Fifteen years ago, Robin Hahnel and I published a book titled Looking Forward. It was the first in-depth presentation of the economic vision called participatory economics, or parecon for short. Of course Robin and I worked hard on parecon and related ideas before that, but even sticking to only the fifteen years since Looking Forward, and even considering only myself, I have subsequently written or co-written numerous related books, dozens of articles, more dozens of interviews, and I have given, I would guess, about 150 talks in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America, and soon Africa. Alongside other focuses, why have I for fifteen years ceaselessly advocated parecon? I get asked this every now and then. Sometimes my interrogator is curious, sometimes hostile. It is a fair question. This a good time to answer.
One possibility for the basis of my tenacity on behalf of parecon is called cognitive dissonance. I expended great energy on conceiving and writing Looking Forward. I vested considerable personal hope in its ideas. In this interpretation of my choices, from parecon’s origination on I was primarily defending my initial and then accumulating emotional and psychological investment in its validity. If at some point I suddenly decided parecon wasn’t worth my time, that would imply as well that it wasn’t worth my time earlier, which would suggest that my earlier behavior was without value, whether it was mistaken or plain stupid. I therefore compulsively dodged that outcome. Obviously, if this is the correct explanation of my choices, the situation gets steadily worse as there is steadily more time invested in advocating parecon. Not being able to tolerate admitting past error, I instead keep plugging away lest my not plugging away implicitly tarnishes my past. We can label this mode of behavior, only a little tongue in cheek, insecurely reflexive defensive obsession.
Ko tetahi atu whakamaramatanga pea mo taku kaha mo te parecon, heoi, ko taku whakaaro nui ki aku whiringa me taku whakaaro he pai taku wa me taku kaha, kaua e whakahua i etahi atu rauemi kua tukuna ki te mahi, kia aro tonu ki te whakawhanake tautoko mo parekoni. I tenei tuarua, he iti te whakaiti, he whakamaramatanga, ka taea e au te whakamutu i nga mahi a te parecon i nga wa katoa, ahakoa he pouri te ngakau, engari ko te take kei te akiaki i ahau ki te mahi tohe, na reira ka tohe tonu ahau i a au ano me etahi atu ki te mahi nui ake, atu. Karangatia tenei ahua o te whanonga, he iti tonu te arero ki te paparinga, ko te ahua o te whakaaro kaitaua.
Na, ko tehea te whakaaro kei te putake o taku piripono ki te parecon: ko te aukati i te tangata, ko te kaitakawaenga ranei?
Ehara ahau i te kaiwawao whakamutunga mo te whakatau i aku kaupapa, engari ka taea e au te tuku atu i taku keehi, me te whakaatu i taku whakaaro kei te haere tonu, kia kitea e etahi atu he koha, mahi tahi ranei. Na, koinei nga tino take e mau tonu ai ahau ki te parecon-ing ano he puru kuri kapo koiwi, po, ao, ao, po.
Take 1. Ka whakatauhia e Parecon te raruraru o te kore karaehe.
Ko te tikanga o mua ki te karaehe, i taku maarama i mua i te parecon, ko nga karaehe ohaoha he hua o te whanaungatanga rangatira. Ko te wehenga nui i waenga i nga rangatira rangatira nga tikanga whakaputa me nga kaimahi kei a raatau te kaha ki te mahi mahi. Arā noa atu ngā kāhui pēnei i te hunga ahuwhenua, engari he iti noa iho te whakaaro. Ka taea hoki e te tangata te wehewehe i waenga i nga rangatira iti, nunui ranei, nga kaimahi mohio, nga kaimahi kore mohio, me era atu, engari he take tuarua ano tenei. Ko te take nui ko te whakapaipai me te mahi. Ko nga Kapitalisme te rangatira. I mamae nga kaimahi. I tua atu, he maha nga kaimahi me te kaha ki te turaki i nga rangatira rangatira.
It wasn’t long before I felt that this picture was misleading due to being too simple by roughly a third. What about managers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and so on? I wasn’t satisfied with lumping these highly empowered workers in with either rote workers or even more powerful owners. I felt that the inbetween group were not just a little different from owners and workers, but a lot different. More, I felt that they were different in a way that arose from their economic position, not some other context, and that mattered greatly.
Starting from there, in time, parecon extended the insights of the early anarchists like Bakunin, and of the later libertarian socialists like, most recently, Barbara and John Ehrenreich, to highlight a different basis for class division and class rule. Class, in this pareconist view, went beyond just ownership. Indeed, ownership was ultimately an instance of something more general – position in the economy.
What made a class, that is, was that a group’s position in the economy gave it interests collectively different and contrary to other classes, and, especially, that its position not only gave it a different methodology for personal advance and a different associated self image and image of others, but also a potential to rule economic life.
Thus, Hahnel and I, extending the Ehrenreichs, decided that a group between labor and capital that we called the coordinator class mattered both to how capitalism works, and, even more so, to what has in the past replaced capitalism. We realized, that is, that what was called socialism had core institutions that didn’t elevate workers while eliminating owners, but that instead elevated coordinators while eliminating owners. In the so-called socialist economies, we realized workers didn’t dominantly decide economic outcomes and equitably share society’s output. Instead, it was coordinators, from above, who dominately decided economic outcomes, and who greedily aggrandized themselves from society’s output.
So parecon’s class insight is that beyond capitalism there is classlessness, yes, as one option, but there is also coordinatorism, as another option, where coordinatorism is an economic system that retains the class division between those who monopolize empowering circumstances in their work – the coordinator class – and those who mainly follow orders and suffer tedious conditions – the working class – and in which the coordinators rule the workers.
Ko taku whakapono ko te parecon te whakaoti rapanga o te karaehe, no reira ki taku whakaaro (a) ka whakaotihia e te parecon te rapanga o te tautuhi i nga akomanga matua. A (b) ka whakatauhia e te parecon te raruraru o te whakatutuki i nga mahi ohaoha me te kore e pakaru te wehenga o te karaehe me te ture karaehe.
Parecon doesn’t elevate coordinators above workers but instead creates conditions in which no group has interests putting it in opposition to the interests of other groups and conveying to it means to dominate those other groups.
Ko nga ahuatanga o te parecon e tino nui ana ki te whakaoti rapanga o te karaehe ko te kite ko te ohaoha ka whakaputa i nga tangata me nga hononga hapori, ehara i nga putanga noa; te mohio ehara i te mea ko nga hononga rangatira anake engari ko nga tikanga e mahi ai nga tangata me o raatau mahi ka pa ki o raatau kaupapa mahi me o raatau mahi; te mohio ko nga wehenga umanga o te mahi me te tohatoha maakete ka whakaputa i nga kairuruku hei akomanga motuhake me te rangatira; ka mutu ka whakapau kaha ki nga huinga mahi taurite me te whakamahere whai waahi ki to raatau waahi.
Take 2. Ka whakatauhia e Parecon te raruraru o te whakahaere whaiaro ohaoha.
I became a leftist in the mid 1960s. People controlling their own lives was a key theme of our new leftist commitments. It was quite natural, then, to like the idea of self management. On the other hand, what did self management mean? It couldn’t be that I could do any old thing I wanted, clearly. And that wasn’t just because I might want to employ someone as a wage slave, or even as a personal slave, or I might want to steal or kill or whatever. More to the point, I can’t just do any work I hanker to, or consume any item I hunger too. I am a citizen, a member of society. Managing myself has to be done consistent with others being able to manage themselves to the same degree.
In time, following the above logic, self management came to mean to me that I and everyone should have a say over decisions that affect us proportionate to the extent of their effect on us. Sometimes, fifty percent rule was the best approximation to everyone having that level of influence. Other times, consensus was the best way to achieve it. Sometimes two thirds required for a decision was best, or even one person deciding, as in me deciding how to arrange my desk. Likewise, sometimes, when a lot is at stake, extensive discussion, debate, and refinement of proposals made sense as part of attaining self management. But other times, when less was at stake, quicker procedures would be better. Following through the implications of this approach, it didn’t take long to realize that if we should all have a say in decisions in proportion as they affect us – not with an anal idiocy as if decision making were a math problem, of course, but broadly and up to the point where trying for further precision would cost us more in time and hassle than it would gain in desirable decision making – the implications for economics were pretty extreme.
An economy is a general system in which each part, including each choice, sets the context for all other parts and choices. If I consume a pencil, you can’t consume that pencil. More, if we together in our society produce 100,000 pencils, we aren’t producing whatever we could have with the labor and resources that went to the pencils. There is an opportunity cost – that’s what economists call this – to every choice. Doing any one thing foregoes using the component energy, resources, and labor to do some other thing. But this means every decision affects every actor, albeit some actors far more than others. So, the workers producing pencils are mightily affected by pencil production, those consuming pencils are highly affected by it, but those who don’t want pencils are also affected, because, among other implications, if no one got any pencils there might be more pens or cheaper ones, or more of something else for those who didn’t want pencils.
Na he tino puhuruhuru te raruraru whakahaere whaiaro. Mo te ohanga hei whakahaere i a ia ano, me whai korero nga kaimahi ki o raatau waahi mahi mo a raatau mahi na te mea me whai korero nga kaihanga me nga kaihoko mo nga mea ka kai, ka mau, ka eke ranei, aha ranei, me nga mea e waatea ana, me tenei hiahia. kia pono mo nga kaiwhakaari katoa i runga i te rahinga i a raatau e pa ana, he rereke te rereke mai i nga keehi ki ia keehi, mai i tetahi mea ki tetahi mea.
So it isn’t just that we have workers councils and consumers councils and that each council uses self managed decision making methods in its deliberations and choices. That much is essential, to be sure, but it is also necessary that the interface between workers in one plant and another, and between consumers in one region and another, and between workers and consumers throughout the economy, are handled in a self managing way with all actors having appropriate influence.
Suppose workers in a plant make their local operating decisions in the most self managing manner conceivable, but that central planners tell them how much they must produce, or for that matter, some other mechanism, such as markets, imposes output levels on them which they have too little say over. Goodbye self management. Likewise, suppose consumers get to choose what they want from among society’s outputs, individually and collectively, using highly self managing methods such as looking at lists of availabilities and freely choosing among them, but what they choose from is determined overwhelmingly without their having an impact. Again: goodbye self management. And there are many other variations such as those who breathe pollution not having a say in car sales unless they happen to be the buyer, or those who produce bicycles not affecting the availability of rubber or of roads for riding, or for that matter affecting either too much, and so on.
So, my belief that parecon solves the self management problem is that I think (a) it solves the problem of defining most usefully what self management means while also understanding and highlighting its central importance. And (b) it solves the problem of accomplishing economic functions without imparting to some actors more than proportionate say and to others less than proportionate say, but, instead, at least within an acceptable margin of deviation – and sometimes with errors, but never with systematic and snowballing errors – allots proportionate self managing say to all.
The features of parecon that are most critical to its solution to the self management problem are understanding that each person’s freedom needs to extend to the point of others having similar freedom but should not extend further than that; understanding that not only what we do immediately day to day has to be self managed, but also the broad context in which we make those day to day choices; realizing that familiar corporate divisions of labor and market allocation produce the coordinator class as a separate and dominating elite with excessive say over outcomes thereby grossly violating self management; realizing that sharply hierarchical decision making likewise destroys self management; and finally institutionally committing to self managed councils, balanced job complexes and participatory planning in place of the offending capitalist and coordinatorist options.
Take 3. Ka whiwhi te Parecon i te tika.
Regarding equity, there is first a conceptual problem, and then an issue of how to act on the results. Parecon examines remuneration and arrives at a particular norm – that we should each receive for our socially useful contributions to the economy a share of its outputs in proportion to the effort and sacrifice we expend – which is to say that we should get more income if we work at useful production longer, harder, or enduring more onerous conditions, as should everyone else, and for no other reason.
This is a value, which is to say, a matter of preference. Someone might think, instead, that it is equitable for Bill Gates to get income equal to that of whole populations of numerous countries combined by virtue of owning property. It is fair for him to receive the value of the property’s product. Or someone might think it is equitable for Tiger Woods to get less but still incredibly gargantuan income by virtue the value of his fantastic athletic talent to those who like to watch golf tournaments. Or someone might even think – this person probably had to go to business school to develop this highly trained and sophisticated viewpoint – that a thug with great bargaining power – I have in mind our corporate centers of power but it applies to many others as well, such as the coordinator class – can equitably use it to extort income. But parecon, in contrast to these more familiar preferences about remuneration, rejects remunerating property, or remunerating bargaining power, or even remunerating personal output. You don’t get more income in a parecon because you are born with talents or capacities that are highly valued, or because you happen to produce something highly valued, or because you work with highly productive partners, or because you own property, or because you are personally or collectively strong enough to take it. You get more simply for working longer, or harder, or at worse conditions, as long as you are producing valued output.
So that’s parecon’s remunerative norm. You probably noticed already that I am a stickler for mentioning that the product of work that earns income has to be socially useful. You can’t work hard digging holes in your back yard and filling them. Nor can you work hard at making something useful and desired, but do the work in a slipshod or incompetent fashion. In such cases, you are not creating socially desired outputs commensurate to the labor you are expending, which is to say not all the time or effort you are expending is warranted by the desirability of its product and therefore not all of it deserves full remuneration. Similarly, I can’t be shortstop for the Yankees or quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts in a parecon. My efforts would not be appreciated, being little different for those watching than if I were digging holes and filling them.
The claim that parecon attains equity thus means that parecon’s combination of methods and structures ensures that each actor who is able to work is afforded a share of the social product of his or her choosing in proportion to the effort and sacrifice he or she (usefully) expends. Parecon is not manic to the tenth decimal place about this, of course. Rather, in different pareconish workplaces workers will adopt methods and norms that they prefer, consistent, however, with the overarching guidelines. What parecon contributes regarding equity is, first, clarification as to its meaning and composition and, second, institutions that facilitate attaining it, which are, again, the participatory planning system, the self managed councils, and so on.
Take 4. Ka whakatairanga te Parecon i te kotahitanga ohaoha.
There is a substantial and important movement of activists that is largely but not exclusively centered in Latin America and parts of Europe, that says they favor what they call solidarity economics. There is a lot more to be said about this, but in essence what they are saying is that they reject an economy that causes actors to see one another as opponents or as means to ends. They want economic relations to align actors so that the interests of each are in accord with the interests of others, at least in most respects. I am still competing with Peyton Manning or Derek Jeter if I want to be quarterback of the Colts or shortstop of the Yankees, since it is true that we can’t all have the spot. But once we do have responsibilities and tasks in the economy, advocates of solidarity economics want an arrangement that causes each person’s pursuit of gain to be consistent with and to even enhance everyone else’s pursuit of gain, rather than my attaining gains meaning you do worse, or vice versa. Even more, it would be nice to have an economy that nurtures empathy by causing even those of us who are most greedy and egocentric to have no choice but to be cognizant of and even supportive of other’s needs and aspirations, if we are to meet our own. That would be serious solidarity. And seeking such an end provides a positive aim as compared to just avoiding the manipulative, often violent, and nearly always egocentric personal and class self aggrandizing rat race that is typical of current economies.
So the claim that parecon promotes economic solidarity means parecon creates a context in which for me to materially advance either means the whole social product grows – which benefits everyone – or that I work longer, harder, or at worse conditions, which doesn’t impede others from earning similarly if they wish to. More, it means when we consider choices for new technologies or other investments, my interests and other people’s interests never systematically and repetitively clash and, most often, are even in accord. For example, we all benefit from the most effective reduction in onerous labor, not simply from a change instituted in our own workplaces, because when the dust settles we all wind up with average work conditions, so attaining the best average is in everyone’s interest. What creates this context, again, is parecon’s institutions, in particular its remunerative scheme, job complexes, and allocation system.
Take 5. Ka taea e te parecon te awhina ki te whakakore i te whakahianga, he tino aukati ki te mahi.
There is no alternative, gleefully intoned Margaret Thatcher, offering the claim as a reason for accepting the horrors of capitalism. And the problem with her position isn’t its logic. If there actually is no alternative, or even if there is just no better alternative, then, indeed, it does make sense to make do with what we have. The point is, not just for Thatcher but for most people, leftist entreaties to activism are seen as juvenile idiocy. People who feel that way tell us to get a life. They tell us to grow up. And they are not being perverse. I might say it, myself, to someone who kept regaling me with entreaties to fight against aging, or to fight against gravity, or to blow into the wind, or to hold back the tide. These are fool’s errands. They are hopeless because they lead nowhere. And that’s how much of the population sees our activism. If it isn’t one war it will be another. If that group over there isn’t homeless or starving, some other group will be. It is just the way of the world, they believe. And that belief in the inevitability of the pains all around us, ensures social passivity. A person might have great energy for their job, or for their interpersonal relations, or for some sport or hobby, but they do not have great energy for social change because social change seems to be a dead end. Revolution and even big reform seems to be a fool’s errand.
Ki ahau nei, ko tenei whakapoauau te ahua he tino whakaraerae nui rawa atu ko te wikitoria he tikanga o mua mo te hanga i nga nekehanga tino nui me te mau tonu. A ko taku e kii nei ka taea e te parekoni te awhina ki te whakakore i tenei momo whakahianga, no reira, mena ka tohatohahia te parekoni me te whakamarama marama, a mena ka tika taku korero mo ona painga, ka taea e te tangata te mohio he pono kei reira. he huarahi pai me te tika ki te whakapaipai.
Te Take 6. Ka taea e Parecon te whakamohio i te arotahi o te hunga whakatohe i nga huarahi e whai hua ana ki te angitu.
What demands should we make? When we make demands, how should we talk about why we want the changes we seek, where the changes will lead, and what should follow from the changes? Seeking gains that improve people’s lives is a worthy pursuit. Seeking such gains in a manner that raises consciousness of fundamental problems in the present and of preferable future alternatives, and that arouses desires for and belief in the latter, is a wonderful thing to do. The latter type projects not only seek to meet needs better than they are currently being met, they also auger further changes and prepare the way for them.
No reira ma te kii ka taea e te parecon te whakamohio i te aro o nga kaiwhaiwhai, ko taku tikanga ka taea e te parecon te awhina i a tatou ki te whiriwhiri, ki te tohe, ki te wikitoria i nga whainga, ma nga huarahi katoa e kore e aro ki nga mamae o naianei e pa ana ki te tangata, engari e arai atu ana ki te huarahi e rapuhia ana. Ka taea e Parecon te awhina i a tatou ki te whai rautaki i roto i te tikanga tino tika o te whakarite i a tatou mahi ehara i te mea ko te waahi kei a tatou inaianei, engari i runga ano i te waahi e hiahia ana tatou ki te huri a muri ake nei.
Take 7. Ka taea e Parecon te whakamohio ki nga whakahaere a te hunga whakatohe i nga huarahi e tika ana kia angitu.
He korero anarchist tawhito, a ki taku whakaaro he korero tino tika, me ngana tatou ki te whakauru i nga kakano o te heke mai i tenei wa. He maamaa noa te whakaaro. Ko o tatou nekehanga, i roto i to raatau hanganga whakahaere o roto, tikanga whakatau, tikanga utu, wehewehenga mahi, me nga hononga ki etahi atu mahi me ngana ki te whakauru, ki te whakamahine, ki te tautoko i nga hononga e hiahia ana tatou ki te noho i raro i te heke mai. I runga i tera, me whai nekehanga tatou e mau ana i ta tatou e rapu nei mo te whanaungatanga iwi, te whanaungatanga ira tangata, te whakatau whakatau, me te whanaungatanga karaehe.
Parecon, this last claim says, can inform how we construct and carry out our projects, organizations, and movements, causing us to incorporate, as best we are now able, councils, self managed decision making, equitable remuneration, balanced job complexes, and even interrelations among actors that embody the logic and sometimes the features of participatory planning. Without a vision of what the future might be, embodying the future’s features in the present is utterly impossible. And so parecon can help with this problem, too.
Mena he pono nga kerēme i runga ake nei, ko tetahi o enei e tika ana, ki taku whakaaro, ki te whakatenatena i te kaha o te kaha ki te whai i te parecon (tetahi atu tirohanga ranei i tutuki ai enei kaupapa) e mohiotia ana, e whakamahine ana, e tautokohia ana. He pono ko te whakakotahitanga o enei kerēme katoa e tika ana hei whakahihiri i taua whakapumautanga i waenga i nga tangata maha. Me pena ranei, ara, mena he raru nui mo te tango i te parecon, tetahi tirohanga ranei, mo tera mea, e kore e puta nga painga. Arā, he pai pea te parecon ki etahi mea tino nui, pera i te korero i runga ake nei, engari tera ano etahi atu ngoikoretanga e pai ai te whakama ki te tautoko.
And, indeed, I think that in a prophylactic sort of way, this has been a major obstacle to overcome in communicating about vision per se and about parecon in particular. Many people, and ironically it is often precisely those who by their values most desire a self managed economy, think there is a contradiction between seeking liberty and freedom and espousing any institutional vision at all, no matter how good it may be. They think that advocating clearly described institutions for a new society is contrary to in fact seeking such a new society. They think the act of adopting a self managing vision puts the lie to actually seeking that vision. They think arguing for a self managing vision corrupts one’s efforts to attain it, however well motivated those efforts may be, by forcing them into an authoritarian mold that is unlikely to win change, but which would be even worse if it did win change, since advocating a vision means a movement will be sectarian and top down in its dynamics, leading to a world we would rather not inhabit.
So, finally, in explaining my motivations to give so much of my time, energy, and emotional commitment to economic and social vision, I have to explain, I think, why this counter argument to the positive reasons I offered above doesn’t deter me. Why don’t I feel that by urging widespread adoption of a vision, I automatically engender sectarianism and obstruct attaining a truly self managed economy?
I have to admit that I am befuddled by this objection to parecon and to vision more generally. It seems to be saying that unless the future is brought into being without being thought about, discussed, debated, refined, and widely self consciously sought, it won’t be participatory, classless, and self managing. To me, however, this claim seems to be exactly the opposite of the truth.
How can a movement win a dramatically different future unless, at some point, it is seeking it? How can a movement be participatory and attain a really self managing economy and society, unless it is seeking such a society not due to orders delivered from the top, but due to the desires and insights of huge numbers of members each of whom knows what they are trying to win? How can a huge number of a movement’s members be seeking particular institutional innovations, including being critical of choices that would compromise or obstruct those gains, unless they know what the sought institutions look like, why they are valuable, and how they would work? And how can a large number of participants have such knowledge and have the confidence to act on it, unless they have discussed, debated, and refined their aims – which means, how can they do it unless they become advocates of shared vision via a process that initially includes smaller numbers of people – the vision’s earliest advocates – making known their views, publicly and accessibly, for purposes of ensuing debate, refinement, etc.?
It seems to me, in other words, that while the worries that make many people nervous about movements arriving at a shared vision are perfectly reasonable, the solution many people adopt – which is to opt for no vision at all – insures that a movement will wind up with a vision that people who aren’t worried about top down dynamics develop. In other words, the proposed solution would yield what is feared. What people’s justified fears of sectarianism should imply for us, instead of having no vision which is self defeating, is that we should adopt vision flexibly, with an open mind, welcoming criticism and debate, and always ready and even eager to make changes. People with concerns about giving time to developing and advocating vision often say that what we want for our future should arise from our experiences. I agree. Of course it should arise from our experiences. Indeed, where else has parecon or any other vision come from other than our assessments of our accumulated experiences including about two hundred years of anti capitalist activism, and also a few decades of our own personal experiences, including experiments with the ideas themselves?
It seems to me that the view that “we shouldn’t do vision because vision is elitist and isn’t participatory” obstacle is either an incredibly defeatist attitude that says if we have vision we will be sectarian and authoritarian about it automatically despite any contrary intentions and methods we have, or it is a confusion of what participation means and of how humans operate. The view seems to me to denigrate thought itself, implying that to think about the hard question of how to organize a better economy, or a better polity, culture, kinship, or whatever, somehow means that one is arrogant, that one is spinning one’s abstract wheels without rooting oneself in reality, that one is doing something that only a very few can do and so it won’t yield participation, and so on. But all of this, while certainly a possible path that ought to be avoided, is also certainly not the only possible path. We can instead adopt vision publicly, socially, creatively, flexibly, accessibly. What is inevitable regarding vision, however, it has seemed to me, is that movements that don’t have shared compelling vision will not have large and powerful memberships that can actually embody the seeds of the future in the present, that can orient their actions to desirable goals, and that can incorporate real participation, including all members having equal chance to make the aims of the movement their own, understand them, adapt them, act in light of them, correct, refine, or supercede them, and finally win them.
To have a participatory movement doesn’t require that we have a movement that has no comprehension of where it is trying to go, much less one that glories in that condition. It doesn’t require that we have demands that are only a spontaneous product of daily practice, motivated only by the desires of the moment and not by thoughts about a better future. This type movement won’t dispel cynicism and thereby attract and retain sufficient membership to win a new world. More, even if this type movement could muster sufficient support to win change, it would not generate the world we seek because it would be beholden to privately held views of where to arrive conceived and then put into practice by people who were not worried about elitism, sectarianism, etc.
Ko te mea e hiahiatia ana e to maatau kaupapa, hei utu mo te kaupapa kore matakite, ko te tirohanga tahi e kore e karaehe, e whakahaere ana i a ia ano, e tukuna ana i roto i te reo e waatea ana, e pai ana ki te tautohetohe me te whakamahine, ka mau ki te hunga katoa e rapu ana te ao pai ake, ehara i te mea na etahi roopu rangatira e rangatira ana i nga whiringa.
No reira, koinei taku i ngana ai ki te whai waahi, i roto i enei tau katoa, i roto i taku e tumanako nei ko te whakaaro kaitakawaenga kua whakatauhia e au, ehara i te mea he maminga whakamarumaru whakamarumaru. Ko te tumanako, ka nui ake te tokomaha o nga tangata ka whakarangatira, ka whakanuia tenei mahi.
Ko te putea a ZNetwork na te atawhai o ana kaipānui.
Donate