글로컬아고라와 기본소득 :코뮌공간 및 코뮌재의 도시철학과 경제철학

Abstract

Mitchell concretizes the concepts ‘social space’ and ‘the right to the city’ of Henri Lefebvre and the concept ‘spatiotemporal utopianism’ of Harvey with the struggle to make public spaces of justice. He focused on a more open, more just,more egalitarian society and urban public spaces, especially for the excluded homeless people in urban spaces. But the concept ‘public spaces’ is too unclear to understand open common spaces where everybody freely and equally may enjoy these spaces, because ‘the public’ includes the meaning of the administrative disposition by specific political communities or their representatives with a specific sovereignty hence the possibility of privatization of public spaces for a specific individual or group. Therefore, it is needed that open and sustainable utopian common spaces are to conceptualize with another terminology. In doing so, it is needed to take the more dimensional overlapping character of multiple social spaces of global space, reginal space, nation-state,and local spaces into account. In this sense, social spaces are always glocal spaces, although a social space of local community may more local than global. Therefore, glocally open egalitarian spaces to everybody can be conceptualized as ‘glocal agora’ namely glocally communal space. ‘Glocal agora’ is inspired from the ancient greek agora, but different from greek agora in three points:‘Glocal agora’ is open to everybody, includes also the non-material spaces like open egalitarian cyber communities and economic means for the ‘real freedom for all’(Van Parijs) side by side the political and the cultural dimensions. This economic means for real egalitarian freedom and opportunities for everybody is unconditional basic income for all as communistic goods distributed ‘according to everybody’s needs’(Marx) which are composed of cash and kind. Unconditional basic income for all may extend to global community, regional communities, nation-state, and local communities, accordingly may be overlapping communistic goods in these spaces. In this sense, this overlapping basic income may be conceptualized as ‘glocal basic income’. But for the emancipation and solidarity of the most people including the greatest part of labor class, glocal basic income, global and local alike, needs to be financed if possible rather by additional taxes on the capitalistic unearned income like personal interest·dividend·rent and income through the capitalistic speculation on the financial and immobile properties than by a tax on ‘employment rent’ of Van Parijs or ‘all sources of income’ including labor income of Kipping and Blaschke. Then, glocal basic income may be better connected with the labor emancipation and the strategy for the transition to a new communism of 21st century in witch all the income may be composed of ‘labor income + a communistic basic income’. This glocal basic income may take different forms according to the dimensions of communities. In a global community, it take the form of rather cash than kind, although it does not exclude the possibility of kind like globally livable climate and so on. On the contrary, it may take in a local community the form of rather kind like parks, areas in which on can walk unthreatened by car traffic, school meals, and care service for children and the handicapped than cash. In this sense, basic income can be a part of the left-wing radical movement also in urban and local communities side by side the struggle for glocal agora like the participatory and direct democracy in local communities.