state: this is not a discourse I would deliver in Maastricht. Literally, this is another new discourse. In fact, it is much more of a lesson attended and learned from the struggle for the Basic Income during this pilgrimage and presenting my testimonial here in Europe:
I did not wish to believe it, but definitely an elephant inconveniences many people and the minuscule Quatinga Velho inconveniences far more.
Obviously, I am not talking here about Europe, where we have always been very received and heard, but about the places where this elephant was born. I do not want to be unfair. It seems, this is a generalization conclusion: it lies outside its territory and it is not easy for any government, no matter how authoritarian it may indeed be, to silence, ignore or harass those citizens who do not support their policies nor submit to them.
I have never seen it as a problem (not for us) that the government does not back us up or even that they choose to ignore the Quatinga Velho pilot-project. However, I have always thought it a strategic mistake of this government to take so much trouble in simply ignoring or keeping people apart from such small organized projects for civil society. Even when dealing with two “inconvenient” subjects for their power projects: independent, organized civil societies and the unconditional Basic Income. I have always thought that they had not worked hard enough, for they provided us with the opportunity to fight back accordingly, otherwise, we would have never reached the point we did with so much visibility. However, I must admit: it was me who was wrong about this, and not them.
Be that as it may, i realise that I understood even less at that time than I do nowadays about small politics.
Despite the fact it has been undeniable all the strain and harassment the government imposed upon anyone committed to defending it, having to support all propaganda and omission, it was especially embarrassing (even to witness) the so covertly and mincing that after Quating Velho had gained the only space it could take/ occupy (abroad), the on-going make-believe there was not a single pilot project in Brazil. Or worse: when cornered, they rehearsed some form of discrete or clearly uncomfortable support, and of course, absolutely ephemeral.
It was all so unnecessary.
Without doubt, I did not know anything about small politics. I did not see anything or I did not wish to see anything. While I desperately struggled for the mere survival of the project, I fell in the governmental trap. I permitted myself to be assessed by their values and prejudices, meanwhile losing all the true amplitude of what I had accomplished. Unconsciously, I silently accepted the judgmental basis of those who assess initiatives and people through accountable, consumable or eligible quantities. I never realized the size, dimension and amplitude of the project, no matter how tiny it was, when it was true and real.
No. Definitely, it was not them who underestimated the revolutionary and subversive value of a small libertarian unconditional and radically democratic Basic Income project. It was me. But it is never too late to rectify our own mistakes.
It was not just the question of misinformation regarding Basic Income, nor co-optation and monopolization of the social movements or public policies, also in the role of history. It was a matter of stopping any contradictory or “competing” real action to one of the founding pillars of their project of perpetuation in the power: the Bolsa Familia (family allowance). It was thus, a question of stopping the unconditional Basic Income not only as a discourse, but as a libertarian and empowering practice.
The problem with Quatinga Velho in the eyes of the government was not the fact it was being carried out by an independent NGO, nor that it dealt with a stillborn Citizenship Basic Income law which had never been in effect and unfairly, nor that even being too small in the number of people to raise fear of electoral greediness from politicians and their speakers. The Quatinga Velho problem was (and now I know still is) to be the accomplishment of real freedom, above all, the Basic Income policy provides, during a constant amount of time and a sufficient number of people, to arouse the will to participate and even fight for it, extremely unprivileged people who would come to know of it.
Now I understand; why should we love our enemies? Where would I be and what would I know without those who see opponents and enemies in all that is new?
How about the new and old friends here in Europe? Once again, you helped me very much in my understanding of many issues. You helped me to unveil again, not only the facts that in Brazil, passed me by or supposedly should have been tolerated, thanks to the trivialization of its practice and taming of life, inasmuch as it helped to reveal the questionable character of some people. I can only thank you all. Not only Maastricht, but all those who along this lengthy trip have been opening doors so that we can speak, those who sincerely do want to hear the story of Quatinga Velho sharing our knowledge.
Regarding my very friendly native-country audience, I shall definitely include my perspective regarding the bolsa familia (family allowance) when I present new international lectures. I have always preferred to use my time more efficiently, utilizing it to talk and expose all about my own experience with Basic Income, not only since it is my differential, but because if I do not defend Quatinga Velho, who will? Them?
In all honesty, I could not have imagined that among the four participants who still read my writings (or attend my lectures delivered in my poor English) were some authorities who are still concerned about selling their governmental image of the “make believe” Brazil. I hope they find what they have been looking for, or that at the very least, the search for it helps them to recycle the old mentality. But, I am a pessimist in this regard; I guess it’s just a few of them who have still not realized. Among them, there are more people believing that they are cheating everybody than people believing in the government propaganda throughout the world. The worst part being that this is what least matters. What strikes us is that even in the face of so many economic and natural disasters, humiliating and political crimes, endless risks and losses to be worried about and be recovered they still waste their time making up rumors and interfering in other people’s discourses.
But this is the devil, the more you try to escape it, the closer it gets to you. It does not matter where you are, it does not matter how much you try to avoid it. It is one more lesson learned from their bad behavior: for them, those who are not with them are against them. So, my friend, even though unwillingly, even with you not being against them, you can rest assured that they will be against you. Be it so, lesson given, lesson learned: there is no use in trying to escape. So, while we cannot face the monopolists who think they are the owners of common wellness and make our planet their territories, blocking all the exit doors, we will never have any feasible solution such as the Basic Income for all.
For me, talking about the Quatinga Velho has proved to be a most affective catharsis, the subject of Quatinga Velho and countless other silent struggles, including the preservation of our life history as a memory and information against a state who openly and deliberately implements misinformation and deconstruction policies. ReCivitas reaches ten years of age this year, that is disregarding the additional eight plus years it took us to make it viable, to keep and rescue on our own a Basic Income account as a possible reality for these people. Our lectures about Quatinga Velho have been far from a search for notoriety or acknowledgment for what we have done. They were and have been part of the same struggle for space and basic conditions for a self-identity, one which is self-contained and free, it is a struggle to prevent them from slaughtering it and then erasing our life history. A history which is not only made up of paper and propaganda, but it is yielded by personal acts and experiences.
That being so, I am not being ironic. I would rather only talk about my accomplishments, about the Quatinga Velho, but I understand. The Basic Income will never have its space while the old paradigms, regimes and earthworms that suck them dry do not depart from it. If this is the chronology of needs so that freedom and justice can be, let it be: we will work so that they will all be gone. Direct Democracy and Basic Income, political and economic emancipation rights are not interweaved; they are independent and perhaps they need to be conquered in a revolutionary simultaneity.
In fact, I would rather talk about Direct Democracy, alternative forms of property, and thereby contribute to the more critical issues in the world, such as refugees. But, even when for a second we turn our attention to Europe trying to contribute to its moment of experimentation the Basic Income, we cannot escape our own reality. Politics and reality dredges us, it traps us once again within its eternal struggle.
Don’t be fooled. Brazilian politics do not hold back nor do they only hamper Brazilian people. Whenever they are in the position of taking off they manage to turn our economy into one more risk factor in the world. Like a disease, our politics hinder not only Brazil from developing its full potential, its people or even each citizen or organization in particular; it literally causes problems to everybody.
Unfortunately, authoritarian biased governments, even when in democratic regimes produce irreparable damages not only to the civil societies that feed them with their weaknesses, but to the new generations, when they do not kill or belittle them, they turn them old and crippled for good.
We just need to pronounce, for instance, the word Bolsa Familia (Family Allowance) that a governmental propaganda army of my country is ready to fight for ? Why is that? This is an almost rhetorical kind of question. Asking this question is the same as asking the audience during a horror movie why the walking dead and zombies never die or allow others to live?
I would, however, state that the inherent limitations of the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) as a conditioning, compensational, socio-democratic, technocratic income program were not unbeatable. Even the most severe distortions and prejudices due to its neoliberal, conservative, assistencialism origin could have been overcome even within an extremely centralized and bureaucratic of the Labor Party/(PT) model moving towards the path of less conditions and counterparts. However, The (PT) Labor Party’s populist distortions and even its totalitarian bias (nowadays openly declared to be inspired by the Getulio Vargas), this political party and electoral appropriation and orchestration produced for the perpetuation of a power project which not only encompasses all the worst conservative aspects that they so hardly criticized; instead, it openly started selling them as the emancipatory elements of a government misleading propaganda of this new ‘ “nanny state” and broke with the program and definitely detached from any evolution towards the lack of conditioning factors, citizenship or emancipation.
Thus, it would perfectly possible to make the transition from Bolsa-Familia (family allowance) to Basic Income if this had been a political commitment or it had been a constitutional duty. But commitment? The commitment was only a piece of paper. The Bolsa-Familia (family allowance) has never been the Bolsa-Familia (family allowance) by itself; it had been the same thing all over the country: the untrustworthiness of our governments. More precisely the problems and limitations and even distortions of both would be surpassed and abolished, if those who have the power to control it wished to and cared. As a Brazilian citizen, being part of this major Brazilian experience I can hereby affirm: don’t be fooled, they do not care nor do they assume the harm they cause.
The present government was the archetype of such behavior. Whether it is in the non-acknowledgment of its responsibilities or regarding the bipolarity between the authoritarianism and victimization. However, it has been a while since our leadership (and Latin America in general) enjoyed playing the saviours of the nation or victims from conspiracy theories according to their conveniences. Nevertheless, they sell themselves with the country from behind the blinds, in the alcoves of the world overseas or at home. We have watched more and more generations of well-trained torturers and slave drivers in political and economic power so as to maintain their own people as hostages and kidnap them with any other natural resource in exchange for their “privileges”.
It may well be that the only voice you have heard talking about this around here is mine, but it is not the only one. We might not be a large group to denounce this misleading path, but beyond doubt, this is not an isolated fight, nor is it a situation which few people know of. There are a great deal of us involved.
This fight is, in reality the struggle of many incognito Brazilian citizens. It is the fight for the future of Brazil. It is Stefan Zweig’s dream of a future Brazil. It is an unfilled promise, as I have already said, in Brazil, if a new generation does not die before reaching adulthood; they die in youth, before getting old.
No ladies and gentlemen.
Brazil is not only a country of archaic oligarchies and genocide which has been controlled by governments ready to give it all away, including that which does not belong to them. It is not only a country of marginalized people and persons. It is a battlefield of forced servitude by the old infanticide patriarchal oligarchies that kill even the future of their own children just to have one more turn in power in their veins. It is the country of the eternally dumb future, where all new generations, evolutions and revolutions are killed at birth.
You might say that other places in the world undergo the same harm, I do not doubt it. However, few artificial monopolies practice the art of alienation and chaos propaganda as a system contrary to the natural free order and organic self-organization so successfully. Understand that it does not matter what happens in Brazil or in the world, every year finishes without any change to begin again at Carnival. And there are those who live in Brazil and find it amusing that I have founded a libertarian theology and counter-religion.
My dear audience, the Basic Income, in case you are not waiting for an economic or political miracle from those in power in this or other worlds, is not just a decision that requires a revolutionary spirit and willingness, it requires faith in freedom, not as a given event or material condition, but the drive that moves the world beyond it, that is, it is not permitted to be accomplished.
But don’t worry, I am not going to talk about my faith, even being libertarian and more lucid and rational than the fanatic cultures for political, economic and material ideologies. I am here to talk about the merits and drawbacks of the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) as well as my own project. And to propose, once again, even with few resources that I have a practice example of Basic Income both in speech and in practice.
Yes indeed. Quatinga Velho is back. It is even smaller than when it started. However, it now has more potential to grow and to be sustainable. From now on, the Basic Income can get even smaller; but stopping it now, no way, over my dead body.
And those who withhold other interests and do not fancy the current good news, at least, this time, can figure out the message correctly, so that they can pretend accordingly. Let me help you with that:
ReCivitas may inconvenience a lot of people, but if the Quatinga Velho…Quatinga Velho would have a voice, Raul Seixas would sing: “I am the fly which landed on your soup”.
This is a constructive challenge of a simple citizen to those who can do more:
Stop talking and do better. Or else get out of our way for good. If the exit is by the door, then, nobody gets in nor leaves because it is you and your friends — your excellences, who are sitting down on it now.
The Bolsa-Familia (family allowance) today.
The social conquering of the political-electoral instrument.
As I said, this is not the content I intended to present… in fact, it is much more than I intended. Or at least, most certainly, it is more than a lot of people in Brazil — especially those bonded to the government, would prefer me to speak out, that is, they prefer I did not speak at all — hope.
However, do not worry; I will not waste my or your time quoting conditions, rules or exceptions. I will not play this game. I will not fall in this trap; I will not enter nor throw anyone into this bureaucratic maze in which the guardianship technocracies are constructed solely by the need to maintain those who need to be informed. Nevertheless, I will not use this as an excuse to omit or disguise fact and data, something the current Brazilian president Dilma-Cunha does.
At the end of the text I present the Brazilian government links where such information can be accessed. It is obvious that I build up my arguments observing such publications, but I prefer not to waste my line of thought under official data, not only because they can be corrected at any time, but because I make sure to maintain my own perspective based on the cause and not in the mere reproduction of other people’s contents.
In Brazil, this is a general proceeding during times of crisis. Do not accept anything without checking the source and avoid it even more after you have knowledge of it. Thus, criticism or compliments, definitely, I prefer to base my thought on knowledge I trust from my own experiences. I do not refer to my experience in Quatinga Velho only, or to ten years of activism in social projects, but to my own personal experience living in Paranapiacaba, one town amongst many in the outskirts in Brazil and suffering not all deprivations and pressures of those who live in these places, but enough of them suffering sufficiently to be able to speak about things I did not only hear or read about.
I do not weave my criticism as a specialist, authority, nor like a government scarecrow or opposition parties, but as a citizen, a witness of this Brazilian experiment. I speak with know-how.
I speak as a person who knows, like no other, the importance that money has in the lives of people who do not have anything and at the same time realize how unfair it is to bond it to the power relationships.
I speak as a person who recognizes all that the bolsa familia (family allowance) represented as a social advance, but also its political party use by the government, above all regarding its conditions as a blackmailing tool for votes which reduced it to a new gadget of negotiation like the old electoral voting fodders in Brazil.
I speak, thus, as someone who knows the other end of the line of how this machine works and perpetuates the marginalization of peoples and persons while their social inclusion is promoted via propaganda.
I speak as someone who knows its operation for those who live at the margins of society when they are not compulsorily under some form of guardianship, whether it is a police or social assistance guardianship, they are literally nowhere, they do not exist even in terms of figures.
No, I certainly did not come here to lend my voice to the government. I did not cross the Atlantic Ocean all on my own to present the point of view of those who are compromised with the government and repeat the official statements with a straight face saying that extreme poverty has vanished when all you need to do is walk out of your office and visit the closest shanty town to realize they are lying. No, I came here to lend my voice to those who are unprivileged, to those who have miraculously disappeared thanks to embarrassing and disconnected governmental discourses, so very detached from reality.
And with my utmost sincerity, I see no controversy regarding what I am saying here. If there is any controversy, it is produced and serves those who live under these schemes and never tire of making up stories, as we say in Brazil, “for the sake of appearances”.
For those countries which have been aware of, for a long time: wellness states; social-democrat parties in power; in general, conditioned income transfer programs are no great mystery. Their benefits and traps are well documented. It might be a bit harder to explain the distortions and peculiarities of the bolsa-familia (family allowance) to them. But for those who have some idea about the Brazilian economy and politics, I guess, this is not going to be difficult whatsoever.
So, nothing I will say will surpass the present reality. It is harsh. No matter how sincere and impacting the complaints, nothing will expose the Brazilian and governmental realities more openly than themselves. It does not matter how many times the lies are repeated, nowadays, fortunately, not even the most dishonest and slippery intellectuals are able to cover up the footprints left by their bosses and clients, some of these lies are even criminal. So, my words will not leave these kings of the realm any more nakedly exposed than they already are.
I don’t mean to say that all we read about the bolsa-familia (family allowance) is good or bad or that it is completely false and dishonest. Even the most committed and imperfect studies and news stories are still sincere and less impregnated by intentions and ideologies. Academic or journalistic, governmental or big media studies: they can bring up little reliable information, for those who are able to read the country Brazil between the lines, they can tell a lot of stories; obviously not stating, but regarding what they can cover up. They can tell us how programs and even information can be manufactured.
In the case of the bolsa-familia (family allowance), the discrepancies between the publications, both from the left and the right wings, surely demonstrate the overall lack of credibility from both sides, the amazing lack of respect regarding other people’s intelligence and an overbearing and arrogant approach that “nobody from outside” will verify in loco what they are telling us and that none of the insiders will “leak” the reality of facts. Even if that happens, they are able to “demolish” the discourse, the person’s personal history or even worse, simply erase it.
Yes if you could read the data and figures about Brazil with one eye on their perspective and the other open to the reality, regarding real people made of flesh and bones, hopes and dreams, feelings and willpower, you would understand better not only what I am saying, but what is the ideological coherence of these figures in comparison to the social and human natural order disrespect. You would understand where my words are leading to: the prevalence of ends upon any principle, the prevalence of ideologies upon any criticism, self-criticism and morals. Not unusually, you are faced with the worst prejudices and even crude ignorance; one which is completely coherent with the logics of such thoughts. You would be taken by surprise with the level of political, economic and cognitive alienation and detachment from the Brazilian bourgeois classes, right and left wings that respectively control the major media means and the state advertising tools.
You would understand the mutual hatred which evidently does not overcome the real division of social classes; nevertheless, it would still be a fight between brothers and sisters for hegemony within a power that can have two sides in everything, except for: the worker-slavery dogma themes and the people’s government-guardianship. The object of employment, study and power project and social programs, but never as a set, collective or society of equal beings.
The controversy, however, is brought up from this war of misinformation (where the Basic Income is targeted more often by the “friendly fire” and the enemy’s) than the drawbacks or merits inherent to the bolsa familia (family allowance) itself. It is brought about by a propaganda war where admitting errors or acknowledging the merits means losing a battle. Within this battlefield I am relieved not to be a soldier on either side and to be able to say at my own risk two or three things about the bolsa familia (family allowance).
It was an undeniable social triumph.
Regardless of how much the Brazilian ultra-right wing denies it, and goes on to deny it over and over again, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) was indeed a very important social triumph, I would even go as far as saying that it was also a cultural triumph for the country. I know the way the Brazilian government tries to sell the all-anything-benefits as if they had reinvented the wheel, or even as if it had been the beginning of the Basic Income, especially when they have left the country bankrupt; but for a country like Brazil, which criminalizes poverty and social assistance, where those who beg for a piece of bread are still beaten and stoned, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) was indeed a great social leap. Pay careful attention to the verb “was”.
The Bolsa Familia (family allowance) inaugurated a new trap for poverty, not only economic, but now also political.
Nowadays, no matter how the pseudo-left who reside in power deny it, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) had been reduced to a political-electoral control tool by those who depend on it and it became the main piece of the government-party propaganda. The program openly disturbed not only the deficiencies inherent from its origin design as a neoliberal income transfer and compensation program as it openly started being sold as aggregate values.
So as to perpetuate it, the government abdicated from all corrections and necessary evolution and all emancipation and empowerment, all the guarantee of the minimum vital for the human right, no matter if it is only a discourse.
As it had been broken, the government started to preach openly about assistencialism and paternalism and to defend without any embarrassment the low class clienteles, the criminal electoral blackmail as long as it had been legal or at least they had been legally summoned. It has even become the object of incredibility, not only for the aspects it has to cover up, but even in the acts that necessarily enhance and produce data which is good enough to be used by its propaganda machine.
The Bolsa Familia (family allowance) is not only a social assistance program and a mass social-political control program. It has become an enormous currency for the exchange of favours and propaganda and at the same time it fakes reality and controls the masses. For the regime in power, it is not only one more social program, it is a symbol. It is not just an assistance program, if one regards it as such, he/she is underestimating it in all its mass social engineering, publicity and psychology perspectives.
The Bolsa Familia (family allowance) is not merely a reunion of former neoliberal complements or transfer programs, established by the other siamese and competing social-democratic party, it is a huge propaganda and conditioning machine, not only elected, but also party-oriented, it is mass popular and ideology oriented.
And even though, with all its political uses and abuses, unfortunately, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) represents the only option of survival in the country in the face of so much public policies forced scarcity. But what about the Basic Income law? My dear friend, in Brazil, the Basic Income law is only less known than Quatinga Velho. For all effects within the war of misinformation in Brazil, not only does the Basic Income not exist, but it can never exist. This is an item that all those who occupy or intend to occupy the throne agree on.
The first thing one learns about Basic Income when it is put into practice is that people are not politically supposed to implement it, but merely promise it.
The authoritarian and reactive left wing in power wants to perpetuate the income transfer conditions, they will not let it go nor will they open the doors of this voting fodder. And what about the right wing? Oh my dear, the current ascending right wing is ultra conservative. If they could, they would put an end to all income transfer programs as rights, they would not only do it, but they would also maintain only the conditions and counterparts just to “watch these ignorant and lazy people learn”. Even those who declare themselves as liberals and declare that they are against any government subsidy and state expropriation are not in favour of any restitution whatsoever of any public asset due as a social dividend for each citizen. Obviously, they are not against the state subsidy and police protection for their private assets and perks.
In other words, forget Basic Income, ecology or liberalism. If it depends on the political classes, we will go back to the XIX Century instead of moving towards the XXI Century. We will either sink with the government oriented politicians in an economy whose bias is authoritarian and a bankrupt social-wellness labour state, or we will go back to the precarious labour conditions and thereby return to the police oriented state, more precisely, we shall only keep this part of our still archaic state, despite being extremely expensive and bureaucratic in privileges and benefits and which has remained police oriented and does not regard people’s constitutional and inalienable rights whatsoever.
Try to understand that when the government preferred to jeopardize its social conquests in the name of the perpetuation of its power project by adopting a cheating kind of propaganda, omission and facts making up strategy instead of dealing with the necessary adjustments to the main social program from the government, the government not only buried the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) evolution, but it also jeopardized the program’s sustainability.
In all reality, this has always been the basis of the blackmailing attitude: to sell the idea that if the opposition takes them out of power, the social programs will come to an end. However, instead of the siamese social democracy which timidly implemented the basis of the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) named as Bolsa-escola (school allowance), we have had the ascension of a right wing, which may have even brought to life the blackmail argument they needed so badly to remain in power. Nevertheless, that symbiotically fed and sustained this vicious cycle and did not expose to the public opinion the political class as the amorphous mass against the whole society, but as people capable of doing anything in exchange for money, social position and power.
It no longer matters what justice condemns or vindicates. On the contrary, justice’s own credibility is at stake thanks to them. Nowadays, public opinion perceives all political opponents as one great mass of people apart and separate from the real society. No longer as a class of privileged people, but as criminals. It is as if the people had assimilated not only the suspicion or denounces, but they had assumed the mutual accusations that are set by the legal decorum. “your excellency is a criminal”, “a psychopath”, “a maniac”.
Consequently, it was not without reason that the public started to form their own judgments and came to believe accordingly, that they had put at stake not only the risk of social programs, but the country’s democratic institutions. And if you ask, how is that possible? How did society permit such a thing? The answer is: Society? In a country where the left and the right wing rule, authoritarianism grew in the vacuum of civil society without any sense of social or political responsibility, above all, an organized society that has never been anything more than a state of private appendix — serving as the “stooge” or doormat for these sectors.
Not even the most conservative parts of our society who have been full of criticism about Bolsa Familia (family allowance) and have never needed to be coherent to weave their most absurd objections — never have they been embarrassed of their inhuman prejudices. Not even now, when the distortions of the PT (Workers’ Party) power project made them realize what was going on. They were not able to distinguish the electoral political trap, promoted by the conditioning of the benefits of income transfer; let alone understand how necessary and absolutely vital is its role as a fundamental right, and also as a defence mechanism against the institutional vulnerability from the democratic rule of law, the strategy tool where populist opportunism stood up high and established itself.
No sirs, not even after losing, did the bourgeoisie manage to stop defending their hippocratic and ignorant argument that people who accepted those conditions and humiliating counterparts were ignorant and submissive. They who would never subdue without suing the government under the same conditions, they could not admit that such choices are so rational as their support to those who subsidize them or which on a deeper level come exactly from the lack of guaranteed freedom and rights as basic conditions for a free and dignified life. They cannot understand that, by that, a lot of people simply cannot assume, not even for themselves, that they do not consider those people as human beings with the same rights that all citizens have; not for the time being. In fact, it would be naive to suppose that they would get to the conclusion that the sole way to set these people free from political exploitation would be to guarantee their freedom, establishing the unconditional Basic Income or at least, making Bolsa Familia (family allowance) an unconditional program.
All in all, the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) was indeed a progress of absolute necessity. But this “Damn it Paulo Freire and emancipation, I want to remain in the power” destituted more than the credibility of the program, it destituted the future of the social achievement that could indeed have even evolved towards the unconditional Basic Income, but if, it were not in the hands of those who were controlling it and continue to do so. People committed to a power project in which the project’s dependents are manipulated.
That being so, today, I only believe that Basic Income should be derived from citizens’ and popular constitutionalist movement initiatives but I also see better chances arising from them, especially in Brazil. For that, even the oligarchies support is welcome, knowing it would only take place because of the imminent ruin of their privileges and therefore as a salvation tool, very cautious measures should be taken so as to prevent the destruction of the unconditional income and emancipation policies.
Whereas the right or left wing bourgeois is concerned, they are in permanent dispute for representation of power; I see that they only support Basic Income as a practice when this is absolutely necessary for their strategy, as they know, even if instinctively, all the popular empowerment is its own limitation for their power projects. Thus, the left wing would only hand in the rings so as not to lose the fingers, by the moral weariness or by the disassembly danger of their Bolsa Familia (family allowance); and the right wing so as to establish the rupture of this domain or to attempt to establish a minimum of affinity with a population to which they have no bonds whatsoever, not even left wing rhetoric.
Thus, I guess that it is now clearer why the BIG law is stillborn, or still, why the Quatinga Velho will never be well recognized, not until this regime remains in power. While the law was being signed, the party buried alive its political author. For instance, it is understandable why Suplicy and Van Parijs had been hosted by FHC when the Bolsa-escola was implemented and never by Dilma Rousseff. It is understandable that Suplicy had publicly complained regarding the unfulfillment of the meeting with the president for the composition of work group. So, it is no coincidence that Bruna Augusto and I, Quatinga Velho coordinators were cited for the group even though we had not been mentioned at all for the pilot-project. For those who do not find the incoherence, I will show you: Besides being co-responsible for the actualization of the Quatinga Velho experience I have no other merits in life, not even academic qualifications that would justify my presence among the “scholars”. I hope no unsuspecting figure of tomorrow will ever say my name was solely there because I was somebody’s friend.
No irony please. It is possible to suppose that it would have been much better to accept limitations inherent to the design of the Bolsa Familia (family allowance) program and to pursue the possible solutions. But when one looks carefully, it is impossible to avoid sarcasm: they were right. We realize the necessary correction or evolution towards the Basic Income was really a utopia as it meant exactly that they would have to abdicate from a powerful electoral machine and walk towards the empowerment of the program’s dependents. And when we realize who in reality are in power and the fact that the Basic Income is in practice, the question is no longer, why didn’t they do anything? But, knowing who they are, why would anyone really believe they would have done that?
Finally, I have spoken extensively about the lessons I have learned with Quatinga Velho during my lectures, so here I am going to talk about the lesson we should learn with the Bolsa Familia (family allowance), not only we, Brazilians, but the world’s citizens. Or at least, those who understand that like ecology, the economy is entropically integrated and do not wish that the economic crisis is worsened by crazy and underdeveloped leaderships.
It is no use either closing the borders nor lending money to the governments, banks or financial markets in times of crisis. They are not the solution, they are not different. They are the other side of the same coin; they face the same problem standing in the path of humanity.
All the impediments and conditions they impose before and after, so that people can access the resources they need, not only the capital that finance them, but all the means and resources, above all the natural resources they control (and which do not belong to them), are the reiterated origin of poverty and their illicit enrichment, the source of their power and government, military and industrial budget which is not and has never been the true richness of the nations.
Their illegitimate prerogatives for the acquisition of benefits, privileges and perks derive from the expropriation and prohibition of enjoying people’s and human beings’ natural rights. They are the maintaining principle of the subsidy socio-economic systems to the alienated labour, political, military and even religion enticement by the deprivation of vital basic needs. Accepting them is accepting the economic and political game grounds which reduces Basic Income to a mere government concession program and it will not be evaluated according to the needs or nature of the population, but from this artificial body and those corporations which support them.
Pretending we do not see the blatant lack of endeavour and the guarantee of a Basic Income in vulnerable areas of the world, where people are enslaved by transnational corporations, seduced by populist and authoritarian governments, criminal or ideological and cultural fundamentalist organizations is to ask for the army of nationalist, racist and religious fanatics to proliferate in exchange for a loaf of bread. It is akin to asking the fugitives of these devils and their hell to come and knock on your door.
Better than fighting fascist and genocidal leaders and their fanatical armies, it is to stop their proliferation in the world armouring the democratic Rule of Law from these populist authoritarian and irresponsible people, by prophylactically protecting people and societies with the guarantees of real freedom such as with the unconditional Basic Income as international rights, at least by the person to person income transfer systems, without borders. Systems in which the control of resources do not pass through the hands of these terrible, good-for-nothing reprobate statesmen enabling them to fulfil their goals: to empower people who need it, to set them free from poverty and political traps rather than the economic ones.
After all, it is a brutal mistake to ignore the conditioning or the violation of fundamental freedoms, even if it is towards safety or even worse economic earnings. As is the case, once freedom is conquered it cannot be taken away easily, political powers subtracted, rarely are given back, not without a fight. So, all I ask for is that you do not allow yourself to get trapped: we set free those who are less privileged, those who need the most fundamentally basic things in life; they will not only not run away from their houses, but they will also build their own democracies, more fulfilled with citizenship, guaranteed freedom and equality of authority than we experience today, even in more developed countries.
QUATINGA VELHO NOW AND TOMORROW Restarting even smaller to go on even further.
One mother took her son to Mahatma Gandhi and begged him: “please, Mahatma, ask my son not to eat sugar”. Gandhi, after some thought, asked her: “bring your son to me in two weeks time”.
Two weeks later, she returned with her son. Gandhi looked into the boy’s eyes and said: “do not eat sugar”.
Thankful — but taken aback — the woman asked him: “why did you ask me for two weeks? You could have asked the same thing before!”
And Gandhi replied: “two weeks ago, I was eating sugar”.
Honestly, I am very far removed from Gandhi’s logic. And quite detached from his moral. Those who know me personally know that. I cannot deny I much prefer to talk about that which I know well. But those who know my work also know I do not do that because of my personal choice, but due to necessity. For that reason, if I had to quote any unclear sentence related to the Basic Income according to my personal taste, I would quote Bocage:
“Here lies Bocage, the wanker;
He spent a lazy, wasted life;
He ate, drank and fucked without having any money.”
It is a matter of taste, I believe that to get detached from the theoretical inertia and to enter the field of new practices it is not enough to perform the civil disobedience and aesthetic subversion, we need discourses which are coherent with their practices and less practices which are only manufactured to produce discourses.
Just like the knowledge, it is not enough to be independent, honest or intellectually sincere; if we want the true Basic Income without losing its libertarian spirit we need to be concerned about producing more practical knowledge and less theoretical knowledge or even empiric without social commitment.
We need more knowledge guided towards people and not towards governments and financial markets. Or else, we will endure more mass conditioning programs from authoritarian governments, miracle solutions and bankrupt ideologies sold as if they were real freedom.
Nobody can or should be begging and waiting, but we cannot ask others to plunge in our places and to open up the ways that should be opened by us. Nobody has this duty, only us who chose utopia, not as rhetoric, but as a way of life.
We do not have to turn into Gandhi or Bocage for that. However, those who invite others to take part in their paths, at least, need to: lead the way and open it beforehand. One may not be able to do it all by himself, but he/she should not pray to the all-powerful ones to make the rain fall.
We do not need discourses with data that will convince leaders about what we need. We need new realities that are sufficiently solid so that the bold people can immediately abandon the old world and plunge into the new one, where they could sail towards possible dreams like pioneers and not guinea pigs for the production of medications for the old world.
They are the true pioneers. It is from their experiences that we acknowledge these people and not objects of studies, but the protagonist and his/her goal. Experiences which are not mere laboratories, but true realities and accomplishments which are consistent and permanent enough for people to rely on for their future.
It’s no secret that I do miss more independent projects, from ordinary citizens, open and with a solidarity to the civil and organized society or not. Small indeed, but boastful towards the transformation of the people, not the world. As, according to Paulo Freire, “education does not transform the world, it only changes the people, the ones who change the world are the people”. In fact, I get frustrated to see experiences losing their global and humanitarian social project feature such as is the case of the Otjiviero and Quatinga Velho, being reduced to a simple cheap, utilitarian social experiment.
I completely realize how pathetic it is for many people who could be doing much more than I can do to accept my little initiate to provide Basic Income to some people. But my effort becomes more easily understood when my origin is known: I am not Caucasian; I am a black man, by my own choice of identity. I did not grow up in the slave quarters, nor in the big houses, it is just because of this that I woke up for the fight of the freed and escaped people instead of the comfort of the blacks who live in the big houses and their masters.
As you can see, my problem is that I have a major flaw, especially for those who do not have enough, to believe in what I say. To make matters worse, I speak too much. During this last trip through Europe, I spoke a lot. I spoke so much I could notice that somehow, still within my tiny material possibilities, I could make it happen again, rather than just showing the way it could be done. I could once again bring the project to life, a smaller and less ambitious one. Furthermore, I had a commitment not only with the cause I chose, but with the friends I made in the project. So, despite the fact that the old pilot-project cycle had been closed, a new Basic Income era is back in Quatinga Velho.
And this is exactly what I want to talk about here from now on. Especially to address those who wish to become part of this new phase of Basic Income for us.
THE NEW QUATINGA VELHO FINANCING MODEL
Before anything, I would like to advise readers, if they are searching for data regarding the five years of the Quatinga Velho, I will only present references here. The same thing applies for my national immediate plan. This is a text about the future of the project and a proposal for an independent and self-sustainable generation of private resources from the Basic Income. That does not mean we will give up on the constitutional demands for the social dividends derived from the common property. On the contrary, we will not only keep our demands so that governments prioritize and compulsorily pay the Basic Income as their duty, as at the same time, this model serves both as the alternative for the maladministration and the basis for the activation of a future network of social protection where the public dividends would not only be added, but would also compose the source of primary resources at last.
However, if you expect a project which is written on a piece of paper to serve millions and millions of people, don’t waste your time. I will not sketch here a governmental Basic Income plan within the standards of the old nation states: centralized, hermetic or taxable that meets everybody’s wishes on paper and nobody’s wishes in reality. My intention is to describe the opposite path, the proposition of smaller nucleuses which are necessary to reach larger possible integrated networks. However, if you, on the other hand, believe that small actions carried out by few people can unleash decentralized, horizontal transformations, which have the potential to grow and be replicated, this text could be just right for you.
I describe therefore an experience that might serve both a small town or various communities which are integrated in social protection much bigger than the nation-states themselves. Am I dreaming? Sure, but I dream while fully awake.
On January 28th 2016, my companion, Bruna Augusto and I started it all over again: we paid the first new payment of the Quatinga Velho Basic Income new phase.
Many people do not know (or pretend not to know), but even the previous plan had been designed for an increasing and replicable growing network. It might not have been successful enough (it did not even sustain itself) which among many other mistakes is open to criticism, but it is undeniable, the Quatinga Velho model could have grown and it can now grow, especially if we do not take the criticism for granted. So, by observing, above all else, our own mistakes and criticisms, we have decided to once again start paying it at our own risk and inviting people who are interested to help us maintain and broaden the project. However, this time, there are some fundamental differences:
1. ReCivitas counts on a Permanent Fund.
2. A self-contained Basic Income Guarantor Fund pays the basic income.
3. Crowdfunding and expansion dependant on local demand.
4. Opening of a call for the participation of new communities.
5. A 21 years emancipation plan.
6. The possibility of individuals to participate in the projects.
7. And contribution and re-distribution of voluntary income among participants.
Those who know the history of the Quatinga Velho realize we have always been concerned about the Basic Income sustainability, to such an extent that the first project (which never took off) had a Permanent Fund for Paranapiacaba — which we abandoned to immediately start the Basic Income at an even smaller village.
Now, once again we have reduced the number of people assisted, not to revamp the project, but to anchor its safety and longevity as well as to enhance its growth potential. Again, we stepped back in dimension so as to gain in longevity, sustainability, time to emancipate and the possibility of growth, expansion and replication.
However, these adjustments do not refer only to the time or dimension strategies, but, to problems such as the model.
The problem with Quatinga Velho was not its tiny dimensions, on the contrary, that was its major advantage, but it was not enough. It wasn’t just that Quatinga Velho remained too large for our resources; it was necessary that it establish its own capital so as to be able to support itself mainly relying on these scarce resources.
For this, we established the Permanent Fund, but we could not capitalize it, even though it was relatively small, interest rates were very high. It was impossible to consider the Basic Income exclusively maintained with the distribution of income among residents, or worse still, only among the community voluntary participants. And perhaps, being focused on these immediate limitations, we did not notice that independently from anything the project required some conceptual adjustment.
We had a mistaken view regarding the relationship of rights and duties and which are distinct in voluntary social contracts and imposed ones; or if you prefer, between free people or those under the responsibility and custody of some state of social service. It is factual that because governments monopolize the common assets, compulsory association and contracts of all inhabitants of a territory they cannot exclude anyone from accessing or receiving the minimum vital provision, whether the state is fulfilling its role or not, whether it acknowledges or not its supremacy, whether it submits or not its authority under the penalty of crime against life — acknowledging its crime or not.
A free society, no. We cannot impose that, it is not legal, justice cannot demand that. It is really because of this: we do not take freedom of association from people, we do not monopolize their common asset, nor do we demand compulsory contributions from their private incomes, it is not that everybody can be assisted regarding rights and duties, even when goals are the guarantee of universal rights, such as the case of the Basic Income, we do not impose upon participants any form of commitment which is not mutual and voluntary among responsible partners.
That means in the case of the Basic Income by definition, nobody can be rejected or excluded if they voluntarily assume all the commitments necessary for the fulfilment and guarantee of this right. Even if their contribution capacity to the system is permanently zero. According to the demand and availability of resources, people should be progressively included. Voluntary associations cannot establish any sort of demand so as to make people entitled to earning their Basic Income, nor can they exclude people’s rights to get it. Strictly speaking, only the State has such a (legitimate or not) prerogative to subtract assets, for both private and common, so that it can be state things which hinder or make demands for the earning of an asset or income whose right does not belong to them.
The relationship between rights and duty in private societies is mutual, direct and unbreakable: without fulfilling the necessary duties, in this case, the contribution, as without it there is no asset or common property from where everyone’s income derives as a right. And even if it derived from the collective ownership from a natural property, this duty would still exist as the duty of preservation. There is no other way to make the income part of everybody’s rights. It is necessary to reinstate the natural property or to make associations about private properties, where those who are interested firstly contribute for their composition, thereafter, maintain.
Natural rights do not have corresponding duties, but all natural rights under the responsibility of a society need to be constituted as a social duty. Duties are not conditionings, when they are necessary conditions for the fulfilment of rights, and when conditions are no longer naturally provided; contributions are not just necessary means, but constitutive principles to the rights as a social relationship.
In fact, we had lost the logic relationship of cause and effect between rights and duties through the inconsequence of the assistencialism reference. One thing is to impose some unnecessary obstacles to the concession of rights. Another is to let people assume their share in what is needed to be able to acquire their rights. Whether it is the conditioning which creates obstacles for the rights, or the assistencialism which subtracts responsibilities from people; both are taking away very relevant opportunities for development and emancipation when they set apart the conquering of rights of your duties, in the case of each person’s contribution so that everyone can have their guaranteed income.
Knowing that the Basic Income is not a right as much as it is a duty for us all, it had to be integrated within the system so that it could be understood as such. Nevertheless, we were very concerned that the demand for participants’ voluntary contribution was interpreted as a condition, and that was our greatest mistake: after all, who should pay the Basic Income for a community if not itself? OK, Quatinga Velho is poor and needs assistance; many people in Quatinga Velho did not have a penny to contribute; so, it requires investment, loans or donations from outside, but that does not eliminate the need for the dwellers’ contribution.
It did not matter if it was small, irrelevant or in practice just a reduction of their Basic Income. That what matters is that those who earn little should receive more than they pay. Those who earn more than they pay could contribute with more, of course, in the case of disagreement; they can withdraw from the commitment.
If we could we would like to establish any kind of compulsory contribution, but the model should predict a contribution percentage proportionate to the payment of an equal income for all.
In reality, this contribution does not need to be pre-established, nor does it have to be equitable for all. Since the difference in contribution is accepted by them, there would be no problem if the percentage is different. Especially concerning the private income of each person and not the direct Basic Income discount, this resource is not only a voluntary contribution as it is the continual capital within the contributor’s Guarantor Fund for the Basic Income.
In reality, the same decision making principle of agreement among everybody could also be applied to approve different revenues, according to each person’s special needs. In the future, we can go from equal contributions to contribution according to each person’s affordability, in fact, it is something that could be the object of unrestricted negotiation in the article of incorporation/bylaws where the right to unrestricted association and termination is unhindered, but this is another, separate issue.
The important thing at this moment is that this managerial freedom via the Direct Democracy by the assembly of participants (previously successful) enables people to reduce, if agreed, the contribution so that their Basic Income is larger. It is worth mentioning that that those who do not agree are allowed, not only to not take part, but to leave the project whenever they wish.
So, the present model is not based on a contribution of 10 per cent from each participant’s income suggested by ReCivitas. For the payment of a Basic Income we restarted now with 40 reais. For the time being it is only 14 people who agreed to participate in this new phase. But this is normal. As in the beginning of the other project, it takes time for people to understand its operational mechanism.
Nevertheless I can state in advance that I do not believe that everybody will adhere. Not only because some might have to contribute more than they would receive or because it would require that the reduction of their contribution share would have to be voted. Honestly, I do not know if everybody would like to assume this public contribution commitment as it is not compulsory, as I do not know how they deal with the possibility that one day they might have more than they earn; even knowing it is possible to leave the project behind without incurring any penalty. Not everyone is guided only if there are to be legal consequences or not, but also by their moral standing.
The model is based on the principles of the Basic Income, but it is supported by affinity and trust. There is no supervision. Those who provide incorrect information will not be excluded automatically, however, both admission and termination of new participants in the community will be decided via a Democratic Direct voting system and the break of trust can indeed be the reason for termination of any contract among any participants, including ReCivitas.
As we have said, even those who do not have any income with this model start contributing with at least 10 per cent of their Basic Income to the Basic Income Guarantor Fund.
The Basic Income Guarantor Fund should not be mixed up with the ReCivitas Permanent Fund for Basic Income projects. The ReCivitas Fund can be invested in any community and belongs to the institution. The Guarantor Fund is set up by participants’ contributions and even when it does not derive from its asset, but only composed only by the Basic Income discounted amount in terms of accounting procedures, it belongs to the beneficiaries and can be withdrawn by them, in case they need a loan or leave the project.
It is important to highlight that contributors do not give up on their assets regarding this Guarantor Fund. It is added to promote the revenue necessary to pay both the Basic Income total for all as well as its respective Social Dividend. So, those who contribute with absolute amounts with more, despite earning the same Basic Income, in the end of the project, will have a larger participation in the Guarantor Fund, as in fact, these contributors have a larger participation. Of course, they can always withdraw their share at any moment from the Guarantor Fund and leave the project. Just like any investor.
Notice that the Guarantor Fund revenue only becomes effective as a Social Dividend from the moment contributions are bigger. Of course that with the financial revenues will become more feasible. But this is not the point. The important thing is that we do not need to rely on donors forever, nor with the revenue, only with the main source where communities are poor and interests are high. Along the local development the determining factor is then the contribution from dwellers that play the role of direct and voluntary income redistribution, while the Fund is safety for moments of crisis (see table 2).
This is where the project presents interesting innovation elements, besides, of course, enabling the planned expansion via crowdfunding according to new dwellers’ demand or by the availability and call for new communities. In all cases, it is possible to project not only the amount necessary to supplement the Basic Income from new participants’ absolute contributions, but always and constantly estimating the necessary time span that each community reaches sustainability and later, emancipation.
With this model, where individuals who do not live in the communities, it is also possible to adhere to the Basic Income individually, obviously this is more likely to happen as contributors, but also as beneficiaries, once they are entitled to the same discounted Basic Income, and their contribution duly deposited in the Quatinga Velho Guarantor Fund. These beneficiaries do not represent costs, they help and speed-up emancipation of a pure community and simply by taking part voluntarily (if accepted). They will be, except in cases of necessity, contributing more than earning, but they will not only be entitled to the Basic Income as much as the locals who contribute, but also will be part of the Guarantor Fund, and like any beneficiary, will also be entitled to their Social Dividends. That is, the best way to help the Basic Income by becoming part of the Basic Income community.
This is the way to socially and directly invest in human development in the locality, while at the same time becoming part of the community itself and indisputably part of the project as an equal member. In fact, it is not yet possible to invest properly by speech. But it is possible to sign the Investment Fund commitment participation terms. It does not mean charging, it serves solely to our planning with regards to contributions. For that, donations remain absolutely necessary; they will be added to the ReCivitas Permanent Basic Income Fund.
These are the foundations of the new ReCivitas Basic Income model which once more restarts in Quatinga Velho and can expand while no longer having to comply with our current resources, at least for these families who will not stop in any less than 21 years. That is adequate time for the Guarantor Fund to be sufficiently capitalized in order to permanently support at least the unconditional Basic Income. We are obstinate, once again we restarted alone in Quatinga Velho, and we will continue to be dreamers because once again we do not expect to reach the end on our own, and not only with it.
Those who wish to become donors can deposit their contribution directly in the following bank accounts in Brazil and in Germany, details below.
Or if you prefer, you can contribute to the project by purchasing one of the following books:
· The Libertarian Basic Income. The true tithe.
·The Quatinga Velho’s Basic Income lessons. Or what one learns when nothing is asked for in return.
· 209 Reasons to have faith in the guaranteed Basic Income (compilation and manifest).
· New, in English: WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE PRACTICE OF BASIC INCOME (a compilation of new articles)
But don’t worry, they are under the license ⒶRobinRight [i], and you do not have to necessarily purchase them if you wish to read them, unless you really want to contribute.
DATA AND FIGURES ABOUT THE NEW QUATINGA VELHO MODEL
Project Financing Time Span: 21 years
_ReCivitas Permanent Fund,
_ Private Donors,
_ Beneficiary Contributions
Basic Income Estimate: Permanent
Basic Income Absolute Amount: R$ 40
Total Monthly Amount: R$ 560
Contribution for the Guarantor Fund: R$ 280
Basic Income Effectively Earned: R$ 280
Contribution Rate: approx. 10% of the per capita gross income
Number of beneficiaries: 14 people. 3 families
Venue: Quatinga Velho, Mogi das Cruzes, SP, Brazil.
First Payment of the New Guaranteed Model
in effect on January 28th 2016
Serving as a demonstration of the model without the application of either interest or monetary correction, that are considerable, we have at the end of 21 years.
For non-resident beneficiaries.
An alternative projection is of possible beneficiaries who do not live there. We used our own as an example:
Considering we are already regular donors, why don’t we get engaged in the project? All in all, it is more beneficial to effectively contribute with 200 reais to the FGRB than simply only pay RB. The problem for us is that the Permanent Fund does not cover, with its income, more than R$200 approx. per month. So, we are really donating R$360 and to participate in the project also as a beneficiary according to the suggested contribution we would effectively need R$200 more in order to deposit in the Guarantee Fund. In other words, we need to expect that the ReCivitas Permanent Fund expands, or the Social Investment Fund is finally established. However, for any other person who intends to donate regularly, the best way is the Permanent Fund, as we have mentioned, the amount is voluntary and a suggested figure. Not knowing how much you are donating from what you own is not what matters, but the difference. If the community accepts you as a member, it means they accept your values too.
[i] The license ⒶRobinRight in fact enables even more: you can even copy it for commercial purposes (profit oriented), but it is necessary to pay the author’s or owner’s copyrights.