Since the fall of communism, the lack of alternatives has paralyzed any social movement of any significance, such as the struggle against the CPE, which found no political outlet other than an illusory defense of permanent employment contracts, with no effect on the growth of precariousness. The causes of our failure do not lie in the supposed strength of our opponents, but in the weakness of our proposals and our archaic attitudes toward ecological issues and the considerable upheavals we have experienced since entering the information age!
It is not enough to criticize capitalism and its unsustainable productivism; we must have something else to offer. Beyond partial or defensive measures, there is a vital need to build an ecological alternative to market-driven globalization, an alternative that is both realistic and forward-looking, i.e., one that takes full account of material constraints as well as new information technologies, rather than clinging vainly to an industrial past that is over and not as glorious as it is made out to be!
In this perspective for the future, the demand for a guaranteed income cannot be reduced to a simple adaptation to the current system, such as the “professional social security” defended by the unions. On the contrary, its potentially revolutionary character must be emphasized as an element of a new system of production based on autonomous work and the cooperation of knowledge (and no longer on wage labor and competition). The scope of a “sufficient guaranteed income” is twofold: it is indeed the adaptation of social relations to the new productive forces in the information age, but it is also the sine qua non condition for an alternative to wage-based productivism and for the necessary relocalization of the economy in the face of unbridled globalization.
Guaranteed income is therefore absolutely essential, but it must be understood in terms of its two aspects of adaptation and transformation, which are central to what must be considered a genuine revolution, a “liberation of labor” comparable to the abolition of slavery, and which, incidentally, arouses the same fears. However, in order to effectively ensure alternative production based on this liberated labor, it is necessary to address not only income but also production itself, as well as monetary means and market channels. Beyond the question of income, we must move toward a more comprehensive vision of production organization that integrates the ecological dimension, which will become increasingly urgent. This new system of production in the age of information, ecology, and human development could be built on the articulation of a guaranteed income (reproduction), municipal cooperatives (production), and local currencies (exchange).
All this may seem far removed from our current reality and trade union demands, but we know that it is completely utopian to continue like this for much longer and that the path to an alternative is narrow, lying between utopia and laissez-faire, as between totalitarianism and liberalism. It is all the more urgent to try to give concrete form to this alternative so that we can once again look to the future and organize action.
This should at least have the advantage of making people more aware of the reformulation of the problems that is taking place, the necessary shift in perspective (from social security to human development), and finally, how far these new issues, which are in line with current experiments in South America, are from the old worldviews that still reign supreme (both socialist and liberal). This is what makes it so strange and fuels general disbelief. Yet we really need to “change era,” because the questions are no longer being asked in the same terms. They are now both more global and more local, without disappearing magically into fantasies of self-organization or an ideal society, which is always too perfect and logical!
There is no end to history, no, and even less so to all our alienation in a final and definitive reconciliation! We will always have to correct ourselves, get back on track, overcome disasters, get by as best we can, face contradictions, and reduce inequalities. The end of slavery did not promise endless happiness, and this time we cannot even say that it will be the end of wage labor, but rather its gradual marginalization in favor of autonomous activities, just as farmers were ultimately marginalized in industrial society. It is simply a matter of rising to the challenges of our time, preserving our living conditions and our autonomy, making the most of the opportunities available to us, while reaffirming our human solidarity. The risk here, as we know only too well, is to fall into the most naive illusions, which always lead to the worst...
The age of information, ecology, and human development
If there is one widespread illusion, it is the belief that everything could go back to the way it was before, because it is a massive fact that the immaterial future of the economy is disrupting all the data and foundations of value (free digital reproduction, free software, etc.) as well as those of income, which is increasingly irregular and discontinuous, for increasingly precarious and intermittent work. This must be seen as the consequence of the shift from “labor” to “problem solving,” which is no longer measured by time spent but by results (management by objectives). It is also the transition from a mass production economy to a demand economy (just-in-time), focused on services and guided by information, which translates into much greater flexibility in employment.
As a result, even if no one seems to want it, the issue of guaranteed income keeps coming up again and again in public debate (minimum income, the unemployed, the working poor, precarious workers, students, intermittent workers, creative workers, researchers, training, young people, farmers, retirees, etc.). Although it may seem unthinkable to most people, guaranteed income should eventually become a reality as work transforms in the information age.
Of course, there is no chance of achieving a genuine guaranteed income in the short term, but that does not detract from its necessity. It will eventually prevail in the face of the social suffering and human waste caused by the desire to maintain the outdated principles of Fordist wage labor and purely verbal “full employment,” which leaves more and more people by the wayside. Similarly, the end of productivism is not for tomorrow, that much is clear, but here again we have little choice and will have to get there eventually. It is therefore the principles of the future that we must examine, however foreign they may seem to our present, however opposed they may be to the triumph of neoliberalism and market globalization. Nor can we be satisfied for long with a guaranteed income reduced to the mere regulation of cognitive capitalism while temperatures continue to rise (the immaterial future of the economy is not enough to reduce capitalism's productivism and its dependence on a suicidal consumer society).
If we are to build a new system of production based on different relations of production and a different distribution of income, it is not only to adapt to new immaterial productive forces, but also to respond to the material ecological constraints that are forcing us to move away from productivism and relocalize the economy. It will not be enough to simply “grow less” or “reduce working hours,” which has lost all meaning now that there is no longer any separation between work and life. It is still difficult to grasp the scale of the task ahead, the extent to which we are entering a totally new era, the era of information, ecology, and human development, which is diametrically opposed to the era of energy, economics, and the market, just as quality is opposed to quantity. Everything needs to be rethought; it is not the margins that need to be adjusted, but the very heart of production that must change.
Beyond income
Debates on the right to income often stray into morality and metaphysics, or even religion, when they are fundamentally about economic and technical developments! Recognizing that we can no longer do without a right to income is not enough to define a political project. Trying to bring together all those who defend some form of right to income, whether they are environmentalists or liberals, would make absolutely no sense. It is not even so much a question of defining terms, for example by contrasting guaranteed income with basic income (or citizen's income, etc.), but of knowing what kind of society we want to build! We will then see that there is nothing in common between, on the one hand, a universal but derisory basic income (or negative tax), as advocated by some liberals, which is a thin safety net in a market society, barely allowing people to survive, which encourages underpaid odd jobs and lower wages, and, on the other hand, on the other hand, a “sufficient guaranteed income” which, as 
André Gorz has shown, makes it possible to escape wage labor while pushing wages up, to move from work that is endured to work that is chosen by subsidizing autonomous activities that are not immediately profitable (crafts, local services, organic farming, artistic and creative activities, free software, associations, politics, training, etc.).
The decoupling of income and work is undoubtedly the most revolutionary aspect, but rather than focusing on the question of income, we need to place it back into the system of which it is a part, because even if it remains central, guaranteed income is only one aspect of the global shift that we are finding so difficult to live with. While an alternative without guaranteed income is not viable, an alternative that boils down to this demand would be a scam, because the essential thing is to ensure alternative production, not to live off capitalism or merely alleviate poverty. Far from being opposed to work and devoted to a leisure society, what characterizes guaranteed income is, on the contrary, that it can be combined (on a sliding scale) with income from work, serving as an incentive for self-employment. This point must be emphasized: it is to ensure production, and production that we want to be more ecological, that a guaranteed income is needed. This is why the question must be broadened to include the organization of production and its active relocation.
While guaranteed income is only one element of alternative production, it is nonetheless the crux of the problem. Indeed, all attempts to do without it, in the name of full wage employment, the “value of work,” or even autonomy or human dignity, only dramatically worsen the plight of the most precarious and lead either to the barbarism of forced labor or to the barbarism of poverty. It is also true that this is the point of greatest ideological resistance and the most difficult to implement, because a guaranteed income requires us to change all our ways of thinking: a shift from compulsory work to autonomous work, from subordinate work to work that is valued, but also from social security to human development, from the economy to ecology! We must admit that it is an idea that seems crazy, there is no doubt about that, and it would be inconceivable if work had not already changed completely. It would not be gaining ground on every continent (especially among those who have studied the issue!) if it weren't for the evolution of production and the spread of precariousness, which are imposing it in a thousand different ways!
However, it is not enough to adapt to changes in work; there is also an urgent need to move away from unsustainable productivism, which means moving away from wage-based capitalism. Contrary to what we might imagine, it is not through consumption (restraint, discernment, ethical choices) that we will be able to reduce growth and productivism, which are inseparable from the capitalist system of production. Indeed, capitalism is technical investment to increase productivity, reduce working hours in order to generate surplus value on paid time, and produce money with money through wage labor. Wage labor, capitalism, and productivism are one and the same (as Marx already said in 1848 in “Wage Labor and Capital”). If workers are forced to rent their labor power to capitalists, it is because they lack all resources and means of production. This is no longer entirely true since the advent of the personal computer, which is a universal tool. All that is missing is a guaranteed income to escape wage dependency.
From an environmentalist point of view, the question is therefore not only whether a guaranteed income would be viable and desirable in the current context, but rather to emphasize its revolutionary nature, since it would enable us to break free from productivity-driven wage labor and the absurd dependence between work and consumption. It is effectively a question of breaking free from the toxic addiction of a consumer society fueled by growth, which cannot survive without it without sinking into depressive overproduction! Moving away from productivism cannot mean producing nothing at all, but rather ensuring alternative production, characterized by a reorientation of the economy towards the immaterial, human development, and local trade.
This will not happen on its own. It requires a comprehensive system based on a completely different productive logic, other means of production, other channels, and therefore supplementing the guaranteed income with municipal cooperatives and local currencies, constituting the three pillars of an ecological alternative in the age of digital technology and globalized networks.
Building a new productive system will certainly not happen overnight, and involves multiple dimensions (economic, ideological, political), several sectors (commercial, associative, public) and several levels (European, national, local). There can therefore be no question of providing ready-made recipes for the future, but rather of giving an idea of what a production system that meets the constraints of economic relocation and human development could look like, beyond guaranteed income.
Producing differently
To consume differently, we must produce differently, and first and foremost locally! To promote local production and local trade, we cannot do without local means of production (the equivalent of the “commons” of yesteryear) and therefore local structures, which should be self-managed where possible. Relocalization cannot be imposed from above! Of course, the level adopted is open to debate, with the municipal level being the most relevant in medium-sized towns, with the advantage of corresponding to democratic structures; elsewhere, “neighborhood councils” may be preferred, or the concept may be extended to the “employment area.” In any case, the function of these “municipal cooperatives” (or other similar entities) would be to serve as resource centers and places of exchange, designed to support local production and autonomous activities, develop cooperation among participants, and promote the skills available. The aim is not only to organize local exchanges but also to provide all the means for human development (assistance and training).
Some dispute the need for such a political organization, which they perceive as a threat. While this is certainly not impossible, we must remain vigilant, but if we want to ensure effective production, it is not enough to “let things be”; we must organize ourselves as in any business! We cannot rely blindly on the self-organization of producers, but in fact it is mainly a question of resources. The municipal nature of these cooperatives makes it possible to guarantee their sustainability, to escape the pressure of the competitive market from which ordinary cooperatives cannot escape, and to have political management, in a face-to-face democracy dear to Bookchin (who died on July 30, 2006 and who was behind the concept of “municipal cooperatives” and “libertarian municipalism”).
This has nothing to do, of course, with the “national workshops” of sad memory, nor with population control, and even less with forced labor, when it should, on the contrary, be an instrument of human development and self-employment, offering an alternative to wage dependency. It is the guarantee of income that makes all the difference here, in line with the requirements of the information age, but this does not mean that the objective is not only human development, but also to ensure effective local production, including immaterial production, based on cooperation and reducing the share of material consumption, the competitive market, and productivism.
The important thing is not to leave individuals alone to face the market, on the pretext that they have a guaranteed income as a final settlement, but to offer individual support (by other cooperators), facilitate collaboration and exchanges, bring synergies into play and finally provide the means for autonomy: not just a minimum income but all the social support the individual needs! The important thing is the collective construction of individual autonomy and the organization of social solidarity, it is about “making” society. There are good reasons for adopting a “politicized” municipal structure for this, but the essential thing is to provide a framework for local exchanges, for the development of available skills and support for autonomous activities.
Municipal cooperatives, as means of production and networks of skills positioning themselves as an alternative to capitalist enterprises and wage labor, need a guaranteed income to move from forced labor to chosen work, but they are just as much linked to local currencies that promote the local economy, based on the model of LETS, “Local Exchange Trading Systems,” which, on a small scale, were the first experiments in this movement to relocalize the economy in response to market globalization.
The relocation of the economy
Relocation can be achieved through contracts between consumers and local producers (such as AMAPs) or through associations, but this is still quite limited and local currencies would be much more useful in boosting local trade and promoting short supply chains. There are several types: the simplest to set up is the “Time dollar” or time exchange, which has a definite advantage, particularly in the domestic sphere, as well as a militant value in challenging certain illegitimate wage hierarchies, but it cannot be generalized (because it does not take into account differences in qualifications or, above all, the fact that intangible work or “virtuoso work” can no longer be measured by the time spent). A local currency can be considered an “internal” currency, created by an association or municipality to be used in local exchanges of goods and services (based on the LETS model). These are generally currencies that are theoretically “non-convertible” and “melting,” meaning that they lose their value over time (just like restaurant vouchers or supermarket discount coupons, which are currencies with limited validity) and therefore cannot be hoarded.
There are many other alternative currencies that can coexist, such as “virtual currencies,” which are multiplying beyond massively multiplayer games (MMG) and are, on the other hand, completely delocalized. “Solidarity currencies” (such as SOL) could make good use of these digital currencies, including in international trade, between anti-globalization activists, for example, or for genuine “fair trade,” thus linking the local with the global. In any case, we are a long way from a “single currency” as one might think! It must be said that for the moment these different currencies are largely unknown to each other and interact little, but with the spread of “plural currencies” (J. Robin), conversion exchanges will certainly be necessary, as the conversion of one currency into another must remain costly, neither too easy, at the risk of losing its specificity, nor too rigid, at the risk of no longer being accepted as payment.
Some would like to do away with money altogether, but that is not the path we are taking here because, while the scope of free services needs to be expanded, particularly for everything digital and intangible, money is fundamentally what replaces energy as a general equivalent in the information age. Energy is what is transformed into something else, particularly into work. And money is what provides resources, manifests their social character, and elevates the singular to the universal. Its claim to quantify everything is certainly always debatable, although it is indispensable for circulation, but money is above all a sign (monetary), a sign of social recognition and an information system that we cannot do without.
This is what makes the world of information so remarkable and underappreciated: its growth is always strictly limited. There is no real growth in monetary value because any monetary inflation reduces its effective value, its purchasing power. Inflation is therefore a kind of tax on debt, the past, and money that is not being used—which is actually very useful because reasonable inflation encourages activity, contrary to the central dogma of the euro! Conversely, much of unemployment is said to be “Keynesian,” i.e., the result of a lack of liquidity to finance jobs, generally due to the fight against inflation (and a lack of Keynesian policy, precisely!). This is particularly the case in the eurozone, but we have also seen how the currency crisis in Argentina blocked economic activity and immediately caused mass unemployment. The capacity to create money is strictly limited to unused resources, since money constitutes a drawing right on social wealth. All this to say that local currencies can effectively reduce unemployment in these periods of depression, but can also create inflation, requiring careful political management, like any currency, because the margins are relatively small, even if they are far from negligible.
Nevertheless, the primary role of local currencies is above all to enable the relocation of the economy by promoting local trade without having to erect new borders, close themselves off to the competitive market, or halt European integration. However, we must not hide the fact that one of the decisive advantages of local currencies, in addition to providing new resources to promote local production, is that they also make it possible to avoid certain taxes such as VAT, which effectively distorts competition in favor of local services (VAT becoming a kind of local customs duty).
Experimentation and adjustments will undoubtedly be necessary to make this system viable and widespread. In any case, despite the exotic nature of such proposals, especially after European monetary union and the attempt to enshrine “free and undistorted competition” in the constitution, it seems clear that in the future it will be difficult to do without local currencies, given the ecological benefits of promoting short supply chains and preserving the social fabric.
Admittedly, the development of self-employment does not concern all sectors of the economy, such as industry, which remains important (and will not disappear any more than agriculture has disappeared), but it is most certainly our future (if it is not already our present for many). In this context, guaranteed income, municipal cooperatives, and local currencies offer a possible alternative, very different from previous models but looking to the future, which we could start building locally right now, each in our own way and without waiting for some hypothetical grand revolution. Admittedly, the absence of a guaranteed income is likely to be felt acutely and will be very difficult to compensate for locally. That is why it should be our top priority at the national and even European level.
It is not a question of overthrowing capitalism in one fell swoop, nor of achieving an ideal society, but of taking into account ecological constraints and our entry into the information age in order to patiently build the foundations for relocalized production and autonomous work, correcting our mistakes and sharing our experiences to achieve our common goals. The prerequisite would undoubtedly be to find a collective voice beyond the marketplace of ideologies. What is certain is that there is no time to lose, but this is not the end of everything: we are rather at the difficult beginning...
