Introduction
This paper begins with a brief presentation of participatory economics. The presentation focuses on the class aspect of the model. It outlines the thinking behind Albert and Hahnel’s three class analysis. It takes a critical look at their thinking behind the corporate division of labour and the coordinator class. It suggests alternative ways of thinking about this third class, their source of power etc., which have implications for the model. As a result, the necessity of one of the model’s main features is questioned. The motivation for writing this paper comes from a desire to improve participatory economics by clarifying and simplifying the model in such a way that advocacy and organise become easier.
Participatory Economics in Brief
The participatory economics model was developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel and presented as an alternative to both “free” market capitalism and 20th century socialism. The model is a product of Albert and Hahnel’s experience of activism in the 1960s and 1970s, their critique of the Left, their broader analysis of 20th century history and the left-libertarian tradition more generally. One of their central insights is that the Left neglects the development of vision and therefore doesn’t really understand what it wants when it asserts “Another World is Possible!” or similar sounding slogans designed to inspire. Writing in the late 1970s, they stated:
“Making a socialist revolution […] requires a clear vision of what the socialism we want will be like. How will it work, what will be its institutional and human relations, and how will its quality of life be superior to that we now endure?” [1]
The model that they developed to address this concern is made-up of five main features. They are:
1. Either non-ownership or collective ownership of the means of production 2. Self-managed worker and consumer councils
3. Balanced job complexes (BJCs)
4. Remuneration for effort and sacrifice
5. Participatory planning
One of the central objectives of the participatory economics model is to generate classlessness. Like all socialists, Albert and Hahnel see capitalism as being based on a system of class exploitation and oppression. However, unlike many socialists, Albert and Hahnel also see 20th century socialism as a system of class oppression and exploitation. This is because they reject the typical two class analysis (i.e. capitalists and workers) that is generally accepted within socialist circles. Instead they see a third class that sits between these two main classes. In addition to the capitalist class and the working class, Albert and Hahnel insist that a third class – what they call the “coordinator class” – also exists. They define this third class as follows:
“Planners, administrators, technocrats, and other conceptual workers who monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes. An intermediate class in capitalism; the ruling class in coordinator economies such as the [former] Soviet Union, China and Yugoslavia.” [2]
From their point of view, what is generally referred to, by both those on the Right and the Left, as socialism (in both its market and centrally planned forms) is better understood as coordinator economics: “An economy in which a class of experts / technocrats / managers / conceptual workers monopolise decision-making authority while traditional workers carry out their orders”. [3] Importantly, for Albert and Hahnel, the origins of coordinatorism can be traced back to the “original Marxist theoretical framework” [4]:
“On average, the Marxist concepts that organise Marxists’ thought, and the organisational structures and strategies that Leninists abide, together have a built-in logic that causes Marxist-Leninists – even against their best inclinations and aspirations – to elevate coordinators.” [5]
“Unfortunately, for all its emphasis on class analysis, Marxism blinded many fighting against the economics of competition and greed to important antagonisms between the working class and the new, professional managerial class, or coordinator class.” [6]
The above reference to the “professional managerial class” points to the work of two other important thinkers who Albert and Hahnel credit for their development of the idea of the coordinator class: “…our own view derives more from the work of Barbara and John Ehrenreich.” [7] This refers to a lead article on the professional managerial class by the Ehrenreich’s that was published in 1979. The reasons given, by Albert and Hahnel in that book, for the rebranding of this third class from the professional
managerial class to the coordinator class are that they saw the Ehrenreich’s conception as “flawed” and “imprecise”. [8] Nevertheless, the significance of the Ehrenreich’s work on their thinking is captured in Albert’s memoir:
“The book matters to me not only for the essay that Robin and I did but because writing that essay crystallised our views about class and helped set us off on the journey to what we later called participatory economics.” [9]
Understanding Albert and Hahnel’s class analysis is crucial to understanding the thinking behind most, if not all, of the features that make up the participatory economics model. For example, participatory planning has been developed as a means of arriving at an equitable and efficient plan but in a way that makes both markets and central planning redundant. In making central planners redundant, participatory planning removes the need for the coordinator class positions, and with it the class dynamics, within the planning process of centrally planned socialism.
A similar argument could be made for the development of self-managed worker and consumer councils. Once again, these proposed institutions are designed to make coordinator class rule over workers and consumers superfluous and in-so-doing removing oppressive class dynamics from the economic system. However, it is perhaps the proposed feature of balanced job complexes (BJCs) that is most explicitly designed to address coordinator class dominance.
As we have seen, according to Albert and Hahnel, the coordinator class derives its social-economic power by monopolising knowledge and skills and decision-making authority within the workplace and broader economy. Furthermore, the ability of the
coordinator class to garner this power is facilitate by a specific institution, found in both capitalist and (20th century) “socialist” economic systems. That institution is called the “corporate division of labour”:
“Corporate divisions of labour will ensure that a few would give orders and most obey, and these are not conducive to all participating equality.” [10]
What is important to understand about this institution is that all economies have a division of labour of some kind and that it can be adjusted to have more or less egalitarian / hierarchical outcomes. This is because the division of labour has to do with how jobs (which are just bundles of tasks) are formulated. If we design jobs where empowering tasks are shared out evenly then we get an egalitarian division of labour. But if we design jobs so that empowering tasks are concentrated in a small number of jobs then we get a hierarchical division of labour. As the name suggests, the corporate
division of labour refers to a hierarchical formulation. And as already noted, it is this particular institution, say Albert and Hahnel, that facilitates the privileged position of the coordinator class.
This is where balanced job complexes (BJCs) come in. They are defined as:
“A collection of tasks within a workplace that is comparable in its burdens and benefits and in its impact on the worker’s ability to participate in decision making to all other job complexes in that workplace […] and often for additional tasks outside to balance their overall work responsibilities with those of other workers in society.” [11]
As we can see, the basic idea here is to replace the hierarchical outcomes of the corporate division of labour with an egalitarian structure and dynamic. This is Albert and Hahnel’s way of systematically undermining coordinator class privilege and replacing it with an arrangement that institutionalises classlessness and facilitates self-management.
We can see from the above definition that BJCs have two aspects to them. One aspect has to do with creating conditions in which workers can “participate in decision making” in meaningful ways within the workplace / economy. The other has to do with sharing out the “burdens and benefits” equally amongst workers. In other words, in a participatory economy – as conceived of by Albert and Hahnel – jobs are balanced for both empowerment and desirability:
“So in a participatory economy every worker council is called upon to create a job balancing committee to distribute and combine tasks in ways that make jobs more “balanced” with regard to desirability and empowerment.” [12]
“We need balanced job complexes for desirability and empowerment in each and every workplace, as well as guarantee that workers have a combination of tasks that balance across workplaces.” [13]
We can conclude that, for Albert and Hahnel, reformulating jobs for both equal empowerment and desirability is a necessary and crucial aspect of participatory economics as a proposed vision for economic justice.
A Critique of Albert and Hahnel’s Analysis and Vision
Above we have seen some of the ideas and reasoning behind participatory economics with a focus on Albert and Hahnel’s class analysis and the implications of this for their
vision for a just economic system. I would now like to take an even closer look at certain aspects of their argument. To assist in this we will explore the following questions.
1. Isn’t the analysis that informs the coordinator class confused and confusing?
As we have seen, for Albert and Hahnel the third class – what they call the coordinator class – can be traced back to Marx’s ideas and in particular to his two class analysis that has a “built-in logic” that “blinded” socialist to the existence of this third class. However, they also characterise the coordinator class as an “intermediate class in capitalism”. So on the one hand we have a dominant class in socialist economies that was informed by Marx and on the other the same class in capitalist economies that, presumably, was not informed by Marx.
If correct, this seems to suggest that the emergence of this third class has something to do with a more general historical trend that was taking place. That general trend was the emergence of management culture as a specialised field based on its own particular knowledge and skill-set. Furthermore, this is a trend that has a much longer and richer history than that suggested by Albert and Hahnel’s formulation of the coordinator class. As one Social and Organisational Theory scholar puts it:
“So what we see is the emergence of the word [“management”] really around the 17th and 18th centuries in English. It has got Italian roots from mano, the hand, or it is sometimes tracked back to maneggiarre, which is the activity of looking after or training horses. But in terms of its application in the English language you see it sometimes in the theatre, from the 17th century onwards, but much more intensely after the industrial revolution to refer to a particular class of people who were basically overseeing the new factories and offices of the time. So, we are talking about a certain class fraction if you like. The term itself has some quite interesting roots, particularly the idea of managery, a certain kind of skill at organising. But I think in terms of its contemporary application, I find it very troublesome. Largely because it assumes that what managers do is something that ordinary people can’t do. In other words it assumes insufficiency in most of us. And that is why we need managers to coordinate us. And that is not that often remarked on. In that sense of giving up our autonomy, our control over our everyday lives to a cadre of people called managers, we are also admitting a sort of insufficiency in ourselves, as if we couldn’t do this because we are too stupid to arrange matters ourselves. That seems to me a fundamentally repressive technique of organising.” [14]
A more appropriate term for this third class, therefore may be the managerial class. As we shall see, this suggested name for the third class also complements the argument presented in response to the next question.
2. Can the monopolisation of empowering tasks really set this third class up to perform the role of managing the workplace / economy?
According to Albert and Hahnel, the corporate division of labour must be dismantled because it is this institution that facilitates the coordinator class to “monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes”. But does this make sense? How, for example, does monopolising the knowledge and skill-set for brain surgery (for example) translate into decision-making authority on economic matters? For that matter, how does monopolising knowledge and skills from any empowering job – that is not related to management – lead to the monopolisation of decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes? The answer, I think, is that it doesn’t.
The point being made here is that having specialised knowledge and skills in a specific field does not automatically translate into the knowledge and skills necessary for the specific role of management, as Albert and Hahnel’s argument seems to suggest. So, if it is not the corporate division of labour that is facilitating the coordinator class to monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes, then what is it? One possibility (that is in line with the answer given to question 1) is that this third class derives it authority from an ideology called managerialism:
“Managerialism combines management knowledge and ideology to establish itself systemically in organisations and society while depriving owners, employees (organisational-economical) and civil society (social-political) of all decision-making powers. Managerialism justifies the application of managerial techniques to all areas of society on the grounds of superior ideology, expert training, and the exclusive possession of managerial knowledge necessary to efficiently run corporations and societies.” [15]
Clearly, this definition refers to managerialism in capitalist economies. However, it could easily be expanded to include what Albert and Hahnel refer to as coordinator economies. For example, in the following excerpt the “expert organiser” could be understood as a synonym for the Leninist vanguard party:
“Anti-authoritarian critiques of managerialism are clearly entangled with a variety of other complaints, but they all share a deep mistrust of the notion of the expert organiser. The centrality of the manager, as someone with more status and reward who is not involved in day-to-day organising, is entirely antithetical to most anarchist, socialist, feminist and environmentalist thinkers.” [16]
3. Are BJCs really necessary?
If the above is correct – if the coordinator class are better understood more generally as the managerial class and the source of power for this third class is not an institution called the corporate division of labour but an ideology called managerialism – then this raises a question regarding the aspect of Albert and Hahnel’s vision, namely: Are BJCs a necessary part of the model?
As we have seen, BJCs are proposed as a solution to two important issues within economic justice; empowerment and desirability. However, if the source of power for the third class is the ideology of managerialism and this is replaced by a popular culture of self-management then the empowerment aspect of the argument already seems to have been addressed, and with it the argument for dismantling the corporate division of labour and replacing it with BJCs seems to disintegrate. This part of the argument relies on the assumption that in a functioning participatory economy / society citizens would be educated in what we might generally refer to as self-organisation including, in the economic sphere, self-management. This would begin in school and extend into adulthood. Therefore, in a functioning participatory economy, all workers would be proficient in self-management, making the elitist ideology of managerialism a thing of the past.
As for the desirability aspect of the argument for BJCs, once again it may also be suggested that in a popular and functioning culture of self-management, workers would naturally address the issue of desirability without the necessity of a formal institutional arrangement and all of the additional work entailed in establishing and maintaining BJCs. Likewise, it could also be argued that another feature of the model already takes care of this concern. As Albert has stated:
“…differences in quality of life at work could be justly offset by appropriate remuneration.” [17]
In other words, the fourth feature of the participatory economics model outlined above – i.e. remuneration for effort and sacrifice – can address the desirability issue without the need for BJCs.
Conclusion
It has been suggested that Albert and Hahnel are correct in highlighting the existence of a third class that sits between capitalist and workers in capitalist economies and that became dominant in socialist economies during the 20th century. However, their use of the term “coordinator class” as a descriptor of this third class has been questioned. The “managerial class” has been suggested as a better alternative. Albert and Hahnel’s claim that this third class derives its power from the corporate division of labour has also been challenged. The ideology of managerialism has been proposed as an alternative explanation for the source of power for this third class. It has also been suggested that, with these changes in place, two existing features of the model already address the issues of empowerment and desirability that BJCs are proposed to address. They are (1) a popular culture of self-management and (2) remuneration for effort and sacrifice. If correct, this appears to make BJCs redundant. Finally, introducing these proposed changes into the model would make both the advocacy and implementation of a participatory economy a simpler endeavour.
Notes
1. Unorthodox Marxism: An Essay on Capitalism, Socialism and Revolution. (p253)
2. From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153).
3. Same as above.
4. Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p7). 5. Michael Albert, Realising Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism (p159).
6. Robin Hahnel, Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation (p65).
7. Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, Marxism and Socilaits Theory (p140) 8. See Chapter 9 of Between Labour and Capital (edited by Pat Walker) for details.
9. Michael Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism, (p189).
10.Michael Albert in ParEcon: Life After Capitalism (p46).
11. From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153).
12.Robin Hahnel in Of the People, By the People: The Case for a Participatory Economy (p55-56).
13.Michael Albert in ParEcon: Life After Capitalism (p104).
14.From an interview I did with Martin Parker for Collective 20 titled Management: Past, Present and … Future?
15.From Thomas Klikauer Managerialism: Critique of an Ideology (p2).
16.Martin Parker in Shut Down the Business School: What’s Wrong with Management Education (p60).
17.Michael Albert in ParEcon: Life After Capitalism (p104-105).
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
8 Comments
Hi Mark, I’ll comment for me, though I think Robin would agree, and others. I will try to keep it short, here, as just a comment but the issue is obviously important so I won’t keep it too short!
First, as noted at the end of Mark’s piece, the remunerative approach of participatory economics provides income for duration, intensity, and also onerousness of socially valued labor so it address desirability differences in jobs. Honestly, I was surprised to see that we ever said it was critical to balance not only for empowerment effects, but also for desirability/onerousness. I haven’t checked the quotes to see whether the remunerative aspect is noted each time. On the other hand, it is certainly true, I believe, that in balancing for empowerment one will likely go a considerable ways toward balancing desirability/onerousness, though not all the way. But I agree with Mark that participatory economy doesn’t require balancing onerousness/desirability and I say so, regularly.
The key point of Mark’s article, though, I think, is about balancing jobs for empowerment. Interestingly, Mark’s changing the name of the class from “coordinator” to “managerial” corresponds in considerable part to our reason for changing the name in the opposite direction. That is we preferred to use a new name, not “professional managerial class” (or as early anarchists called it, “intellectual class”), partly because we think this class is not confined to managers, or even managers and professionals. It is, rather, those who have positions in the economy that afford them access to decision-making levers, confidence, information, skills, etc., needed for decision making. But the bigger reason for preferring the label coordinator class was actually the one Mark evidences in reverse. We felt calling it managerial would over time distract attention from the economy, perhaps even completely, to mainly and perhaps exclusively schooling, culture, ideology, and the like. We felt it would lead to a whole lot of attention to ideas, attitudes, values, training, schooling, etc. and too little attention, maybe none, to economic institutions that would need to change to attain classlessness. That is what I see ocurring in Mark’s essay.
If the economy has a corporate division of labor, not only will roughly 20 percent do empowering tasks and 80 percent do rote tasks, with 20 percent deciding and 80 percent obeying because that is what their jobs call for and allow, but there will also be an accommodation between the rest of social relations and that hierarchy. Mark seems to me to be saying, change schooling, change attitudes, and that will automatically remove or render unimportant the class division. To me it sounds sort of like saying change schooling, culture, views, etc. and we don’t have to worry about some people owning workplaces and other people not.
It is certainly true that part of getting rid of the coordinator/working class division is changing attitudes, schooling, and much else — but in the economy itself what needs to be changed is, for one, the division of labor. Suppose that without addressing the work place organization, movements could change the overall culture, training, schooling, expectations, etc., so the whole workforce, not just 20 percent of it, expects to be and has prior training to self manage outcomes. Even if you could, you would then have to replace the corporate division of labor precisely because, in that hypothetical situation, people would not want to dominate or be dominated. What do you change too? Balanced job complexes. So whether one says you change the economic institutions and the rest changes, or one says the rest changes and then folks all participate fully in workplace decision making so the jobs change, or, as I think is the case, the two happen hand in hand, nonetheless to achieve classlessness we need to get rid of economic structures that impose rule by a few of many.
A classless economy can’t have private ownership of productive assets, an economic institution, because that institution insures by the circumstances it imposes a class division. Similarly, a classless economy can’t have a corporate division of labor, an economic institution, because that institution insures by the circumstances it imposes a class division between those empowered, who make decisions, and those disempowered who don’t make decisions.
Hi Michael,
At the beginning of your reply you highlight a change that you (and Robin) have made to your model for a participatory economy because you now see what you originally thought of as an essential part of the vision as misconceived. I think this is good, not only because it makes sense but also because it cleans things up, making presenting the vision a bit easier. My feeling is that there are a number of other aspects of your version of participatory economics that would benefit from a similar reexamination.
In your reply you write:
“That is we preferred to use a new name, not “professional managerial class” (or as early anarchists called it, “intellectual class”), partly because we think this class is not confined to managers, or even managers and professionals. It is, rather, those who have positions in the economy that afford them access to decision-making levers, confidence, information, skills, etc., needed for decision making.”
I agree that the key issue with the class that sits between owners and workers (what you and Robin call the coordinator class) has to do with decision making. However, I do think that most people associate decision making in the workplace / economy with managers. And this seems correct to me. It is also my understanding that an ideology called managerialism has been developed as a rationalisation for management authority. What I find interesting about all of this is that self management, which is already a part of the vision, addresses all of these issues. In other words, self management is an alternative to elitist decision making practices.
You also write:
“Suppose that without addressing the work place organization, movements could change the overall culture, training, schooling, expectations, etc., so the whole workforce, not just 20 percent of it, expects to be and has prior training to self manage outcomes. Even if you could, you would then have to replace the corporate division of labor precisely because, in that hypothetical situation, people would not want to dominate or be dominated. What do you change too? Balanced job complexes.”
This is exactly the situation I am talking about. However, we seem to be thinking about it in slightly different ways, but different enough to have important consequences for what is included in the vision. First of all, I don’t understand why you say “Even if you could” as it seems to me that the kinds of changes you are describing here are no less realistic than the ones you talk about in your economic model. That aside, you then go on to say, “you would then have to replace the corporate division of labor”. This illustrates well the difference in how we are thinking about this. You assume that the corporate division of labour is still in operation in the economy and therefore would need to be replaced with BJCs. I don’t think this makes sense. It seems to me that this assumption is false as the corporate division of labour has already been dismantled via the socialisation process in schools, etc. In other words, in a functioning participatory society, the corporate division of labour would never enter the economy so no need to talk about BJCs, and all the complications that brings, as a key feature for a participatory economy.
My feeling is that making the kinds of changes to the vision highlighted above (and maybe others) would help in making it more easy to popularise.
Mark,
As to a change in the vision – there have been quite a few, of course, but again, I honestly don’t remember simultaneously saying there should be remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, on the one hand, and balancing for onerousness on the other. I take your word that we did, but in that case, when we did, as compared to saying that doing the former will go a way, but not all the way toward doing the latter, it would be peculiarly redundant. What we always focused on balancing was empowerment effects of jobs to avoid an empowered class ruling over those disempowered.
Yes, managers manage, of course, but CEOs, Lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, tenured professors, and indeed many actors in the economy have, by their positions, empowering circumstances. That folks think of managers, not say, engineers or financial officers, and so on, when thinking about decisions in a factory doesn’t change the situation that a subset is empowered, most disempowered. And yes, it does seem we are thinking about this in different ways. We both think about circumstances and we both think about the basis for the circumstances. You hone in, I think, on mindsets – “managerialism.” I certainly pay attention to mindsets, and to associated schooling, up bringing and so on, but when looking at the economy, I also pay attention to its structure, its roles. I doubt you would say that the problem of owners ruling non-owners could be usefully treated by ignoring property relations and, instead, honing in on the mentalities of owners and eliminating those via changing in schooling, while not proposing an alternative to private ownership. It seems in important respects similar to me.
To get rid of some who are empowered ruling others who are disempowered we have to get rid of the positions of empowerment and disempowerment – thus we have to get rid the current division of labor and should have in mind a replacement. Yes a desirable, classless economy would need workers who are prepared, inclined, and able to make decisions, which means workers who have experienced a different kind of education than now. Of course. And yes, changing schooling, changing the broad culture, removing class suppositions from family life and so on is certainly possible – and critically important – but talking about the economy and its class divisions requires talking about the positions in the economy that place some above others. And for that matter, talking about changing the educational system and culture in way that is consistent with classlessness entails talking about what classlessness means.
Part, not all, of the reason for that are that absent talking about the class division, absent addressing what is needed to overcome it – on the one hand, how does a movement emerge to remove class channelling from education, etc., and on the other, what prevents the empowered from dominating the movements that do emerge?
It seems like you are suggesting that we revolutionize homelife, schooling, and media for example, without actually indicating to what ends, and then the new people emerging from those changes will take care of the economy. I would say, to do what you desire will require recognition that school shouldn’t be creating people ready to be ruled, and people who are ready to rule, but instead only people who are eager to self manage, which is to say, that that is what the movements are seeking, and one of the goals that will motivate them.
I may be misreading, but it feels like you want to avoid talking about balancing jobs, talking about changing the division of labor, because there are lots of folks who will initially feel threatened by that. It seems that you are looking for a kind of end run around those types of doubt, if you will. Avoiding unnecessary doubt is a good idea, but I don’t think these doubts are unnecessary, but rather a part of the tasks ahead. I think that is, that history and experience show that absent attention to this class division, movements, if they arise and become strong at all, will be under the sway of coordinator class agendas. I don’t think an end run, so to speak, is possible.
Whether not talking about balancing jobs would make it easier to build a large movement is, I think, not so obvious. One of the main impediments to wide and deep working class participation and leadership, is, I think, distrust that they won’t wind up under the auspices of a new boss (coordinator class) in place of the old boss (owning class), and for that matter disinclination to be involved with activism that doesn’t talk about the class division that they actually, daily, arguably, feel most, much less activism that replicates its ills. There have been countries in which it was possible to build a movement without attending directly to this class issue, and even to win systemic changes, but the results of that, I think predictably, have elevated exactly a new boss in place of the old boss, not no bosses.
Hi Michael,
In your reply you talk about “mindsets” and “structures”. You say that you pay attention to both where as I “hone in” on the former, which suggests that I am neglecting the latter. My actual position is the same as yours. In fact I would say that mindsets plus structures is a good working definition for an institution.
As for the structure called the corporate division of labour, you (and Robin) seem to think that it will remain intact in a participatory society unless it is replaced by an alternative economic institution called balanced job complexes (BJCs). In contrast, I think that the corporate division of labour would be undone by the egalitarian socialisation process (including training in a specific knowledge and skills set called self-management) in the education system, etc. In other words, I see BJCs as a solution to a problem that has already been solved.
You (and Robin) also seem to think that being a brain surgeon (for example) somehow empowers them to make managerial decisions. It seems to me, however, that the specific knowledge and skills sets that underpin various professions have little, if anything, to do with the particular knowledge and skills set required for management. If we are saying that the key issue here has to do with elitist workplace / economic decision making then it seems to me that we should be focusing in on management and the ideology that functions as a rationalisation for that, namely managerialism. Then we should be proposing an egalitarian alternative to elitist decision making. The good news is that we already have such an alternative as part of the vision, namely self-management. So, again, the problem, it seems to me, is already solved without any need to mention the corporate division of labour or balanced job complexes.
P.S. As I hope is now clear, I am not trying to “avoid talking about balancing jobs, talking about changing the division of labor, because there are lots of folks who will initially feel threatened by that”. My motivation is, in fact, what I say it is at the outset of my article.
Hi Mark,
I thought I replied earlier, but I just noticed if I did, it isn’t here.
Mindset which I tend to call society’s center, and institutions, which I tend to call society’s boundary. Yes, I agree that we both are concerned about both. I think the difference is that you seem to feel if we focus on the former, at least in the case of the division of labor, the latter will just follow suit. Differently educated new workers won’t put up with the corporate division of labor and will opt for balanced jobs in its place. No need to have explicitly fought for that. I guess a concrete version would be a movement replaces capitalism and then the division of labor changes…but, well, I instead think we have to consciously and majorly address both center and boundary at once. And that trying to do either without the other is very likely to get nowhere good, as in the past. Without center you don’t have people in struggle. Without boundary you don’t have structural goals and, more to the point, with the division of labor and associated class division, you have a focus that will be corrupted by old class attitudes/agendas.
I honestly am not sure I quite get what you are saying, but it seems to be, that we struggle for changed mindsets via winning changes in education, etc. and those victories, without our ever focusing on and being explicit about and seeking gains regarding the division of labor and its associated class division either in workplaces or in the broader society or in our movements will solve the latter problem. I think it isn’t simply that it wouldn’t, it is that without very serious attention to the class issue and the division of labor, movements (including those addressing, say, schools, will reflect the ideas and will of the coordinator class, and changes that such movements win regarding education and the like (as in prior cases) will not go anywhere near far enough to even lead to a subsequent struggle over these class relations.
Consider a job. Is it empowering or disempowering? The dividing line is whether doing the associated tasks tends to cause the doer to have confidence, knowledge, disposition, access to daily acts of decision making, etc. such that they see themselves as superior to and in some degree often sort of paternalistically above workers who do tasks that have the opposite impact. This is very far from just shop floor managers. I doubt that the way surgeons see themselves is like how disempowered workers see themselves. Self management is a value, and yes, fully understood it contradicts coordinator class rule. But having a value is not the same as having institutions that fulfill the value.
I checked and your article says “The motivation for writing this paper comes from a desire to improve participatory economics by clarifying and simplifying the model in such a way that advocacy and organise become easier.” How does it become easier? Well, the change you are recommending is that balanced job complexes don’t need to be a core institution, explicitly fought for, etc. It seems like would only make it easier if it means movements can “avoid talking about balancing jobs, talking about changing the division of labor, because there are lots of folks who will initially feel threatened by that,” as long as there isn’t some other offsetting cost of that approach. I think there is a major offsetting effect. I think explicitly addressing the coordinator class working class division and its bases makes developing movements in which working people lead and participate not just easier, but possible at all. I can see how if you don’t agree about that then you might wind up thinking not highlighting the corporate division of labor and balanced job alternative would make organizing easier because your won’t need to talk about balancing jobs or changing the division of labor, thereby avoiding differences with its defenders and having another issue to address with workers.
Hi Michael,
In the first paragraph of your latest reply you write:
“I think the difference is that you seem to feel if we focus on the former, at least in the case of the division of labor, the latter will just follow suit.”
No that is not what I think. I actually agree with your position, namely that centre and boundary are both equally important. Your second paragraph, which continues on the same theme, is also not a reflection of what I think.
In your third paragraph you say: “Self management is a value, and yes, fully understood it contradicts coordinator class rule. But having a value is not the same as having institutions that fulfill the value.”
I would say that if self-management is just a value then that would not be enough. So we agree on that. But self-managed worker and consumer councils are not just a value, they are institutions. Furthermore, they are institutions that directly address the issue of the monopolisation of decision-making authority, which you have acknowledged is the key issue for what you and Robin call the coordinator class.
You finish by quoting a section from my article about motivation and then pose the question: “How does it become easier?” You then proceed to answer your question yourself. But again, your answer to your own question is not a reflection of what I think or what I write in my article.
It seems I misunderstand you at every turn. If so, my apologies.
One minor reply…this time. Or perhaps we have to agree to disagree, not sure.
Self management is a value. Self managed workers and consumers councils are an institution. Try to have the institutions in capitalism and the market interferes, or central planning, for that matter, as does the current division of labor and the pre workplace training and socialization of folks, etc. So naming something self managed, like called something democratic, or equitable, or post racist, say, can be true or not. I am saying workers councils, even wanting to be self managing, will not be if they exist along with a corporate division of labor which will limit what occurs in the councils.
To change lots of other features so workers come to their jobs prepared and inclined to participate in self management is critical, yes. But it can’t happen without being clear about what it entails and why it is needed. When I present Parecon, I often do it roughly this way. We must get rid of private ownership of productive assets because having imposes a class division that precludes values we desire. But then workplaces will in turn need a constituency and venue for decision making – the workers council and component teams, etc. and it should be self managed. But then, for workers to actually self manage they have to be prepared and disposed to do so, so we can’t have a corporate division of labor and the prior training and mindsets that accompany them, which preclude self management. Instead, we seek balanced jobs and training, etc. consistent with them. But then…income distribution and allocation…
I don’t know what you are proposing unless it is roughly that we don’t need to explicitly seek balanced jobs because once we have self managed workers councils we automatically have balanced jobs or at least we don’t have a class division that elevates some employees above others. I reply, we will not arrive at and maintain self managed councils until we also have balanced jobs…so the task is to not solely seek the former, but to to seek both. I add that having a movement to win a new economy that welcomes and elevates workers depends on this, as well.
Hi Michael,
I don’t think there are any new points in your last reply and I think I have already replied to them above so I will not repeat myself.