A participatory society or libertarian communism?

7/30/2019 A participatory society or libertarian communism?

1/40

a

S

ebat

ciety

be tw

nd t h

een t

e libc

e Pro

m.o r

ject fo

grou

r a Par t icip ato r y


2/40


3/40

3

In t roduct ionIn late 2008 the l ibcom .org g roup w ere approached by the UKW atch .ne t w ebsi te to t ake

part in a debate w ith t he Project fo r a Part ic ipatory Society (PPS), th em ed around ant i-

cap i ta l ist v ision . Th is seemed l ike a good oppor t un i ty to get our o w n ideas dow n in

w ri t in g, as w el l as to subject th em t o th e test of rob ust cr i t ic ism . We also had cr i t ic ism s

of our ow n o f par t icipa to ry econom ics ( parecon ) w h ich aga in w e had d iscussed bu t

no t w r i t ten dow n anywhere , and th is debate w ou ld give us the chance to pu t them to a

parecon advocate. The debat es w ere to be pub l ished on UKWat ch and th eir US sister -

si te ZNet.

For l ibcom .org, Joseph Kay w as th e m ain part ic ipant, w hi le for th e PPS M ark Evans to ok

on t ha t ro le . To k ick o f f t he debate , we w ere bo th asked to se t ou t our ow n v isions fo r

the UK econom y , wh ich we w ou ld th en respond t o , and respond t o responses in tu rn .The debate began w i th a f lu r ry o f exchanges, bu t f rom January 2009 we d had no rep ly

to our la t est subm issions. UKWat ch wer e busy wit h a si te up grade, but despite

exchanging emai ls over t he in t ervening per iod b y August 200 9 w ed st i l l received no

responses and UKW atch.net had gone o ff l ine.

Consequent ly , w e publ ish th e debate as i t s tands here as w e th ink i t cont a ins m uch of

in ter est t o ant i-capita l ist act iv ists . As our repl ies w ere th e last o nes we are aw are of, w e

do have the last w ord. How ever we are sure th is doesnt preclude furt her debate, using

th is pam ph le t as a po in t o f depar tu re .

The Project f or a Part ic ipat ory Society i s a ne tw ork o f peop le based in the UK comm it ted

t o pr ogressive social change. PPS see w ar, pover ty, cl im ate change and m any ot her

pro blem s in t he w orld t oday as unsurpr is ing consequences of p art icu lar form s of social

organisat ion. They see th e erosion of c ivi l l ibert ies, the abuses of h um an r ights, the

increase in inequal i ty and o th er in just ices as result ing from th e core values and int ernal

o rgan isa t ion o f dom inant ins t i tu t ions w i th in socie ty . M ark Evans l ives in B i rm ingham and

w orks as an NHS healthcare assistant . He is an act ive tr ade unionist . w w w .ppsuk.org.uk

The l i bcom.org group is a sm al l co l lect ive of l ibert ar ian com m unists based in and arou nd

Londo n. They m ainta in l ibcom .org, a resource for r adical w orkers a resour ce for a l l wish

to f igh t to imp rove the i r l ives, the i r comm uni t ies and the i r w ork ing cond i t ions . The si te

takes i ts nam e f rom an abbreviat ion o f " l iber ta r ian com m unism " - and i ts goa ls o f l iber ty

and comm unit y - th e pol i t ica l current t hey ident i fy w ith. Joseph Kay is a f inancia l

serv ices w orker f r om Bright on. He is a mem ber of th e Sol idar i ty Federat ion.

www. l ibcom.o rg


4/40


5/40

5

l ibcom .orgs visionThe curren t o pen f inancia l cr isis m akes c lear several econom ic trut hs that are m ore

easily overlo oked d urin g business as usual. Firstly, th at t here s no such t hin g as anat ion al econom y anymor e, if th ere ever t ru ly w as. The same fo rces are at w ork

everyw here, as th e credit crunch b i tes across the g lobe. For t he pur poses of t h is

d iscussion w e w i l l focus on t he specif ics of t he UK, but i t m ust be borne in m ind th at our

vision is necessarily int ern atio nalist and global.

Secondly, the econom y does not ex ist t o serve our needs, but instead our needs are

shaped t o serve the econom y's. W e are a l l expected to m ake wh atever sacr i f ices are

requ i red to he lp the econom y so w e face 'w age rest ra in t ' , env ironm enta l damage, cu ts

to healthcare etc. .. because the econom y dem ands it .

Third ly , it is clear that th ere is a real c lass d iv ide, an 'us and th em '. W hi le everyone is a

slave to th e econom y, th is is exper ienced d i f ferent ly depending on ou r posit ion in

society. Thus w hi le bosses and po l i t ic ians exper ience th e dem ands of t he econom y

d irect ly - under t he gu ise o f m arket fo rces gu id ing the i r investm ent , redundancy or

pol icy decisions w ork ing people exper ience th is lack of cont ro l over ou r l ives th rough

th e dai ly act iv i t y of w ork ing for a bo ss.

These point s are in ter-re lated . The econom y is based on a very s imple p rocess m oney

is invested t o generate m ore m oney. Bosses cal l i t prof i t , po l i t ic ians econom ic grow th .W hen m oney f unct ion s like th is , it fun ct ions as capita l . As capita l increases (or t he

econom y expands), th is is cal led capita l accum ulat ion , and i t 's the dr iv ing for ce of t he

economy.

This sim ple im perat ive h as far-reaching consequences, and do esn' t just apply t o f or-

pro f i t pr ivate com panies, but t o econom ic act iv i t y per se ( thus over the last year w e

have seen cont inu ous att acks on t he real w ages and condit io ns of publ ic sector w orkers

in th e UK). Those accumu lat ing capita l do so bett er w hen t hey can shif t t he costs ont o

ot hers, so w e see the p ro l i ferat ion o f ecological and social extern al i t ies. Thuscatastrop hic cl imat e change and w idespread povert y are signs of t he norm al funct ioning

of the system . Fur th erm ore , fo r m oney to m ake m ore mo ney, m ore and more th ings

have to be exchangeable for m oney. Thus the t endency is for everyt h ing from everyday

item s to DNA sequences to carbon d iox ide em issions and crucial ly , our o w n act iv i ty ;

ou r ab il it y to w o rk - to becom e comm od i f ied .

And i t is th is last po in t - the comm odi f ica t ion o f our c reat ive-product ive capaci t ies -

w h ich ho lds the secre t t o cap i ta l accum ula t ion . M oney does no t tu rn in to m ore m oney

by m agic; capita l ists are not a lchemists! Rather in a com m odif ied w orld w e a l l need

som eth ing to se l l in o rder t o buy t he th ings we need. Those o f u s wi th no th ing to se ll


6/40

6

except o ur capac ity t o w ork have to se ll th is capac ity t o t hose w ho ow n t he th ings we

need to w ork ; facto r ies, o f f ices, etc . Bu t t here fo re the com m odi t ies w e produce at w ork

are no t our s, they be long to our em ployers. Fur th erm ore , we pro duce far m ore

com m odit ies and prod ucts as w orkers than th e necessary produ cts to m ainta in us as

w orkers, due t o long hour s, p roduc t iv i ty imp rovement s e tc. Th is d if fe rence be tw een thew ages w e are paid and t he value we create is how capita l is accum ulated.

W hat t h is te l ls us is th at capita l is not ju st a th ing, or even a pro cess, but a social relat ion

between classes. Now w hen w e say class, we are not ta lk ing abou t a system of

c lassi fy ing indiv iduals w ho m ay aft er a l l f i t som ew here in betw een these categor ies,

having a waged job and ru nning a smal l business in t heir spare t im e say. Rather th e

funct ion o f a c lass analysis is to u nderstand th e t ensions w ith in capita l ist society, the

fault l ines along w hich i t m ay rupt ure. Since the econom y does not ex ist t o serve our

need s, it is necessary f or us to assert t hem our selves, collectively. Since t he b osses andpol i t ic ians are a l l but po w erless in t he face of m arket fo rces, each needing t o act in a

w ay conduc ive to con t inued accumula t ion (and in any case they do qu i te w e l l ou t o f th is

im pot ence!) , they cannot act in th e in ter ests of w orkers, since any concessions they

gran t w i l l a id t he i r compet i to rs on a na t iona l o r in te rna t iona l level . Thus the st rugg le

betw een our needs and t he needs o f t he econom y takes the fo r m o f a st rugg le be tw een

classes.

Therefore, our v ision f or t he UK econom y und er capita l ism is for us, as a c lass, to im pose

our n eeds over t he needs of capita l . In concrete t erm s in th e UK to day, th is m ost ly

involves defensive struggles over w ages, condit ions and t he socia l w age w e a l l receive

in t he for m of p ubl ic serv ices, notably t he NHS. In part icu lar one struggle which has been

prom inent and in w h ich we have been invo lved has been over sub- in f lat ion p ay o f fe rs

( i .e . pay cuts). There have been a w ave of s tr ikes over t h is issue, but so f ar w orkers,

d iv ided a long union l ines have been largely defeated b y the com bined effo rt s of t he

em ployers, th e governm ent and t he unions, w ho have to vary ing degrees dem oral ised

w orkers, w itch-hunt ed m il i tants, ignored str ike vot es and cut backroo m d eals.

How ever the story is not ent ire ly negat ive, the struggles over sub- inf la t ion pay cont inu e,

and are set to escalate as th e econom y stalls and p rices of essent ials cont inue t o rise.

There have also been (so far) isolated victor ies, such as Shell t ru ckers win nin g a 7% pay

r ise (9% th is year, 5% next, against a governm ent pay cap/ target of 2%). This sm al l

v icto r y w as on ly ach ieved a f te r t he d ispu te th rea tened t o spread t o d r ivers f rom o ther

com panies. These recent v ic tor ies and defeat s - as w el l as th e long h isto ry of w orkers

str uggle - suggest t hose tact ics w hich are m ost ef fect ive: str uggles contr o l led by t he

part ic ipants them selves not union bureaucrats, and f or s tru ggles to spread beyon d a l l

d iv isions of w orkplace, sector, unio n

W hen w e say the economy doesn t ex ist serve our needs and t here fo re w e have toassert t hem against capita l , we beg th e quest ion w hat a society th at does exist t o m eet


7/40

7

its ow n needs w ould loo k l ike. In ot her w ord s, wher e does our v is ion of assert in g our

needs lead? Such a society, based o n t he pr inc ip le of f rom each according to h is abi li ty ,

t o each accord ing to h is need s is called l ibert arian com m un ism . This society is at least

im pl ic i t w henever w orkers assert th eir needs against t he needs of capita l , and has at

t im es been m ade expl ic i t as th at s truggle has exploded int o revolut ionary events.Histo r ical ly str uggles have only taken o n t h is revolut ionary character w hen t hey have

sought to go beyond a l l d iv isions of secto r, union , race, gender, geography, nat ional

iden tit y etc. The str uggle against t hese divisions is th eref or e a necessary aspect of class

struggle.

Now comm unism has no th ing to do w i th t he fo rm er USSR or p resent -day Cuba or Nor t h

Korea. These are capita l ist societ ies w ith only on e capita l ist th e stat e ( the curren t

spate of bank nat ional isat ions in respon se t o th e f inancia l cr isis has show n o nce again

th ere s not h ing inherent ly le f t about nat ion al isat ion! ) . Com m unism is a stat e lesssoc ie ty w here our act iv i ty and i ts p roduc ts no longer take the fo rm o f th ings to be

bought and so ld . Where act iv i ty is no t d one to earn a wage or tu rn a p ro f i t , bu t to m eet

hum an needs. It is a lso a demo crat ic society, in a way far m ore pro foun d th an wh at

dem ocracy m eans in i ts curren t p ar l iam entary sense.

As there w i l l be no d iv ision be tw een ow ners (sta te o r p r ivate ) and w orkers w i th t he

m eans of pro duct ion h eld in com m on, decisions can be m ade demo crat ical ly am ong

equals. As pro duct ion is not fo r goods to be sold on t he m arket, there are no m arket

for ces to p i t d i f ferent groups of w orkers against each oth er or com pel socia l and

environm ent al exter nal i t ies. W e w i l l wo rk only as long as w e decide is necessary to

produce the th ings w e need at an in tens ity w e are happy w i th , no t ho w long the boss

dem ands o f us accord ing to th e norm s o f the labour m arket . Thus product ion is

socia lised un der o ur conscious cont ro l , and so t he separate spheres of econom ics

(w here w e prod uce) and po l i t ics (wh ere w e are governed) are abol ished. There is only a

self-managed, se l f-governing society w hich exists to m eet t he self-determ ined needs of

i ts mem bers. A l ibertar ian com m unist society.

PPS r espo nseHi Joseph, th anks for you r opening stat em ent - I th ink i t reads w el l .

W e c lear ly have a lo t in com m on. How ever I do have som e concerns. I also d isagree w ith

som e of th e th ings you say and I th ink that yo ur p iece ra ises som e imp ort ant quest ions

tha t you do no t answer .

Af te r read ing your s ta tement I th ink tha t I can sa fe ly say tha t w e bo th w ant t o he lp bu i lda popular m ovem ent f or radical-pro gressive socia l t r ansfor m ation. One of t he basic


8/40

8

necessit ies for t he creat ion o f such a m ovem ent is a com pel l ing v ision of an a l ternat ive

to capita l ism . Our shared v ision is our so lut io n t o t he m any personal and socia l pro blem s

th at result f rom th e capita l ist econom ic system . Our v ision w i l l also help in for m our

st ra tegy . Af te r a l l i f we d on t have a c lear idea o f w hat our long- te rm goal is then ou r

shor t - t e rm ob ject ives can on ly be based on w hat w e are against and no t o n w hat w e arefo r . Th is m eans tha t our s t ra tegy is on ly in fo rm ed by w hat w e are an t i w h ich in t u rn

gives our cam paigns a negat ive qu al i ty . So t he in i t ia l a t t ract ion of our v ision w i l l be i ts

abi l i ty t o solve the very r eal problem s that capita l ism system atica lly in f l ic ts on us a ll . A

secondary benef i t is th at our v is ion bo th in form s and th erefore adds a posit ive qual i ty to

our s t ra tegy. Th is is w hy deve lop ing v ision is so im por t an t and i t is in the hope t ha t w e

can come t o some agreement over w hat const i tu t es good v ision tha t I make the

fo l lowing po in t s.

Fi rst o f a l l I w ou ld l ike to say tha t I agree w i th your econom ic t ru ths . I th ink th a t youare r igh t to po in t ou t tha t our v ision is necessar i ly in te rna t iona l ist . I th ink t ha t you are

also r ight w hen you say that th e econom y does not ex ist t o serve our needs and l ike

you I th in k i t is c lear th at t here is a real c lass d iv ide and a lso t hat th e funct ion of a

c lass analysis is to u nderstand th e t ensions w ith in capita l ist society . How ever, I th ink

tha t there is more t o t he c lass system than us and them as you pu t i t . I exp la in w hat I

m ean by th is be low .

But befo re going on to r a ise som e disagreem ent s I wo uld l ike to just t ouch on a s l ight

concern . You say The str uggle against [race, gender, nat ional iden tit y etc] is a

necessary aspect of c lass str uggle . W hen you say th is I th ink t hat yo u are t ry ing to take

in to account o t her fo rm s o f exp lo ita t ion tha t a re no t st r ic t ly speaking econom ic in o r ig in .

I do l ike where you are go ing wi t h t h is bu t i t does seem t ha t w hen you u l t im ate ly locate

th ese non -econom ic issues in c lass str uggle that yo u m ight b e m aking the m istake of

assum ing that rac ia l , gender and po l i t ica l groups are less im port ant agents for socia l

change t han c lass. This tendency is referred t o as econo m ism and advocates of

part ic ipator y econom ics are inc l ined to be qu ite cr i t ical o f i t b ecause i t suggests th at

econom ic agents involved in c lass str uggle should have pr ior i t y over t he ot her group s

involved in oth er form s of s truggle. Instead w e tend t o em ploy a l iberat in g theory cal led

com plim ent ary hol ism . According to t h is th eory th ere are four spheres of socia l l i fe .

They are th e k inship sphere, the pol i t ical sphere, th e comm unit y sphere and t he

econo m ic sph ere. Each sphe re has its ow n fu nctio n and all are socially necessary. Not

only do w e th in k that th e four social spheres are necessary w e a lso t ake the v iew th at

any dominance o f one sphere over ano ther shou ld be de term ined by know ledge tha t

results f rom rat ion al enquiry in to a part icu lar society and should n ot be based on a

dogm atica lly ideological predict ion.

I also f ind t he fo l lowing sta tem ent con fusing - our v ision fo r t he UK econom y under

capita l ism is for us as a c lass, to im pose our n eeds over the needs of capita ls. W hat d o


9/40

9

you m ean by v ision under capita l ism ? Wh en I ta lk of econom ic v ision I m ean v ision

o f a pos t cap i ta l ist econom y. You t hen go on t o descr ibe w hat you m ean by v ision In

concrete t erm s saying th is m ost ly involves defensive str uggles over w ages, condit ion s

But t h is is not a stat em ent on v is ion (at least as I understand i t ) , ra ther t h is is a

sta tem ent about st ra tegy .

One par t o f your sta tem ent t ha t I sor t o f d isagree w i th is your c r i te r ia fo r rem unera t ion .

You say tha t the econom y shou ld rew ard peop le based on the p r incip le f r om each

according to h is abi l i ty , to each accordin g to h is needs. I th ink t hat t h is is part ly corr ect.

I do agree tha t need shou ld be a m ora l considerat ion fo r any hum ane econom y.

How ever, I a lso th ink that any good econom ic system w i l l be able to pr odu ce goods and

serv ices w el l beyond basic hum an needs. This means that w e a lso need cr i ter ia for

rem unerat ing good s and serv ices th at peop le w ant. So, for examp le I m ay not n eed a

ho l iday to Greece nex t year o r a new comput er bu t I cer ta in ly want these th ings. How dol iber ta r ian comm unists p ropose tha t w e work ou t w ho gets what they w ant and who

doesn t?

Anot her part o f yo ur statem ent th at I part ly d isagree wit h is your c lass analysis. You t a lk

indist inguishably about bosses and capita l ist as th ough t hey are t he sam e c lass. To

repeat you r phr ase ther e is us and t hem w hich imp l ies a tw o c lass system . This

ou t look , I th ink der ives f rom a l im i ted conceptua l too lbox tha t is qu i te t yp ica l o f the o ld

lef t . I t is com m only held w ith in le f t c irc les th at t here are tw o c lasses th e capita l ist c lass

and t he w ork ing c lass. Such a v iew leads to stat em ents such as com m unism h as

noth ing to do w i th t he fo rm er USSR or t he p resent -day Cuba or N or th Korea . These are

capita l ist societ ies Because th e for m er USSR w as not a w orkers econom y i t th erefor e

has to be a cap i ta list econom y there s im p ly isn t any o ther op t ion fo r you to choose

f r o m .

But w e a ll know tha t there is a b ig d if fe rence betw een an econom ic system w i th

pr ivate ly ow ned inst i tu t ions operat ing w i th in com pet i t ive m arkets and a governm ent

contr o l led system w ith centra l p lanning. Yes i t is t rue t hat b ot h system s are based on

class explo i ta t ion and dom inance but t here are a lso very im port ant d i f ferences. For

example t he dom inant c lass in th e f i rs t system are the capita l ists wh ereas th e dom inant

class in t he secon d system are a prof ession al-m anagerial class I call the coo rdin ato r

c lass. So I w ould argue that th e econom y of th e for m er USSR is m ore accurat e ly

descr ibed as a coord inator econom y, rath er th an a capita l ist (or f or t hat m att er socia list)

economy.

This ins ight der ives from a th ree-c lass analysis that argues th at m odern day capita l ism

has created a new techno -manageria l class that is both d ist inguishable from th e

capita l ist c lass above i t and w ork ing c lass below i t . One im port ant o ut com e of t h is new

class-consciou sness is t hat w e realise t hat t he coor din ato r class can (and have been)ant i-capita l ist w hi lst n ot necessar i ly being pro-w orkers econo m y. Wo rking c lass


10/40

10

organisat ions are oft en dom inated by m em bers of t he coordinato r c lass, and the

coordinat or c lass can, and has, h i jacked po pular m ovem ent against capita l ism . Not

surpr isingly w hen pop ular m ovem ents of th is sort have been successfu l in overt hrow ing

capita l ism i t h as ten ded t o result in a coordin ator econom y ( l ike th e form er USSR) and

no t in a classless econo m y.

This c lar i ty is usefu l in a num ber o f w ays. I t he lps us understand w here socia l ists w ent

w rong in the tw ent ie th cen tury and i t he lps us deve lop be t t e r st ra tegy fo r the t w enty -

f i rs t cent ury.

W hen you d o address v ision you m ain ly ta lk abou t t he w hole society as being stat e less

and demo crat ic . Th is is f ine bu t I want to know about t he economy. You do say about

your econom ic v ision tha t t he means o f p roduc t ion w ou ld be h e ld in comm on and tha t

decisions can be made dem ocrat ica lly am ong equals , which I l ike but you don t say

how th is wou ld w ork . W hat does the dem ocrat ic p rocess look l ike , and how do you

m ain ta in equa l ity? You a lso say tha t there w i l l be n o m arket fo rces in your econom y.

Again I like th is but you don t say w hat you a l ter nat ive is. How w i l l good s and serv ices

be a l located in your econom ic system ? Regarding econom ic self-m anagem ent you say -

W e w i l l wo rk only as long as w e decide is necessary to pr oduce th e th in gs w e need at

an in tensi ty w e are happy w i th Now , apar t f ro m your concern fo r on ly need, w h ich I

have a lready addressed above, th at sounds great. But i t s t i l l doesnt answ er t he qu est ion

- how , in a l iber ta r ian com m unist econom y, do w orkers m ake the dec isions about w hat

to p roduce and how to p roduce them?

There a re o ther im por t an t ques t ions tha t I w ou ld l ike to ask , bu t I w i l l leave i t t here fo r

now . I look for w ard to r eading your response and cont inuing th is exchange.

l ibcom .org respon dsOk, i t seem s like ther e are a coup le of smal l m isunder standin gs here t hat can be quick ly

addressed, and som e m ore substant ive d i f ferences in t erm s of c lass analysis and th ere lat ion o f c lass to ot her 'op pressions.' I l l f i rst t ry and c lear up t he m isunder stand ings

and then ge t in to the m ore substan t ive stu f f .

Vision an d St rat egy

The f i rst m inor po int of m isunder standin g re lates to t he m eaning of v is ion. You

separate v ision ends f rom st ra tegy m eans. I w ou ld con tend such a neat de l inea t ion

is unt enable. End s are m a d e of m eans som e means get us closer to w hat w e want ,

o thers make it m ore remo te . As the l ibcom group, w e do no t spend much t im e dream ing

of the fu t u re our po l i t ics a re very m uch or ien ted t o the here and now . Now i t is t rue

th at having som e idea of w hat a fut ure society could look l ike can persuade others wer e


11/40

11

not just id le d ream ers, n ih i lists wh o are aga inst every th ing bu t don ' t know w hat w e ' re

fo r . Bu t a fu l ly worked-ou t v ision o f t he fu t u re is no t a p rerequ isi te fo r w orkers to

st rugg le to advance the i r concre te m ater ial in te rests . I doubt m any o f th e w orkers w ho

have made revolu t ion s in th e past s tart ed off as revolut ion ar ies.

Of course as str uggles grow , the im por tance of just w hich d irect ion t hey should t ake

v ision grows too , and so i t cannot be n eglected . How ever , in the here and now w e

have a more im m ediate v ision fo r w orkers to st rugg le co l lect ive ly to advance our

in te rests . To t h is end w e st ra teg ise ; we t ry and ne tw ork w i th o t her w orkers and spread

pro paganda advocat ing l ibert ar ian com m unist tact ics col lect ive d irect act ion and m ass

m eetings w ith m andated/ recallable delegate counci ls to co-ord inate t he str uggle. As and

w hen th is v ision o f m ass assem blies is real ised as i t w as dur in g the ant i-CPE str uggle in

France on 2006 the m ore long-te rm v ision becomes m ore tang ib le and m ore

m ean ing fu l to th e par t icipan ts, who b egin to fee l the i r pow er to change the w or ld andto im agine what th a t w or ld may be like.

Needs and w ants

A second term inological misunderstanding to t idy up. Needs in f rom each according to

th eir abi l i t ies, to each according to t heir needs does not m ean mer e physio logical needs

as d ist inct f rom w ants. Needs are self determ ined, encomp assing everyth ing from th e

physio logical to th e psychological to th e socia l, and everyone h as an equal r ight to have

th eir needs m et. In term s of ho w th is a l locat ion could w ork and deal wit h any issues of

scarc i ty , I 've d iscussed th is and ot her econom ic issues much m ore com prehensively in

m y respon se to you r v ision. The str uctur e of th is debate could create m uch dupl icat ion,

so I suggest w e pre-em pt th at and cont inue t h is part icu lar d iscussion t here.

Race, sex, class?

You say I m ight be m aking th e m istake of assum ing that rac ia l, gender and pol i t ical

groups are less impo rt ant agent s for social change than c lass. I th ink you

m isund erstand m y m eaning, and t h is ser ies in fact ob scures m ore t han i t reveals (and

perhaps explains the m isunder standin g). There is an od d on e out ; a di f f erent lo gic is at

w ork w ith c lass pol i t ics . W hereas racia l , gender, sexual i ty et c groups are str iv ing to tu rn

antagonism int o d i f fer ence, c lass pol i t ics tr ies to tu rn d i f f erence in to ant agonism.

W hereas race- or gender -based struggles str ive for recognit ion as equals and fo r co-

existen ce; class str uggle a im s not at w orkers and b osses al l gett in g a long, but on th e

contr ary aggravat ing their d i f fer ences to t he point of ru pt ure and socia l revolut ion. I t

seem s to m e in its haste t o declare a l l groups equal your perspect ive of com pl im entary

ho lism has no p lace fo r class ant agonism.

Capita l ism is a c lass re lat ion , and c lass str uggle is the on ly w ay to break out of i t - by

ult im ate ly re ject ing our condit io n as hum an resources and assert in g ourselves as hum an

beings. This can o nly be done w ith th e abol i t io n o f social c lasses al to gether. I t s notabout saying class is m ore im port ant th an other t h ings, but about u nderstanding w hat


12/40

12

capita l ism is and w here po tent ia l revolut ionary subject iv i ty ar ises. It is not f rom

oppression , bu t f ro m a l iena t ion the separa t ion o f p rod ucers f rom product , o f ac t ivi ty

from th e meaning and cont ro l o f t hat act iv i ty . The w ork ing c lass are potent ia l ly

revolut ionary subjects because of ou r m ater ia l posit ion w ith in capita l ist society; we've

not h ing to lose but our chains.

M any groups are oppr essed, but rac ism , sexism etc are no t essent ia l t o capita l ism and

dem ands fo r equa l i ty can be accom m odated w i th in i t indeed such demands are made

by large sect ions of t he ru l ing c lass. So w hi le w e get rac ist im m igrat ion cont ro ls , w e a lso

get black bosses, po lit ic ians and presiden ts. Fem ale w or kers consist ent ly earn less t han

th eir m ale count erpart s, but t h is is m ade i l legal. M argaret Thatcher being a w om an

didn ' t m ake her any less capita l ist e t c. In fact th e recent Obam amania dem onstrates just

how use fu l these k ind o f ega l ita r ian sen t im ents can be - w hen d ivorced f ro m c lass

analysis - for rebui ld ing shattered i l lusions in the system .

This is not to say capita l ism does not m ake use of t hese d iv isions wh ich predate i t .

Clear ly i t do es, and racism and sexism are unfo rt unate facts of l i fe . How ever capit a l ism is

no t inherent ly w hi te , m a le , he te rosexual e tc , and there fo re m emb ers o f these groups

have no m ore inheren t po ten t ia l fo r revo lu t ionary sub ject iv i ty th an w h i te he te rosexua l

m ales do. As I have said, that der ives from al ienat io n, not opp ression. Now c lass str uggle

an d t herefo re t he rep lacem en t o f cap it al ism w it h a soci et y f it fo r hum an hab it at ion -

w ont get very far i f w orkers are d iv ided by race, gender et c, and th is is w hy I sa id that

th e struggle against t hese divisions is th eref ore a n ecessary aspect of class st ruggle.

In t h is respect, w hi le only c lass str uggle can replace capita l ism w ith a l ibertar ian

com m unist society, i t absolut e ly m ust incorpo rate s imu ltaneou s str uggles against rac ial ,

gender et c d iv ides - a process wh ich has been v isib le dur ing m any c lass str uggles of t he

20th Cent ury ( t he M ujeres Libres, League of Revolut io nary Black W orkers, Grunw ick). So

w hi le we w ould t ake issue w ith any not ion of a 'h ierarchy of str uggle ' , it 's only by act ing

as a classw here our po ten t ial revo lu t ionary agency can be m an i fested , w here th ese

intr a-class d iv isions can b e negated r ather th an re info rced.

Cent ra l to m odern com m unit ar ian pol i t ics and socia l contr o l is th e idea of 'ce lebrat ingdiversi ty ' - em phasising the d i f ferences bet w een var ious group s and treat ing them as

hom ogenous 'com m unit ies' w itho ut in t ernal class d iv isions, adequate ly represented by a

layer of sm al l capita l ists and pr ofessionals. The 'equ al i ty of str uggles' - m ore accurate ly

th e re legat ion of c lass to just anot her stru ggle, an ident i ty as constru cted as race or

gender rather t han a mater ia l posit ion - a l lows a ll these str uggles to b e co-opt ed and

accommodated .

Com plim entary ho l ism seem s to be a radical var iant o f th is ideology; tak ing the

capita l ist d iv ision o f socia l l i fe in to d ist in ct spheres as g iven. The auton om y of th e

econom y is based on t he separat ion of p rodu cers from pro duct. Pol i t ics is based on t he


13/40

13

separat ion o f ru lers and ru led. Overcom ing these separat ions w i l l mean abol ish ing these

div isions of socia l l i fe , and t h is cannot be do ne i f t hey are m ade centra l t o ou r analysis.

I m n o t sure w hat you m ean by po l i t ica l groups . I f you m ean po l i t icised m inor i t ies such

as ourselves, then w e cert a in ly have a ro le to p lay largely in the prop agat ion of o ur

ideas (hence us run ning l ibcom !). But w e are not agent s of socia l change in our capacity

as pol i t ical group s, but in our m ater ia l posit ion as w orkers (w heth er emp loyed or not ) .

In term s of revolut ionary subject iv i ty , a l l groups are not created equal althou gh

w om en, e thn ic minor i t ies, po l i t icos etc a re fo r t he m ost par t w orkers too . Th is has

noth ing to do w i th dogmat ical ly ideo log ical p red ict ion , and every th ing to do w i th a

rat ion al, cr i t ica l und erstand ing of w hat t he capita l ist social re lat ion is and ho w i t m ight

be rup tu red .

For w hat i t s w ort h, just because a str uggle m ay not have revolut io nary pot ent ia l does

not m ake it o f no in te rest to l iber ta r ian comm unists . We are in te rested in advanc ing our

concrete m ater ia l needs as a c lass; som ethin g l ike the str uggle t o legal ise abort ion in

Nor t hern I re land w ou ld f i t th is ca tegory , w i thou t ever hav ing revo lu t ionary im p l ica t ions.

How ever, a pract ice of assert in g our c lass concrete m ater ia l needs in general does,

because a society based on h um an needs is in fun dam ental cont radict ion t o on e based

on t he endless accum ulat ion of capita l .

Bipolar vs th ree-class analysis

You w ri te us and t hem im pl ies a tw o c lass system . This out loo k, I th ink der ives from

a l im i ted conceptua l too lbox th a t is qu ite t yp ica l o f th e o ld le f t . Fi rst ly I m no t sure w hoyou m ean by o ld le f t ? The 57 var iet ies of Trotskyist vanguard part y? Anarcho-

syndicalists? Cou ncil com m unists? Zapat as peasant insurgency? M akhno s? All of t he

above? In any event I am n ot descr ib ing a tw o-c lass system , but a b ipolar on e. I wi l l have

to exp la in in a b i t m ore de ta i l what is m eant by th is , be fo re re tu rn ing to exp la in t he

usage of us and them .

First ly , to recap on w hat capita l is, as br ie f ly as possib le: mo ney m aking mor e m oney.

But t h is doesnt happen b y a lchemy, but by hum an labour , which has th e capacity to

pro duce mo re th an is needed t o susta in i t , a surp lus w hich is approp r iated t o expand theor ig inal capita l advanced. This establ ishes tw o po les of a spectrum . At t he on e end,

those wi t h no t h ing to sel l bu t t he i r capaci ty to w ork and no t h ing to lose bu t the i r cha ins.

At t he oth er, those w ith t he capita l to h ire w orkers to expand their capita l . Thus capita l

isn ' t just m oney in m ot ion, but a socia l re lat ion b etw een c lasses. It is dead labour, w hich

vamp ire- l ike sucks th e l i fe out of th e l iv ing. This is th e k ind o f analysis you f ind in th e f i rs t

few chapters of M arx s Capita l , and I bel ieve is w hat yo u are referr ing to as an o ld le f t

tw o c lass system v iew . But ou r analysis does not sto p her e. Indeed i t h as only just

begun.


14/40

14

In o rder to accumula te cap i ta l , the cap i ta list m ust com pete in t he m arket w i th o t her

cap i ta l ists . They cannot a f fo rd t o ignore m arket fo rces, o r t hey w i l l lose g round t o t he i r

r iva ls, lose m oney, and u l t im ate ly cease t o b e a capita l ist . Therefor e capita l ists are not

real ly in contr o l o f capita l ism , capita l i t se l f is. Thus bot h po les of t he socia l re lat ion are

a lienated , bu t in a qua l i ta t ively d i f fe ren t w ay. W hi le a t th e w orkers end a l ienat ion isexper ienced throu gh the im posit ions of the boss, at t he ot her i t is exper ienced throu gh

im personal market f orces. The fancy name fo r th is process by w hich inanimat e objects

com e to dom inate actual l iv ing subjects is an ont ological inversion. I t is on account of

th is invers ion th at w e can ta lk abou t capita l as i f i t has agency, and as we shal l see t h is is

m ore precise than t a lk ing about capita l ists.

Now i t is t rue t ha t on th is spect rum , there a re those wh o are h i red by cap i ta lists to

m anage th eir capita l , but ow n no capit a l them selves ( the t echno-m anageria l class in

your par lance) . W hat m at te rs fo r t he t im e be ing is tha t they a re on t h is b ipo larspectrum . Know ledge is certa in ly a part o f t hese indiv iduals' pow er, but i t is a pow er

exercised w ith in t he b ipolar socia l re lat ion . For w hat i t s w ort h, know ledge as a source

of po w er w ith in c lass society is not in i tse lf a new ins ight i t w as th eor ised over a

century ago how the deve lopm ent o f au tom at ion and facto ry p rodu ct ion was dr iven by

the n eed to underm ine the p ow er o f the c ra f t w orkers gu ilds, w h ich w as large ly based

on t he know ledge essent ia l to pr oduct ion w hich they jealously guarded.

There are a lso st i l l peasants and ar is tocrats in t he w orld. The impo rt ant t h ing once m ore

is that th ese c lasses too increasingly become arrayed a long th is b ipolar spectru m .

Peasants are d ispossessed and becom e landless agr icu l tura l w orkers, or m igrate t o t he

cit ies. Ar isto crats becom e real estat e capita l ists , or w atch t heir estates fa l l in to d isrepair

and cease t o be ar isto crats al togeth er. Capita l - th is vamp ire- l ike, b ipolar social re lat ion

imp l ied the s im p le no t ion o f money m aking m ore money com es to dom inate and

restructur e socia l l i fe in i ts in t erests.

Us and t hem

So how then do I square a no t ion o f us and t hem w i th m y insistence I am no t descr ib ing

a tw o c lass system ? It d er ives from w orkers exper ience in capita l ism ; th ey are the

personif icat ions of capita l th rough w hich th is object exerc ises its agency as per t he

ont o logical invers ion descr ibed above. Usually , the personif icat io n o f capita l is th e bo ss.

The boss m ay be a sharehold ing capita l ist , or a h ired m anager. Under ot her

c ircum stances we face union bureaucrats as th e personif icat ions of capita l , as th ey

div ide and d i f fuse our stru ggles. Pol i t ic ians, comm unit y leaders, or in th e case of co-ops

operat ing in a m arket, w orkers them selves can a lso becom e the p ersonif icat ions of

capita l . They are comp el led to act in t he in t erests of capita l by t heir s tructu ra l posit io n

w i th in t he b ipo la r cap i ta l re lat ion .

This is not a problem of w ork ing c lass organisat ions oft en dom inated by m em bers ofth e coordinat or c lass. A u nion leader f or exam ple could have a background as salt o f


15/40

15

the ear th as they com e, bu t s t i l l becom e the person i f ica t ion o f cap i ta l due to the i r

str uctur a l ro le in capita l ist society. The sam e is t rue of t echno-m anageria l h ire l ings,

pol i t ic ians and capita l ists them selves. You agreed w ith m e w hen I sa id th e funct io n of a

c lass analysis is to u nderstand th e t ensions w ith in capita l ist society as oppo sed t o

c lassi fy ing indiv iduals in t o t w o, th ree (or fou r o r f ive) classes. This is what i t m eans.

This is not to say that you cannot descr ibe bo sses w ho d ont ow n capita l as d ist inct f rom

th ose th at do. Clear ly there is a d ist inct ion. I wou ld argue wh eth er w e theo r ise th is as a

class d ist inct ion or a d iv ision of labour w ith in th ose who personify capita l is of secondary

im port ance to th e fact th is takes p lace w ith in a b ipolar socia l re lat ion and t he us an

th em natur e of str uggles th is im pl ies. You say th e coordinat or c lass can (and have been)

ant i-capita l ist . I wo uld say th is is only t rue in t he absolut e narrow est sense of capita l ist

as th ose who ow n capita l . Being ant i-capita l ist d oes not m ean being against t hose

ind ividuals, but against t he w ho le social relatio n, against class societ y as such.

Ant i-capita l ism is not w orkers m anaging the econo m y in p lace of capita l ists (or co-

ord inator s) but th e abol i t ion of o urselves as a class, the econom y as a separate sphere

of socia l l i fe and t he comm unisat io n of socia l prod uct ion arou nd our need s. Non-ow ning

bosses tak ing th e p lace of o w ning ones is no m ore ant i-capita l ist t han a m anagem ent

buy-ou t , on ly po ten t ia lly mo re v io len t and perhaps rop ing w orkers in to do t he d i r ty

w ork (as so t ragical ly of t en w orkers d ie for one o r ot her sect ion of t he ru l ing c lass,

part icu lar ly in w ar). But t he ro le of t he personif icat ion of capita l pers ists, in th e f i rm

bo ught ou t b y its m anagem ent as in t he USSR. This is because capital ism is a m ode of

p roduct ion no t a m ode o f management . Therefo re ant i-capita l ism has to go beyond

oppos it ion to those wh o m anage it ( juxtaposing a par t ic ipato ry econom y to a co-

ord inator ist o r capita l ist o ne), to opp osit ion t o t he socia l re lat ion as such ( the abol i t ion

of w age labour, po l i t ics and t he econom y as a separate spheres of socia l l i fe ; l ibert ar ian

commun ism) .

You w ri te t hat th is c lar i ty [ th ree c lasses] is usefu l in a num ber of w ays. I t he lps us

understand w here soc ial ists went w rong in the t w ent ie th cen tury and i t he lps us

deve lop be t t e r st ra tegy fo r the t w enty - f i rst cen tury . How ever , w h i le I w e lcom e the

desire not to retr ead the cul-de-sacs of Lenin ism, th is over looks th e fact t hat m any in the

20th cen tury w orkers m ovement par t icu la r ly anarch ists argued aga inst t he idea tha t

th e stat e or any form of repr esent at ion could abol ish capita l ism . Perhaps m ore

signif icant ly i t ignores that w hat h appened in Russia in 1917 w asnt an unf oreseen side-

effect o f w orkers re ly ing on co-ord inat ors, bu t a conscious pol icy of s tate capita l ism

pur sued by t he Bolsheviks, the consequences of w hich w ere broadly pred icted by

anarchists, who had argued such an appro ach w ould ju st r eplace m any capita l ists w ith

one th e stat e not r eplace capita l ist socia l re lat ions wit h com m unist ones. The precise

natu re of th e USSR is a b ig quest ion , and a b ig t angent. Good sour ces inc lude t he

Anarchist FAQ [1] , Aufheben s 4-part ser ies [2] and M aurice Br inton s The Bolsheviks


16/40

16

and W orkers Contr o l [3 ] , a ll o f w h ich exp lain how the socia l rela t ions remained

fund amen tal ly capita l ist , w ith t he stat e tak ing th e p lace of ind iv idual own ers.

W e cer ta in ly do need t o t heor ise the cond i t ions in w h ich w e f ind our se lves in l igh t o f

past fa i lures. I wo uld s imp ly say I dont th ink t h is requires a th ird c lass, and in fact t h is

innovat ion seems to d is tract f rom th e necessity and im port ance of c lass antagonism ,

re legat ing c lass to just anot her opp ression and p osing the ant i-capita l ist task as sim ply a

quest ion of m anagem ent by capita l ists , co-ord inato rs or our selves? - not social

revo lu t ion . We are no t t ry ing to m ake the same w or ld m ore par t ic ipa to ry , bu t to c rea te

a new one in i t s p lace.

There is m uch m ore I cou ld w r i te about , such as the tendency fo r socie ty to po la r ise in to

haves and have not s, and th e count er- tend encies str at i fy ing indiv iduals along t he

spect rum th ro ugh the p ro l i fe rat ion o f m inor h ie ra rch ies ( team leaders e tc ) and t he

div ision of th e ru l ing c lass in to id le shareholders and bo sses you cal l techno-

m anageria l . But I ve probably said enough for no w , and I m sure w e can retur n to t hese

issues i f th ey pro ve re levant t o t he d iscussion as i t d evelops.

[1 ] See h t tp : / / w w w . in foshop.org / faq / secH3.h tm l#sech313

[2] Publ ished in issues #6-9, available at h t t p: / / l ibcom .org/ aufheben

[3 ] Avai lab le f r ee a t h t t p : / / l ibcom .org/ l ib rary / the-bo lshev iks-and-wo rkers-con t r o l -

so l idar i ty-group


17/40

17

The Pro ject f or a Part icipat or y Societ ys visionHi, my nam e is M ark Evans. I l ive in Birm ingham (UK) w here I w ork fo r th e Nat ional

Health Service (NHS) as a Healt h Care Assistant (HCA) on a neu ro -surgical w ard. In

addit io n to doing m y w ork as a HCA I am also an act ive t rade union m em ber. These

act iv i t ies b r ing toge ther t w o m ain in t e rests o f m ine neuro logy / psycho logy and socia l

just ice w h ich in t u rn I see as bein g re la t ed t o b road er issues r egard in g hum an nat u re

and social organisation .

Over the p ast t w o or t hree years I have a lso been involved in help ing t o set u p a new UK

based in i t ia t ive call PPS-UK (Project for a Part ic ipato ry Society - w w w .ppsuk.org.uk). This

in i t ia t ive is part o f a grow ing in ternat ional netw ork t hat, I th ink I am r ight in saying, has

em erged as a result o f tw o basic facto rs. One factor has to do w ith d issat is fact ion w ith

exist in g ideas for pro gressive socia l t ransfor m ation. The ot her f acto r has been t he

deve lopm ent o f new v ision and st ra tegy tha t has resu l ted f rom a com ple te

reassessm ent of le f t -win g th eory and pract ice. This im por tant w ork cont inu es to day

m ain ly v ia ZCom (ww w .zcomm unicat ions .o rg) where anybody w i th an in te rest in

pro gressive ideas can part ic ipate th rough var ious fac il i t ies, inc luding an on- l ine schoo l.

M y understanding here is th at w e are to debate econom ic v ision . This assum es th at

w e are, to som e extent, unhapp y w ith t he exist in g econom ic system . Personal ly I w ould

say that I am against every m ajor inst i tu t ional feature of capita l ism . But th is is not a new

pos it ion fo r m e tha t has been brought on by t he p resent econom ic cr isis. On the

contr ary, I wo uld argue t hat by any h um ane stand ards capita l ism is alw ays in cr isis. Justth ink o f a l l the peop le w ho are dy ing f rom m alnu t r i t ion unn ecessar i ly every day , o r w ho

are not receiv ing m edicat io n fo r curable d iseases. These are w el l know n examp les but

there a re m any o ther i l lust ra t ions o f ongo ing econom ic cr isis tha t a re v ir tua l ly unknow n.

For examp le, research undert aken over the last 20 years show s th at even after m ater ia l

needs are m et econom ic inequal i ty has a m ajor im pact on t he health of a society. The

b igger the inequa l i ty gap the m ore unhea l thy the socie ty - and w e are no t jus t ta lk ing

about incom e here. It seems that levels of cont ro l and part ic ipat ion are w hat real ly

m att er and th at th is has a d irect af fect on o ur health and l i fe expectancy.

So, f rom th is perspect ive I w ould argue t hat capita l ism is in a perm anent state o f cr isis

and th at th e present cr is is w e are al l hear ing about everyday on the new s has m ore t o

do w ith a system th at pr im ari ly funct ions in the in t erests of e l ite s becom ing unstable.

Put t ing aside th is narrow and self ish def in i t ion of cr isis le ts t ry t o und erstand w hy

capita l ism is in a perm anent stat e of cr isis befor e developing or t a lk ing about a l ternat ive

econom ic v ision.

M y basic explanat ion w ould d er ive from a sim ple econom ic analysis th at can be

und ersto od by v ir t ual ly anyone. As I have a lready said, capita l ist econom ic funct ion s in

th e in terest of e l i tes. The reasons for t h is are pret ty o bvious.


18/40

18

Under capita l ism , a very sm al l mino r i ty pr ivate ly ow ns econom ic inst i tu t ions. This group

is com m only kno w n as the capita l ist c lass. Also, th e h ierarchical d iv ision o f labour a l lows

for decision-mak ing au tho r i ty and empo w er ing tasks to be m onopo l ised by anot her

pr iv i leged group . This is a not so com m only und erstood grou p I ca l l the coordinat or

c lass. This arrangemen t leaves th e vast m ajor i ty , w ho are com m only referr ed to as th ew orking c lass, to fo l low ord ers from above and undert ake m ost ly undesirable tasks th at

a re o f ten m ind num bing . What s m ore , cap i ta l ist econom ics rewards ownersh ip ,

p r iv i lege and pow er t hus inst i tu t iona l ising a system o f r emu nera t ion t ha t m a in ta ins

inequal i ty and c lass explo i ta t ion and dom inance.

Str a ight away w e can see that an econom ic system w ith t h is set-up is not going to

func t ion in the in te rests o f the comm on good. But there is m ore bad news! In add i t ion

to p roduct ion t ak ing p lace wi th in ins t i tu t ions tha t a re p r iva te ly owned, w i th

autho r i tar ian decision-m aking and a h ierarchical d iv ision of labour, and consump tionlevels being determ ined by ow nership and pow er, capita l ism al locates i ts produ ce via

compet i t ive marke ts.

Com peti t ive markets create a str essfu l econom ic environm ent w hereby everyone is

p i t t ed against everyone e lse. In order to surv ive businesses are for ced to em ploy

str ategies and tact ics th at do n ot take in to account th e tru e social cost o f th eir act iv i t ies.

In such a com pet i t ive env i ronment corpora t ions simp ly cannot a f fo rd t o t ake to m uch

not ice of t he environm ental consequences of t heir act ion s, of wo rkers r ights, or of t he

basic need s of t he general pu blic. Unless pub lic relation s req uire s it t he capitalist

econom ic system does not and cannot a l low f or ser ious considerat ions of such

im port ant issues.

From th is sim ple analysis we can see that capita l ism inst i t u t ional ises econo m ic

inequal i ty and system atica lly d isto rt s econom ic pr ior i t ies. In the short t erm th is benef i t s

a sm al l m inor i ty bu t a t the expense o f the vast m a jor i ty (and in the end to the de t r iment

o f everyone) hence the perm anent economic c r isis.

But w hat is th e a ltern at ive to capita l ist econom ics? W hat w ould a susta inable econom ic

system tha t func t ions in t he in te rests o f t he comm on good look l ike? M ore p rec ise ly W hat is the a l te rna t ive to p r iva te ow nersh ip? What is the a l te rna t ive to p ro duc t ion

taking p lace w ith in a h ierarchical d iv ision of labour and v ia aut hor i t ar ian decision-

m ak ing? What is the a lte rna t ive to consum pt ion leve ls be ing de termined by

rem unera t ion fo r o w nersh ip , p r ivi lege and pow er? What is the a l te rna t ive to

com peti t ive m arkets as a m eans of a l locat ing th e goods and serv ices w e pro duces and

consume?

I bel ieve th at t hese are the core q uest io ns that ant i-capita l ists m ust have answ ers to.

Advocates of part ic ipato ry econom ics (ParEcon) prop ose the fo l low ing as answ ers to

th ese quest ions


19/40

19

Social Ow nership: In a part ic ipator y econo m y pr ivate ow nership is replaced by

dem ocrat ica lly run w orker and consum er counci ls. Al thou gh advocates of ParEcon ten d

to t a lk about social ow nership as an a ltern at ive to pr ivate ow nership i t is pro bably mo re

accurate t o say tha t ow nersh ip in a par t ic ipato ry econom y w ou ld become somet h ing o f

a non e issue.

Self-management: As we have seen ParEcon inst i tu t io ns are dem ocrat ica lly ran. But as

w e al l know dem ocracy is a term used t o descr ibe a l l sort s of system s, including ones

th at are very e l i t is t . For t h is reason, and t o avoid confu sion, w e ta lk of se l f-

m anagem ent as a specif ic type o f econom ic demo cracy. For us self-managem ent m eans

th at everyone gets a say in a decision in pro port ion t o how m uch they are affected by

th e outcom e of th at decision. So for exam ple, if th e out com e of a decision only af fects

m e th en I have absolut e say in that decision everyone e lse has zero say. On the o th er

hand i f th e out com e of a decision affects a wo rk m ate and m e equal ly (and no one e lse)th en w e bot h have equal say in that d ecision, and so on and so fort h.

Balan ced Job Com plexes: As an a l ternat ive to t he h ierarchical d iv ision of labour,

w hereby som e jobs are m ore desi rab le and em pow er ing than o thers , we prop ose

balanced job com plexes (BJC). BJCs are jo bs that are m ade up of an equal m ix of

em pow ering / desirable and not so emp ow ering / desirable tasks. In a part ic ipator y

econo m y everyo ne has a BJC. They are con sidered a necessary econo m ic featu re if self-

m anagem ent is to fu nct ion and be m ainta ined. They st i l l a l low s for specia l isat ion bu t

w itho ut pr iv i lege. I t a lso m eans th at t he suppr essed sk i l ls and ta lent th at are lost u nder

th e h ierarchical d iv ision of labour can be ut i l ised in a ParEcon m aking i t m ore eff ic ient .

Part icipat ory Planning: Instead of com peti t ive m arkets, in a part ic ipator y econo m y,

good s and services are allocated via a pro cess call p art icipato ry plann ing . This process

involves a ser ies of roun ds in w hich prod ucers and consum ers propose and revise their

econom ic ac t iv it ies in co-opera t ion w i th each oth er v ia an I te ra t ion Faci l ita t ion Board

unt i l an eff ic ient and equit able p lan is arr ived at.

Effo rt a nd Sacrif ice: W i th p r ivate o w nersh ip gone, along w i th au thor i ta r ian dec ision-

m aking and th e h ierarchical d iv ision of labour , we can no longer rew ard ow nership,pr iv i lege and p ow er. Instead, advocates of ParEcon pro pose rew arding effort and

sacr i f ice as fa ir cr i ter ia for rem unerat ion. By th is w e m ean that i f a person w orks longer

or hard er, or i f a person un dert akes tasks th at are general ly considered t o be less

desi rab le then t hey shou ld be en t i t led t o m ore rew ard .

Indiv idual ly th ese features represent a l ter nat ives to every m ajor inst i t u t ional feature of

capita l ism . Together th ey represent an a l ternat ive econo m ic system to capita l ism . They

descr ibe m eans by w hich product ion, consum pt ion and a l locat ion can system atica lly

take p lace in t he in te rest o f t he comm on good and in w ays tha t a re bo th susta inab le and


20/40

20

eff ic ient. They also inst i tu t ion al ises egal i tar ian contr o l over econom ic li fe w hich in tu rn

nurt ures socia l cohesion.

I th ink th at th is represents the k ind of long-term v ision th e ant i-capit a l ist m ovem ent is in

d ire need o f. For w itho ut such a v ision i t is h ighly unl ike ly that ant i-capita l ists w i l l be able

to o rgan ise the popu la r and e f fec t ive m ovement w e desi re and need.

l ibcom .org respon dsFirst ly , I 'd l ike to say th at am ongst u s in t he l ibcom group, w e fu l ly subscr ibe t o t he v iew

th at radical th ought is of necessity cr i t ica l th ought , and t hat appl ies to o ur ow n ideas

and act iv i t ies as m uch as to th e social condit ion s in w hich w e l ive. W e w elcome any

att em pt s to cr i t ica l ly reassess ant i-capita l ist th eory and pract ice and are exci ted at t he

chance to d iscuss th ese ideas w ith you as whi le t here is clear ly much com m on grou nd

here in te rm s o f w hat w e oppose and w hat w e propose in i ts p lace, there a re also some

im port ant, perhaps crucia l d i f ferences.

An in i t ia l com m ent I wo u ld m ake on read ing your p iece is tha t in t he gu ise o f n ove l ty

and a laudable desire to learn from th e fa i lures of t w ent ieth cent ury socia l ism , several of

th e key features of the v is ion you set ou t appear t o be an atavist ic repr ise of fa i led

ninet eenth century social ism . In m y reply, I' l l t ry t o address each of t he 5 tenet s in tu rn,

in o rder t o substan t ia te t h is c la im, to t ry and draw ou t the p rob lems i t represents , and

of course also t o show w here the com m on ground is be tw een us. W hi lst th is is a debate

abou t visions, I believe end s are m ade of m eans, and so it is imp ossible t o discuss a

fu tu re soc ie ty in iso la t ion f rom the des ired m eans o f get t ing there .

Social Ow nership

Any d i f fe rences here w ou ld be pur e ly semant ic . I tend to ta lk about com m unising the

m eans o f p roduc t ion r a ther t han soc ia l ising them , bu t th is is la rge ly due to the com m on

associat io n o f social isat ion and nat ional isat ion, as wel l as the fact t he t ermcom m unisat ion com es from a theor et ica l mi l ieu th at sees th is process as concom itant

w ith t hat of socia l revolut ion, not somet hing that can happen gradual ly in b i t -part s, or

som eth ing to be done f o l lowing a t ransi t iona l per iod . As you say , whatever w e cal l i t ,

th e point is that ow nership becomes a non- issue.

Self-management

I t is t rue t ha t dem ocracy is an ambiguous te rm (a te rm I m no t actua l ly tha t keen on fo r

th is very reason). But so is se l f-managemen t, and ind eed m ost pol i t ical term inology. I

th ink ther e is a danger of fe t ish is ing self-managem ent p er se, w ith out regard to t hequest ion of w hat? W hi le your v ision c lear ly cont extual ises i t in a social ly ow ned


21/40

21

econom y, I th ink you (as in PPS) do fa l l in to th is t r ap w ith r egard to yo ur current

pract ice. This fet ish ism is c lear ly apparent in t he d ual str ategies of part ic ipato ry credit

union s to set up part ic ipato ry businesses and a pro ject fo r a part ic ipator y trade un ion

m ovement . The prob lems are as fo l low s.

The h isto r ical credit u nion/ co-operat ive mo vem ent fa i led not b ecause i t w asnt

part ic ipato ry enough, but b ecause you cannot out -accum ulate the accum ulators . Wh i le

w or kers co-op s m ay serve som e pur po ses in t he pr esent (such as AK Press pu blishing

rad ica l li te ra tu re th a t w ou ld be un l ike ly to get p r in ted o t herw ise) , they do not represent

a s trat egy for social changebecause to do so they w ou ld have to ou t -compet e ex ist ing

capita l ist f i rm s. To be m ore com peti t ive you have to keep costs dow n and increase

pro duct iv i ty , and so you end up part ic ipato r i ly imp osing the requirem ent s of capita l on

yourself , instead of a boss doing i t (wit h t he concom itant possib i l i ty of res istance).

Br ight on, w here I l ive is som eth ing of a haven for w orkers co-ops. A fr iend of m ine w orks

fo r o ne o f them , a re fuse / recycl ing com pany, and the cond i t ions there in t e rm s o f pay

and h ours are considerably wo rse than at th e counci l serv ice Cityc lean. Now Cityc lean

has one o f t he m ost m i l itan t w ork fo rces in the c i ty , w i th a h isto ry o f w i ldca t act ions

including occupat ions to secure their cond it ion s against b ot h pr ivate ( capita l ist ) and

state (co-o rdin ato rist) bo sses. Capit al is a class relat ion, and any str ategy fo r abo lishin g

it cannot avoid c lass confron tat ion and stru ggle. This br ings us to t he quest ion of t rade

unions.

Now the last cen tury has been fu l l o f fa iled at t empt s to r e fo rm the t rade un ions, and w ehave to ask th at even i f i t som ehow possib le to succeed w here ot hers have fa i led, w hy is

i t a w or th w h i le goa l? To me i t seems tha t our o r ien ta t ion shou ld be tow ards actua l

w ork ing c lass str uggle, not a part icu lar for m (trade unio ns) th at i t o f t en takes. There are

several reason s fo r t his.

First ly , any reform att em pt s th at ser iously threaten ed th e unions ro le as socia l part ners

to m anagem ent w ou ld requ i re a sign i f ican t upsurge in m i l itancy f rom the m emb ersh ip

to f o rce th rough (Un ison recent ly w i tch-hunted m embers who advocated a no vo te to

pay cuts against an o ff ic ia l pol icy of neu tr a l i ty ; imagine th e respon se of t he bur eaucratsto dem ands fo r t he i r abo l it ion ! ) . So even i f you th ink i t s a good idea to r e fo rm the

union s, youd n eed t o fo cus on bui ld ing t he actual c lass str uggle.

Secondly, the trade unio n for m rapid ly becomes a barr ier to th e extension and

developm ent of w orkers str uggles. Trade union s are boun d by restr ic t ive legislat ion t hat

essent ia l ly out laws effect ive act ion. Bosses must b e g iven suff ic ient not ice of ind ustr ia l

act io n to a l low th em t o take m it igat ing measures, whi le secondary sol idar i ty act ion is

unlaw ful. Picket l ines are restr ic ted to in effectual size, independ ent w i ldcat act ion is

unlaw ful m ust be repud iated and so on Furt herm ore, the u nions act as a d iv ision

betw een d i f fe ren t g roups o f workers (non-mem bers/ m emb ers o f o t her un ions) in the


22/40

22

same and d i f feren t w orkplaces w ho share the same int erests, act ing as a barr ier to

com m on c lass act ion.

Several of th e l ibcom col lect ive are shop stew ards in t he pub l ic sector and have

exper ienced t hese prob lem s f i rst hand, w i t h t he un ions m anag ing to impo se rea l -te rm s

pay cut s on t heir m em bers despite support for ind ustr ia l act ion. In cont rast t o an

approach focussing on reform ing the union s, we advocate developing other fo rm s of

str uggle (which m ay wel l a lso m eet your p art ic ipatory cr i ter ia). In part icu lar w e advocate

m ass m eet ings of a l l w orkers regardless of unio n m em bership, for t hese mass m eet ings

to cont ro l t he str uggle and m ake l inks w ith o th er m ass m eet ings in oth er sectors, and as

and w hen such assem blies for m for t hem to co-ord inate t heir act iv i t ies across d iv isions

of em ployer, sector and un ion v ia means of m andated/ recallable delegate counci ls.

These cr i t ic ism s re late m ore t o ho w a v ision of se l f -m anagem ent is ref lected in

contem por ary pract ice. Cr i t ic ism s aside, the idea th at t hose affected by decisions should

m ake th em seems uncontr overs ia l , a l thou gh the specif ics of w heth er th is is le f t t o

sim ple or specif ic major i t y vote, consensus or comp lex propor t ion al weight in g system s is

contex t -dependent . M y pre fe rence wou ld be fo r t he m ost simp le p ract icab le (general ly

sim ple m ajor i ty vot e), but th is is to be decided by th ose affected, of cour se! For exam ple

w e use consensus minus 2 in the l ibcom col lect ive, a group of 10 peop le, which w orks

w e l l fo r us.

Balanced Job Com plexes

The pr inc ip le here seem s sensib le. Nobod y should be consigned t o a l i fe of m enia lchores, and no body shou ld m onopo l ise the m ore en joyab le/ emp ow er ing ro les in

society. Thus balanced job com plexes recognise the n eed to tr ansform th e w ay our

prod uct ive act iv i ty is organised in an egal i tar ian manner arou nd hum an needs. If th ere is

a problem here, i t is th at t here s a danger of t ak ing w ork as an act iv i t y separate fro m l i fe

as a g iven, and s imp ly seeking to dem ocrat ise i t .

Com m unism has a lways sought t he abol i t ion o f w ork, not s imp ly i ts reorganisat ion. Of

course th is doesn t m ean the abo l i t ion o f p roduc t ive hum an act iv i ty ! There m ay on ly be

sem antic d i f ferences here, but i t needs to b e recognised th at th e separat ion bet w eenw ork and l i fe is a produ ct of capita l ist society, and th at m any tasks th at becom e bor ing,

repet i t ive and dul l under capita l ism are poten t ia l ly rew arding act iv i t ies in and of

th em selves once str ipped of th e restr ic t ions im posed by m arket d iscip l ine and

w orkplace h ierarchy.

Consequent ly the t ask is not just to r e-organise w ork in a fa irer m anner, but to abol ish i t

as a separat e category o f social activit y. Of cour se it s unlikely all m enial t asks can be

abol ished or aut om ated, and i t t herefor e m akes sense to have an egali tar ian d iv ision of

labour fo r prod uct ive act iv i ty , w hich seem s to b e the pur pose of balanced job

complexes.


23/40

23

Part ic ipatory Planning

Unfo rt unat e ly here a fet ish for p art ic ipat ion p er se again ra ises i ts head. I th ink you fa l l

in to th e sam e hubr ist ic t r ap as centra l p lanners here by assum ing som eth ing so vast,

com plex and dynam ic as to ta l social prod uct ion can be rat ion al ly p lanned at a m acro

level . Whet her tha t p lan is the p r oduct o f a few b ureaucra ts in the cen t ra l comm it tee o rof a peer lessly part ic ipator y process of i t erat ive p lanning tak ing in to account th e desires

o f 6 b i l l ion peop le is som ew hat secondary .

The reason m arket-based capita l ism prospered o ver i ts centra l p lanning r iva l is th at

m arkets are decentr a l ised, adapt ive and f lex ib le, and t hat m acro- level order is

emergent , no t designed. Now w e don t need to recap the c r i t ic ism s o f m arkets here , I

th ink w e re bo th on the sam e page w i th regard to the fac t the em ergent o rder is one

th at ref lects purchasing pow er and not hu m an need, so countr ies export gra in for catt le

consum pt ion w hi le people starve etc. How ever, there is a lesson in t erm s of f lex ib i l i tyand emergent o rder .

I t seem s to m e a single annual p lan, how ever part ic ipator i ly arr ived at is no m ore f lex ib le

th an t hose of cent ra l p lanners, perhaps less so s ince mass part ic ipat ion in am ending i t

w ou ld t ake much longer than d ik ta t . In con t rast I wo u ld suggest tha t p roduc t ion is

or ient ed on a 'pu l l ' basis responding to consum pt ion, produ cing in response to w hat is

consum ed accord ing to th e m aximu m outp u t f rom the d esi red , soc ia l ly agreed w ork ing

day. I f dem and out str ips supply in one area, extra w orkers and/ or raw m ater ia ls can be

requested f rom o thers .

To med iate any scarc i ty , pr ior i t y sectors could b e draw n up b y var ious part ic ipato ry

m eans (such as federat ions of counci ls) , and rot at ing/ e lected recallable delegate

com m itt ees could handle the m inut iae. So for instance youd expect basic physio logical

needs to be h igh p r io r i ty , and luxury goods to be low pr io r i ty , w i t h a w ho le spec t rum o f

ot her goods arrayed som ew here in th e m iddle. In th is m anner, the to ta l socia l p lan

w ou ld be em ergent and f lexib le , and sub ject t o dem ocrat ic amendm ent by m eans o f

adjust ing th e order of pr ior i t y sectors/ goods.

Rem un erat ing Effo rt an d Sacrif iceFol low ing the advocacy of credit union s and co-oper at ives/ part ic ipato ry bu sinesses,

th is is th e second unf ort unat e repr ise of 19th centur y pol i t ics. W ay back in 1865, Kar l

M arx w ro te o f t he t rade un ions o f h is day instead o f the conservativem o t t o , A fair

day 's w age for a fa i r day 's work ! they ought t o inscr ibe on the i r banner the

revolut ionary watchword , Abol i t ion of t he w ages system ! Even i f one th inks M arx is

archaic, th is w ould be even m ore t rue of h is conservat ive opponent s.

Com m unism is about reduc ing e f fo r t and sacr i f ice no t ra ising them to fundam enta l

pr inc ip les as a sort o f secular prot estant w ork eth ic . Rem unerat ion for ef fort and

sacrif ice is based on t he sam e assum pt ions of hu m an behavio ur as neoclassical


24/40

24

econom ics ( that as pr ice reaches 0, demand increases exponen t ia l ly) , wh ich are

dem onstrably fa lse ( there are som e inter est ing ant hro pological stu dies to th is ef fect, as

w el l as th e everyday exper ience th at i f tea and coffee is f ree at w ork w e dont a l l

overdo se on caffe ine, or a l l becom e hypochond riacs w hen t here s f ree universal

healthcare et c).

W ages, how ever fa ir are a form of r at ion ing, w hich is i tse l f a respon se to scarc i ty . There

are tw o w ays to t ackle scarc i ty , wh ich natura l ly com plem ent o ne anoth er. First ly , the

ra t iona l reorgan isa t ion o f p roduc t ion t o m eet hum an need e lim ina tes the w aste fu l

prod uct ion o f bui l t - to- fa i l com m odit ies and in tr oduces eff ic iencies c lose to im possib le

under atom ised m arket re lat io ns (such as d istr ic t heat ing vs household com bi-boi lers,

decent ra l ised renew ab le energy p roduct ion ne t w orks, u rban p lann ing o r ien ted m ore

to w ards socia l com m unit y l iv ing and p ubl ic m ass transit , not pr ivate cars etc). This

reduces scarc i ty . How ever, w e cant bank on e l imin at ing i t , so som e form of rat ion ingw ou ld then be requ i red .

The quest ion th en becom es w hy ret a in fa ir w age-rat ioning, considered conservat ive a

century-and-a-half ago? W e w ould prob ably agree t hat access to having your basic

physio logical needs m et should be pret ty un condit io nal, and th at everyone should h ave

access to suff ic ient foo d, hou sing, health care et c. There is no r eason for th ese t h ings to

be scarce, for exam ple a lready th ere s enough foo d pro duct ion capacity in t he w orld t o

prevent fam ine, but hu nger pers ists for lack of pu rchasing pow er. And i f a g iven

hea lthcare t rea tm ent w ere scarce, w e sure ly w ou ldn ' t a l locate i t to the h ighest b idder .

The quest ion of scarc i ty wo uld ar ise w ith m ore in t erm ediate and luxury goods. There

are a myriad of w ays th is scarc i ty could be m anaged, each w ith t heir ow n pro s and cons.

You could sim ply have f i rst com e, f i rst served a l locat ion. This w ould p rob ably be

suff ic ient for m ost goods, since produ ct ion o rganised on a pul l basis w ould increase

accor dingly at t he expense of less socially prior it ised good s. You cou ld allocate everyo ne

an equal share, but th is creates th e pot ent ia l for b lack m arkets as peoples needs are no t

a l l ident ica l. You could h ave a lo t tery f or luxury i t em s.

You could a lso have som e form of needs-test ing, w hich could incorporat e effort . So forexam ple i f th e amo unt of f l ight s w ere restr ic ted by col lect ive decision on ecological

ground s, having re lat ives abroad or having wo rked part icu lar ly hard could g ive you a

bet t e r c laim to a f l igh t . Of course any body dec id ing on t hese m at te rs wo u ld need to be

m andated, rot at ing and/ or e lected/ recallable so as to be pro per ly account able. Even i f i t

w as fe l t w i th a l l these po t en t ia l means o f m anag ing scarc ity , som e fo rm o f rem unera t ion

w as required ( I d d isagree), it w ould sure ly be for excess effor t and appl icable only t o

scarce luxury i tem s, not m ade a foundat ional pr inc ip le of society.

The f ina l point is th at w itho ut w ages m ediat ing access to consum pt ion, w hy should

people put any effort in t o prod ucing at a l l? I w ould say that i f pro duct ive act iv i t y in


25/40

25

comm on is so un appeal ing tha t a s ign if ican t p r opor t ion o f the popu la t ion absta in , then

th ere has been no revolut ion in socia l re lat ions. Furt herm ore t here are p lenty of o rganic

w ays to d iscourage slackers ( f rom socia l st igm a thr ough t o fo rm al sanct ion) and rew ard

th ose w ho g ive that b i t ext ra to t he col lect ive (such as cooking them a meal, th row ing

them a par ty o r second ing them fo r t ha t scarce f l igh t to Hawai i ).

The v ision you o ut l ine seem s to t ake a very econo m ist ic v iew o f hum an beings, wit h

pro duct ive act iv i ty seen as necessar i ly unappeal ing, and pecuniary incent ives th e on ly

w ay to m ake peop le do i t o r sanc t ion tho se w ho don t do i t enough. Th is simp ly

und erl ines th e fact t he abol i t ion o f w ork (and thu s th e econo m y) as a separate sphere of

socia l l i fe is param ount to any revolut ionary pro ject.

I ve tr ied t o be concise, but in d iscussing the po ten t ia l fu t ure socia l organisat ion of t he

l ives of b i l l ions, there is a lo t of ground to cover. I hop e I ve h ighl ighted t he poin ts of

agreement and out l ined w here our d i f f erences l ie , and the im pl icat ion s of t hese

d i f fe rences fo r bo t h the socie ty we hope to c rea te , and the m eans by wh ich w e hope to

create i t .

PPS r espo nseHi Joseph thanks fo r your rep ly to m y open ing sta tem ent . Like you I a lso be l ieve tha t

w e should b e as cr i t ical o f our ow n organisat ions and tradit ions as th ose of the

establ ishmen t, and that dogm atism has not h ing to do w ith genuine radical-progressive

culture. I th erefore w elcome your cr i t ic ism s of t he part ic ipator y econo m ic v ision I

advocate.

Som e o f w hat you w r i te in your rep ly how ever is no t a c r it ic ism o f par t ic ipato ry

econom ic v ision but instead focuses on str ategic propo sals posted on th e PPS-UK

w ebsi te . I have chosen no t to respond to these par ts o f your rep ly fo r t he fo l low ing

reasons. 1) I dont m ent io n t hese prop osals in m y opening statem ent . 2) Thesepro posals are m ade by m em bers and are there t o be considered and d iscussed,

imp roved upon e tc . It m ay we l l be t he case tha t m any o f t he PPS-UK m embers w ou ld

agree w ith m uch of your cr i t ic ism s of t hese prop osals. I for o ne th ink that yo ur h is tor ica l

account o f th e fa i l ings of t he cooperat ive and tr ade union m ovem ent s carr ies som e

w eigh t and I a lso l ike the sound o f the p roposals you m ent ion t ha t L ibCom prom ote , fo r

example m ass meet in gs w hich, incident a l ly I see as com patib le w ith ParEcon str ategy.

3) As in ter est ing as your cr i t ic ism s of th ese pro posals are, w e are here t o d ebate v is ion

for a post-capita l ist econom y not ant i-capita l ist s trategy. This br ings m e to a point I


26/40

26

w ou ld l ike to h igh l igh t be fo re mo v ing on to r ep ly to your com m ents on the de f in ing

inst i t u t ional features of the ParEcon m odel.

Ends and M eans : W hen you say th at w hi lst t h is is a debate about v ision, I be l ieve ends

are m ade of m eans, and so i t is im possib le to d iscuss a fut ure society in iso lat ion fro m

the des ired m eans o f ge t t ing there I th ink you m igh t have h igh ligh ted o ne o f t he

impo r tan t , perhaps c rucial d i f fe rences you m ent ioned in your rep ly to m y open ing

s ta tement .

In a sense I do agree t hat en ds (v ision) are m ade of m eans (str ategy). How ever, your

stat em ent seems to suggest t hat you r v ision w i l l emerge from your strat egy. This, I

th ink, expla ins w hy, in your opening stat em ent you t a lk so m uch about L ibCom str ategy

and w hy you dragged strat egic pro posals from th e PPS-UK si te in to a d iscussion o n

part ic ipator y econom ic v ision. In cont rast I w ould argue that v ision should in form

str ategy. So yes, ends are m ade of m eans, but ef fect ive strategy can only be develop ed i f

w e have a good idea o f wh ere w e are go ing

I suspect t hat t h is basic d i f ference in approach m ay expla in m any of t he d i f f erences th at

are a lready beginning to show in t h is exchange. I t m ay be the case th at i f w e can address

th is issue at t h is fun dam ental level many of t he d i f fer ences th at are beginning to show

w i l l d isappear . I there fo re t h ink tha t i t m igh t be w or th exp lo r ing th is d i f fe rence in

approach in m ore de ta i l .

Econom ic Vision: You say that ParEcon seem s to t ake a very econo m ist ic v iew of h um anbeings . In t he hop e of addr essing th is cr i t ic ism I wi l l need t o very quick ly explain th e

broader pro ject I am involved in . Our overal l program m e at PPS-UK inc ludes effor ts in

developing v ision and strategy, not o nly in th e econo m ic sphere, but a lso in t he

com m unit y, k inship and pol i t ica l spheres. Furt herm ore, the developm ent of v is ion and

str ategy wit h in t hese four socia l spheres takes p lace w ith in a br oader t heoret ical

f ramew ork cal led com pl iment ary ho l ism . Th is f ramew ork w as conceptua l ised as an

at tem pt to t ranscend h isto r ica l m ater ial ism (wh ich I th ink does pu t the econom y a t the

centre o f a l l th ings, result ing in a l l k inds of d isto rt ions of un derstanding etc) and is a

consc ious e f fo r t a t addressing the k inds o f p rob lems w i th econom ism and o th er m on istf ramew orks tha t you m ent ion . In con t rast t he com pl iment ary ho list f ram ewo rk m akes

no befo re-the-facts assum pt ion about th e dom inance of any one socia l sphere over any

o ther . I there fo re suspect t ha t th e econom ic v iew tha t you see in the v ision I ou t l ine

has to do w i th t he simp le fac t t ha t w e are d iscussing econom ic vision w here there w i l l

be a natura l focus on econom ics. The same w ould apply i f w e w ere focusing in on t he

com m unit y sphere. There wo uld be a natur a l b ias to w ards cultura l issues, but w e should

not conclude f rom th is tha t such a d iscussion m eant tha t w e w ere p rom ot ing a

cu ltu ra l ist ic v iew o f hum an be ings a t least n o t w hen i t is tak ing p lace wi th in a

compl im entary ho l ist ic f ram ewo rk .


27/40

27

Social Ow nership: You say tha t Any d i f fe rence here w ou ld be p ure ly semant ic and tha t

w hatever we ca l l i t , the po in t is tha t ow nersh ip becomes a non- issue. I th ink t ha t t h is

is essent ia l ly correct. How ever, you ra ise a very im por tant point w hen you say th at you

ten d to t a lk abou t com m unis ing rather t han socia lising . Your reason has to d o w ith

th e negat ive com m on associat io n of t he term . Again, I agree wit h you, but I a lso feelth at th ere is an equal ly bad ( i f not w orse) associat ion connected w ith com m unism. This

is t rue w hether w e l ike i t o r no t . We bo t h know tha t u sing te rms tha t car ry negat ive

connot at ions can put p eople of f l is tening to our id eas, even befor e we real ly begin to

ta lk to them . Or i f i t doesn t pu t them o f f comp le te ly f rom the s ta r t we can end up

ta lk ing to t hem about how the i r unders tand ing o f t he te rm is incor rec t o r d isto r t ed ,

w h ich m eans w e spend m ost o f our l im i ted t im e t ry ing to un do years o f p rop aganda. An

a l te rna t ive approach t ha t ge ts around these prob lems migh t be fo r us to deve lop new

term s tha t cap ture w hat w e are ta lk ing about , and maybe does so be t t e r , bu t w i thou t

th e negat ive associat ions. So, as an a l ternat ive t o pr ivate o w nership, but w itho ut th ebad connota t ions o f social / comm una l ow nersh ip , I wou ld l ike you t o consider the

not ion of societa l stew ardship as a term t hat achieves th is funct ion.

Self-management: You say that th e idea that t hose affected b y decisions should m ake

th em seems uncontr overs ia l and I agree. But I m not just saying th at th ose affected by

dec isions shou ld m ake them as, fo r exam ple w i th d i rec t dem ocracy. I m argu ing fo r a

m ore specif ic and (as I see i t ) m eaningfu l not ion of se l f -managem ent. Advocates of

ParEcon say that people should have a say in a decision in p ropo rt ion t o t he degree th at

th ey are affected b y the o ut com e of a decision. W e feel that as a decision-m akingpr inc ip le th is is fa ir sim ply because th e people w ho are m ost af fected by a decision

should have m ore say than th ose who are less affected. This m eans th at un der cert a in

condit ions w hole groups of people m ay have zero say in a decision w hi lst in ot her

c ircum stances an indiv idual m ight have absolut e say. In contrast, w ith d irect dem ocracy

it is typ ical for a l l wh o are affect by a decision t o have equal say regardless of h ow m uch

th ey are affected by th e out com e of th at decision. This usually t ranslates in to advo cates

of d irect dem ocracy advocat in g one-person on e-vote on a l l issues w hich, in m y

opin ion , is neith er fa ir no r pr act ica l . The ParEcon no t ion of se l f -managemen t a lso

cont rasts wi t h dem ocrat ic cen t ra l ism in obv ious w ays but I don t t h ink I need t o goin to tha t here .

Balan ced Job Com plexes: Here it seems that w e are in agreement . You r ight ly stat e i t s

unl ike ly a l l menia l tasks can be abol ished or aut om ated, and i t t herefor e m akes sense to

have an egal i tar ian d iv ision of labou r for prod uct ive act iv i t y , which seem s to be th e

pur pose of balanced job comp lexes .

W here I th ink there m igh t b e d i f fe rences o f op in ion is over the ex ten t t

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ahmed-rizk
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

A participatory society or libertarian communism?

Documents