Introduction
For those of us who are interested in organising for an economy that values self-management, cooperation and solidarity; a fair criteria for remuneration, that fosters diversity and efficiency; and of course is compatible with ecological sustainability, maximising our chances of transitioning to such a system without violating these values is of utmost importance. In principle, this can be achieved in a number of ways, including simplifying our vision and/ or increasing our options for possible system features (otherwise referred to as institutions).
An example of an economic system, as described above, is Michael Albert and Robin Hahenl’s participatory economics. According to advocates of their model, balanced job complexes (sometimes simplified to balanced jobs or abbreviated to BJC’s) are an essential component of the vision. Without BJC’s the corporate division of labour (CDoL) will remain in place and with it the coordinator class rule over workers. According to advocates of Albert and Hahnel’s model, no other option is available.
In this paper I explore a different way of understanding the “coordinator class” and present an alternative approach to dismantling the CDoL and in-so-doing question the legitimacy of the argument that BJC’s are necessary for a functioning participatory economy. Furthermore, this alternative analysis and approach not only represent aspects of a different vision for a participatory economy that remains compatible with the values (stated above) but also a simpler vision that increases our strategic options. The essence of what is being suggested below, therefore, is that adopting these alternatives would increase our chances of transitioning to a participatory economy.
All of this, of course, is in-keeping with the non-dogmatic spirit of organising for a participatory economy, as Albert and Hahnel have stated:
“We should never give up on developing a viable vision, but should always be open to improving or even replacing any vision we advocate.” [1]
“[Participatory economics] is offered […] as a work in progress and the beginnings of a conversation you can take part in.” [2]
The Logic of BJC’s
With those preliminary comments out of the way, let’s jump straight in and explore the logic that informs the argument for BJC’s. As we shall see, to really appreciate the argument for BJC’s we will need to understand Albert and Hahnel’s broader view of both capitalist and 20th century socialist economics and their central interest in classlessness. But, for now, let’s start with a definition of BJC’s:
“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.” [3]
As we can see, there are two important issues that BJC’s are designed to address. The first has to do with equally sharing out the burdens and benefits of any work that needs to be done. The second has to do with making sure everyone can participate in decision making within the workplace / broader economy. In short, BJC’s are about fairness and empowerment.
It should be noted, however, that another feature of Albert and Hahnel’s model (i.e. remuneration for effort and sacrifice) can also be used to address unfair discrepancies in the distribution of burdens and benefits throughout the workplace / economy. In other words, in a participatory economy, those who take on more burdens get paid more, which off-sets any concerns regarding unfairness. This means that the argument for BJC’s is mostly about empowering workers to participate in decision making (i.e. self-management).
As with all of the components that make up the participatory economics model proposed by Albert and Hahnel, BJC’s are designed to replace key features of capitalist (as well as some socialist) economics. The specific feature that BJC’s are designed to replace are referred to by Albert and Hahnel as the corporate division of labour (CDoL), which can be understood as a division of labour based on an uneven distribution of empowering tasks. In Albert and Hahnel formulation, this roughly gives rise to a 20% / 80% split of empowering / disempowering jobs (respectively). Furthermore, this 20% / 80% split has been shown to give rise to a class division. As Albert has put it:
“Corporate divisions of labour will ensure that a few would give orders and most obey, and these are not conducive to all participating equally.” [4]
From the perspective of Albert and Hahnel’s analysis, the CDoL facilitates the rise of what they call the “coordinator class”, which they define as:
“Planners, administrators, technocrats, and other conceptual workers who monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes.” [5]
It should now be clear that, even when only considering abstract concepts, if we want self-management we cannot have economic elites who monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes. Common sense logic dictates that the CDoL has to go. However, the full significance of their analysis only becomes apparent when it is applied historically.
For Albert and Hahnel the coordinator class cannot only rise to powerful positions within the workplace but can and have risen to a dominant position within whole economies. This is precisely what they think happened during the 20th century. What many (on both the right and the left) refer to as examples of socialist economies (for example the former Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia) Albert and Hahnel argue are better understood as examples of a “coordinator economy”:
“An economy in which a class of experts / technocrats / managers / conceptual workers monopolise decision-making authority whilst traditional workers carry out their orders.” [6]
In other words, in a capitalist economy the coordinator class sits between capitalists and workers but in a “socialist” economy the coordinator class outlaw private ownership of the means of production (and with it removes the capitalist class) whilst maintaining their position of dominance over the working class.
We can now fully appreciate why Albert and Hahnel included BJC’s as a key and essential component of their economic vision. From their point of view, both capitalism and 20th century socialism (i.e. coordinatorism) are class systems that violate the values of self-management, solidarity, diversity, etc. There does, however, appear to be a number of assumptions underlying Albert and Hahnel’s points of view. One is that the CDoL is the only source of economic power for a third class that sits between owners and workers. A second assumption seems to be that empowering / disempowering tasks are expressions of objective facts and not ideological positions. Let us now take a closer look at these assumptions.
Is the CDoL the Only Source of Socio-economic Power for the Third Class?
As we have seen, according to Albert and Hahnel’s thinking, it is the institution called the CDoL that facilitates the monopoly of ”information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes” by what they refer to as the coordinator class. Clearly, this situation violates the values that inform participatory economics and it is because of this that they propose BJC’s as an alternative institution to the CDoL. In short, the CDoL is the source of economic power for the coordinator class. Remove the source of power and we remove the coordinator class. There are, however, a number of related questions that can be raised about the way Albert and Hahnel think about this third class.
First of all, we may wonder, are we talking about the coordinator class (as Albert and Hahnel see it) or is this third class better understood as the managerial class? After all, those who tend to monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes are typically referred to by most people, within the economic context, as managers. Furthermore, managers do not gain their economic power via the CDoL. Rather, they acquire the rights to monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes primarily via their training in the ideology of managerialism.
Another interesting point to explore has to do with how monopolising empowering tasks in general results in the more specific knowledge required to make decisions that determine economic outcomes, as Albert and Hahnel’s argument seems to suggest. Clearly, having the knowledge and skill set of a doctor or engineer (both examples, in Albert and Hahnel’s view, of coordinator class jobs) has very little, if any, overlap with the knowledge and skill set required to make workplace / economic decisions about the production of goods and services.
It is also important to note that, because a participatory economy would have self-managed worker councils as the basis for the production of goods and services, part of the transition away from capitalism would include a transition from the practice of managerialism to self-management. This means that everybody in a functioning participatory society would be socialised (via the education system, etc.) to be able to fully engage in council meetings.
If these three points are valid then this seems to undermine the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument around the coordinator class and the necessity for BJC’s. Despite this, however, it could still be argued that we still need to dismantle the CDoL because it violates the values that underpin participatory economics. This brings us to our second assumption.
Are Empowering / Disempowering Tasks Objective Facts?
As we have also seen, an important part of Albert and Hahnel’s argument for BJC’s is their claim that there exists empowering and disempowering tasks. Furthermore, the way they talk about empowering and disempowering tasks is as if they are objective facts. What I mean by this is that Albert and Hahnel’s view seems to be that an empowering / disempowering task will be empowering / disempowering in any economic system. After all, if tasks weren’t objectively empowering or disempowering then why would we need to assess all tasks for empowerment and then reformulate existing jobs into BJC’s as part of the transition towards a participatory economy. But is this true?
Let’s consider an alternative perspective using hospital workers as an example. Brain surgeons and cleaners are sometimes used by advocates of participatory economics (as conceived by Albert and Hahnel) to illustrate the need to dismantle the CDoL and replace it with BJC’s. From their perspective, brain surgeons are members of the coordinator class and cleaners are members of the working class. Furthermore, because brain surgery is understood as an inherently empowering job and cleaning an inherently disempowering job, failing to institute BJC’s would lead to surgeons (and other coordinator class workers) dominating council meetings. This, so the logic goes, would lead to the cleaners (and other working class workers) feeling alienated by and from the proceedings. Once again, however, there are a number of related issues that can be raised in response to this line of thinking.
As already noted above, it is not clear at all how having a specialised knowledge and skill set in brain surgery empowers this particular subset of the coordinator class to monopolise the information and decision-making authority necessary to determine economic outcomes. Again, it is managers who monopolise this authority and they do it via the ideology of managerialism. Also, in a functioning participatory society everyone would be trained in the knowledge and skill set necessary to participate in a meaningful way in council meetings. This is regardless of what job individuals do. Applying this important point to our example above, both surgeons and cleaners would be equally prepared to engage in self-management at council meetings.
All that said, it is without doubt that within the capitalist system surgeons are looked up to and cleaners looked down on. Also, these disparities in social status are compounded and reinforced by the fact that surgeons get paid a lot more money for their work than cleaners. This, however, is not because the tasks that make up the job of a doctor are inherently empowering and the tasks that make up the job of being a cleaner are inherently disempowering. Rather, these views are based on liberal myths about work that basically say that some work is very important and can only be done by a relatively small group of professionals whilst other work is not so important and can be done by almost anybody.
But what if, as part of the transition towards a participatory economy / society these myths are challenged and undermined. And what if, in conjunction with the rejection of liberal myths about work, there is also a reevaluation of existing jobs. For example, if we reevaluated surgery and cleaning and concluded that, in fact, they are both equally important jobs that deserve equal levels of respect, remuneration and investment then wouldn’t this establish an egalitarian division of labour that, by definition, systematically dismantled the CDoL? Doesn’t exposing liberal myths about work in conjunction with the reevaluation of existing jobs represent not only an alternative to BJC’s but also an easier strategic path to a participatory economy?
Conclusion
Two main points have been made. However, these two points have additional implications for both vision and strategy for a participatory economy. The first main point is that the class that sits between owners and workers derives its power from an ideology called managerialism and not from an institution called the CDoL. One additional implication of this is that it therefore makes sense to refer to this class as the managerial class not the coordinator class. A second main point is that empowering / disempowering tasks are ideological views not objective facts. A major implication of this insight is that we can dismantle the CDoL by exposing liberal myths about work alongside the reevaluation of existing jobs. The logic of this argument shows that BJC’s are not necessary for a functioning participatory economy. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, this alternative to BJC’s not only increases our visionary options for a participatory economy, it also arguably represents an easier strategic option for transitioning to a participatory economy.
Notes
- Michael Albert, Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism (p191). 2. Robin Hahnel, Of the People, By the People (p11).
- From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153). 4. Michael Albert in ParEcon: Life After Capitalism (p46).
- From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153).
- Michael Albert in ParEcon: Life After Capitalism (p46).
- From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward:
Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153). - From the Glossary of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s Looking Forward:
Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (p151-153).
Read a response from Michael Albert: Parecon Without Jobs Balanced for Empowerment?
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
32 Comments
Is it just me or is this discussion incredibly hard to follow? There has to be a better format/system for this type of discussion no?
I think it is very important to question and think critically about any proposed future system.
I’m now going to throw this out there without meaning to highjack the discussion.
IMHO, one of the most substantive critiques of PARECON is the one from Takis Foutopolis titled “PARECON and Inclusive Democracy”
I get the feeling from reading that there is a somewhat history of hostility between Inclusive Democracy (Takis Foutopolis) and PARECON (Michael Albert) but nonetheless I would like to see Michael engage with the arguments. Not sure Takis is still alive or able but would like to see an advocate of ID willing to engage. I would prefer someone more competent than myself.
Hi Brent,
Think you’re right. It’s pretty hard to follow but only because those of us who jumped in, well me at least, was looking for more clarification on Marks idea but it didn’t seem to come. Or maybe I missed his point completely, and went down a wrong path at first because I’m not smart enough. Hard to tell sometimes. Tried again, because he asked with his last word in his response…thoughts? To me, this is a real problem with any kind of serious model proffered. Most ordinary folk just aren’t equipped to engage with this stuff. It’s not that they’re not smart enough or don’t have the potential, it’s just they don’t do this sort of arguing stuff often. Only a small minority of people really ever do it and not often really. Or it’s hidden from view, in some journal somewhere, going on among academics or whatever. I do it just to give it a go thinking it may help me, maybe others, but usually it just does my head in!! But most people aren’t even familiar enough with diverse models or confident enough to engage, indulge, or argue with others about them, usually. The amount of work just to understand one can be daunting. Let alone two. Then to feel confident enough to advocate something and defend it against criticism is a whole other deal. Michael Albert may feel comfortable or confident debating Yanis Varoufakis, but me…forget it. I perused ID years ago quite extensively and figured there were differences with Parecon and perhaps similarities. I’ve never like the basic needs/non-basic needs split and there were other aspects of his anarchist approach that bothered me. But again, I may have him wrong like I have Mark wrong. But I also felt Takis just didn’t like both ZNet and Albert (through reading other essays I felt were grossly unfair or just wrong) or Parecon, and I think in part misrepresented or misinterpreted Parecon . But I’ve forgotten much of it now. Another example of how hard it is to engage with this stuff. The idea of rereading it all is not appealing. I mean Mark’s given up here it looks like. Maybe he’s just busy. But perhaps there’s no point in continuing. I have no clue really. These things usually just stop or dissipate, and people go back to their respective camps. And the issue just disappears into the ether and is really only an issue a tiny tiny minority of folk, and for the very few who indulged. In this case three people.
However there is a place more suited to engaging such ideas and that’s the Participatory Economics site forum. https://forum.participatoryeconomy.org/
Probably a better place. I suggested to Mark his idea would be better suited there. You could start a thread about ID and Parecon. Wouldn’t hurt I guess. Robin Hahnel sometimes shows up there.
Hi James:
Thanks a lot for responding and sorry for not replying earlier. I was commenting it is hard to follow the conversation more because, for me at least, the sequence of comments is not easy to follow, not necessarily the content, but of course sometimes the content as well.
I agree it is difficult for “most ordinary folks” to think about alternatives to the current capitalist system or really to think about thinking about something like that. Propaganda is pervasive and very effective in the west and in most of humanity people are just attempting to eke out a life. Of course you and others on here know all this and I am unlikely to say anything original in this comment.
Unfortunately the organized left, as far as I can tell, is virtually non existent in the west or anywhere for that matter. One of the few things I think Milton Friedman got right was his comment:
“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
-Milton Friedman, 1972”
Naomi Klein outlined this more extensively in her book “The Shock Doctrine” calling it “disaster capitalism”. Others have similarly done so.
What this means, unfortunately, given the wealth and power on the right, as disasters inevitably continue to happen given the continual breakdown of the ecosystem, is that the rights ideas will be the ones implemented and hell on earth or worse for most is the likely result. I must admit I become more of a pessimist with every passing moment. I hear Chomsky say what choice does one have but to attempt to be optimistic and try in their little way to improve the prospects, and I know intellectually and morally that he is right, but it often seems so futile.
I have seen you comment on Z for years and I have been reluctant to engage myself. I remember the attempts at creating PARECON chapters and it failing (the name escapes me now for some reason). I now see ID tried something similar. Other left silos/camps are/have done similar things (Gar Alperovitz “The Next System Project”, Yanis Varoufakis, so called Greens, eco socialists, degrowth…). As you say how is one to keep up with it all. It is all very depressing stuff.
I did ask Michael Albert quite some time ago if he had ever responded to Takis’ paper directly critiquing PARECON as I could not find it on ZNet. Unfortunately he responded that he believed he did but was dealing with some serious health issues so I did not pursue it any further. I think in hindsight it was his partners health issues which of course were very serious. I also tried to contact Robin Hahnel to see if he had ever responded to the critique but did not receive a reply.
Perhaps I will try the PARECON forum if I can muster the energy.
I will leave it there James and thanks again for responding and I wish you well.
Hi James:
Thanks a lot for responding and sorry for not replying earlier. I was commenting it is hard to follow the conversation more because, for me at least, the sequence of comments is not easy to follow, not necessarily the content, but of course sometimes the content as well.
I agree it is difficult for “most ordinary folks” to think about alternatives to the current capitalist system or really to think about thinking about something like that. Propaganda is pervasive and very effective in the west and in most of humanity people are just attempting to eke out a life. Of course you and others on here know all this and I am unlikely to say anything original in this comment.
Unfortunately the organized left, as far as I can tell, is virtually non existent in the west or anywhere for that matter. One of the few things I think Milton Friedman got right was his comment:
“Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
-Milton Friedman, 1972”
Naomi Klein outlined this more extensively in her book “The Shock Doctrine” calling it “disaster capitalism”. Others have similarly done so.
What this means, unfortunately, given the wealth and power on the right, as disasters inevitably continue to happen given the continual breakdown of the ecosystem, is that the rights ideas will be the ones implemented and hell on earth or worse for most is the likely result. I must admit I become more of a pessimist with every passing moment. I hear Chomsky say what choice does one have but to attempt to be optimistic and try in their little way to improve the prospects, and I know intellectually and morally that he is right, but it often seems so futile.
I have seen you comment on Z for years and I have been reluctant to engage myself. I remember the attempts at creating PARECON chapters and it failing (the name escapes me now for some reason). I now see ID tried something similar. Other left silos/camps are/have done similar things (Gar Alperovitz “The Next System Project”, Yanis Varoufakis, so called Greens, eco socialists, degrowth…). As you say how is one to keep up with it all. It is all very depressing stuff.
I did ask Michael Albert quite some time ago if he had ever responded to Takis’ paper directly critiquing PARECON as I could not find it on ZNet. Unfortunately he responded that he believed he did but was dealing with some serious health issues so I did not pursue it any further. I think in hindsight it was his partners health issues which of course were very serious. I also tried to contact Robin Hahnel to see if he had ever responded to the critique but did not receive a reply.
Perhaps I will try the PARECON forum if I can muster the energy.
I will leave it there James and I wish you well.
Brent…I did react to comments from Takis quite some time ago, I think. I don’t know where to direct you to to see that material, or where I can now see iy myself, for that matter. Perhaps searches could yield it. I will give that a try, too.
Hi Brent,
I did read the PE / ID debate when it was first published and again more recently (I have a hard copy). I think the hostility between groups like this is very unfortunate and counterproductive.
Let me know if you have any thoughts on my article.
Thanks!
Mark
P.S. I would suggest you send your feedback regarding the format / system to the Z staff.
Well, okay, I guess I just didn’t perceive the strategic benefits. My fault, but I still wonder what they are?
What I felt I may seem “incredulous” regarding is likely due to me misunderstanding what you mean. Perhaps we can take it up after I supply a more complete response.
Geeez, Mark, I am open to everything that I write possibly being wrong – which is why I react fully to every criticism I encounter – but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that what I write is solid and convincing. If I didn’t think that, I might send something around to some folks for reactions, but I wouldn’t publish it.
On the last – when you see me, say, not agreeing with you that we can dump balanced job complexes from participatory economic vision and yet retain the vision’s worth, but also taking lots of time to engage with you about that proposal, how does that not imply my being open to exploring alternative ways of looking at things and new ideas . I am not agreeing with your new thoughts, yet, and I admit, I doubt I will as we proceed, but I am certainly not ignoring or dismissing without exploring your thoughts but instead trying to understand them, and respond to them.
At any rate, we seem to be diverging from the substance so I will try to publish a more full and careful response tomorrow, or Wednesday, when I get new internet in place to send it.
Hi Mark,
I feel it’s a nice try. But somehow, I kind of think the unfairness bit got thrown out a bit early in the piece. The point you made that, what you termed burdensome jobs, would get remunerated more and therefore unfairness is taken care of…let’s move on to empowerment and ideology.
I found it quite difficult to imagine equality within that kind of context. Is equality to be achieved through “ideology” or attitude, shaped by education into self-management via educational institutions within a fully participatory society but not through equality of (average) remuneration? If I get what you are saying, then if one is a cleaner or doing burdensome work 24/7, then they get more for their efforts, doing onerous, disempowering work. While a doctor or engineer or manager gets less doing less onerous and empowering work working the same hours (all under assumed equal effort). So therefore, unfairness has been “taken care of”. But what of equality in material terms at least. There’s now a reverse disparity. The cleaner earns more than the doctor, engineer or manager.
Then it seems you are merely saying, the empowering/disempowering part is overcome by attitude or education, and I suppose, then just accepted by all. The doctor via education in a participatory society, acknowledges and accepts the cleaners right to greater access to the social pie because they are doing shittier work more often and they, the docs, themselves, acknowledge and accept they don’t deserve as much because of the naturally empowering tasks and environment of their own work. And self-management isn’t affected because the cleaner has been educated in the skills of self-management, and taught, as have doctors, engineers and managers, that cleaning is a noble and important profession deserving of higher remuneration and respect. So the cleaner rocks up to regular worker council meetings in their electric ecologically sound Porsche with a new found self-confidence knowing they can participate fully. Regardless of the “fact” they haven’t had time to access, read or learn all the necessary information needed to actually do it, due to the the tiring and stultifying onerousness of their work (because when they’re not working, they’re sleeping or practicing they’re golf swing).
I always thought remuneration for onerousness, hours and effort only truly worked in practice if coupled with balanced job complexes to achieve proper, and get as close to, equality as we can. You just seemed to have reversed the situation. In capitalist systems we, the 80% doing the crappier stuff, are expected to accept and respect those who earn more for all kinds of bullshit reasons. It seems, that all you have done is say, in a participatory society, there will still be CDoL but the difference in pay will take care of the unfairness and the doctors, engineers and managers will just accept and respect those who earn more for noble and admirable reasons.
Hi James,
Thanks for taking the time to engage!
Could you just clarify where you think I throw out the “unfairness bit” and discuss “burdensome jobs”? Which part of my article are you referring to here?
You also mention equality a number of times but, as I understand it, equality is not a stipulated value of participatory economics. That isn’t to say that you and others can’t use it, it is just to say that I am critiquing Michael and Robin’s model and I don’t think they use that value.
Could I also just clarify one thing. You mention managers a number of times in your comment and you talk as if this elite group would still exist in the system that I propose. What I am actually proposing is that elitist management practices would be replace by self-management.
You write: “Regardless of the “fact” they haven’t had time to access, read or learn all the necessary information needed to actually do it, due to the the tiring and stultifying onerousness of their work (because when they’re not working, they’re sleeping or practicing they’re golf swing).”
As you will know, this is typical of the kind of argument Michael and Robin use in support of BJC’s. My feeling is that there are quite a few assumptions built into claims like this statement. For example, it seems to assume that cleaning is inherently time-consuming (due to low pay?) and mind-numbing (due to the lack of mental stimulation?). Whilst I think this is generally true of cleaning in a capitalist system I don’t think it is necessarily true of all economies, including the one I have in mind.
You finish by saying: “It seems, that all you have done is say, in a participatory society, there will still be CDoL …”
That is not quite right. As the subtitle of my article suggests, what I am proposing is an alternative approach to dismantling the CDoL. In other words, exposing liberal myths about work in conjunction with a reevaluation of existing jobs would result in an egalitarian division of labour but without the need for BJC’s.
Thoughts?
Yeah. I regret yet again…just a few thoughts…though it’s often hard to know exactly what they are, where they come from or even why they’re there. I actually apologise for engaging.
Hi James,
Thanks for taking the time to engage!
[yeah, Well, now I wish I didn’t.]
Could you just clarify where you think I throw out the “unfairness bit” and discuss “burdensome jobs”? Which part of my article are you referring to here?
[was merely referring to the forth paragraph under the heading, Logic of BJCs and I thought by you mentioning this you were basically saying that being remunerated more for doing burdensome work would take care of the unfairness bit of the issue so you could then move on to discuss the empowerment issue. So that’s why I went down the path I did thinking you were allowing it to be the case that some workers would be remunerated more than others, not equally (hence my use of the word and the word equality…maybe I should have said equity, yes?…sorry), because it seemed you were arguing a case that a CDoL would not necessarily need to be dismantled at all…which I realise now to be wrong…sorry]
You also mention equality a number of times but, as I understand it, equality is not a stipulated value of participatory economics. That isn’t to say that you and others can’t use it, it is just to say that I am critiquing Michael and Robin’s model and I don’t think they use that
[yeah, was really just referring to remuneration or pay, not equity, which is the value, see above…but my bad]
Could I also just clarify one thing. You mention managers a number of times in your comment and you talk as if this elite group would still exist in the system that I propose. What I am actually proposing is that elitist management practices would be replace by self-management.
[yeah, my bad again. Just assuming shit or not understanding your argument exactly, jumping the gun, or not being smart enough to get what you were really saying regarding managerialism as an ideology and shit. Yeah, sorry. Should have just said doctors perhaps. But I was already off on a wrong trajectory and misrepresentation of your position anyway wasn’t I so…]
You write: “Regardless of the “fact” they haven’t had time to access, read or learn all the necessary information needed to actually do it, due to the the tiring and stultifying onerousness of their work (because when they’re not working, they’re sleeping or practicing they’re golf swing).”
As you will know, this is typical of the kind of argument Michael and Robin use in support of BJC’s. My feeling is that there are quite a few assumptions built into claims like this statement. For example, it seems to assume that cleaning is inherently time-consuming (due to low pay?) and mind-numbing (due to the lack of mental stimulation?). Whilst I think this is generally true of cleaning in a capitalist system I don’t think it is necessarily true of all economies, including the one I have in mind.
You finish by saying: “It seems, that all you have done is say, in a participatory society, there will still be CDoL …”
That is not quite right. As the subtitle of my article suggests, what I am proposing is an alternative approach to dismantling the CDoL. In other words, exposing liberal myths about work in conjunction with a reevaluation of existing jobs would result in an egalitarian division of labour but without the need for BJC’s.
[ok. So it’s kind of just through education or what you call reevaluation that CDoLs would be dismantled because we have all been taught about the importance of all work that was once thought or evaluated as crappy? I don’t much give a shit that you call it a liberal myth. Just a myth would do.
I suppose what you’re saying is that if you started a cleaning business that cleaned hospitals within a Parecon then that business would be self managed by all within it, with no hierarchical managerial type divisions of labour because they have all been trained, educated, whatever, in self management not managerialism or the likes. And they wouldn’t necessarily need to do a bunch of other things or a bunch of other tasks to average out or “equalise” empowerment in any kind of specific way because one, they’re all educated and skilled in self management (so empowered?)…whatever that means exactly, and I’m not just being flippant…and everyone in a participatory society would regard everything they do as equally important as anything else so such work deserves equal…if that’s the right word…respect and remuneration to anything else]
Thoughts?
[Only that I’m an idiot and misread you and wish I hadn’t engaged at all. But seems I’m a glutton for punishment and feel you’re gonna ‘punish” me more after this for all my further misrepresentations, misreading and misunderstandings and bad logic and bad argument. But here goes…
So is your argument that just by training in self management, educated in such skills, somewhere in transitioning to a participatory society and in a fully formed one, and by reevaluating jobs, like cleaning or lower paid jobs, as being equally as important important as anything else usually seen in our society as more important and deserving, like doctoring, an ideological viewpoint, to use your word…ideological that is…CDoLs would be kind of dismantled automatically, and equal remuneration would occur. Is that it?
Great. No need to rearrange jobs into BJCs. I THINK I get it now. But thinking I get it diesnt mean shit to me…I’m probably fucking wrong.
So being trained in self management means no matter what actual job or tasks you do in your job, say cleaning, you will still be able to participate meaningfully in council meetings because you have skill sets. This is regardless of what work you do which would be not necessarily balanced work for empowerment. So you could be just doing, by choice, really shitty manual hard physical labour that never involves a whole heap of other stuff, information about the business, conversing with others, whatever, but you would still be able to participate meaningfully at council meetings and decision-making and have the confidence to do so because one, you are skilled in self management practices having teen taught them or educated in them or socialised into them during transition to or within a fully formed participatory society, and two, you would feel equal to anyone else inside the cleaning business no matter what they were actually doing in their jobs or tasks , AND you would feel equal to anyone else working say as a doctor, engineer (across industry)…no managers because we are all managers now?…because we, that being all of us, have been educated in the reevaluating of jobs to see, believe or even know (whatever knowing is) cleaning and doctoring (just one example) are of equal importance and deserving of equal respect pay?
So your arguing that there’s really no need for BJCs at all because self management education and reevaluation of job importance and the respect that comes with that will be enough to dismantle a CDoL? And one of the main reasons for this is managerialism has been done away with by self management. And doctors and those kinds of workers are not managers and so not part of a CDoL in the sense that it is managers that participate in that kind of stuff. Doctoring is merely a job that requires reevaluation against other jobs like cleaning and to be seen as equally important and deserving of equal respect? This would erase what you call a liberal myth about some jobs being more important than others, like doctoring being a more important position or job than cleaning. I mean I guess I would just call that a myth held by people…whether they are liberals or not is by the by…but I don’t want to get into another sparring match with you, because I feel no matter what I say it will be wrong. I already think I’m wrong even with this reply.]
If the above in square brackets is repetitive or too long, I apologise. I really do regret having engaged actually. This is all a bit too much for me. Should have just left it to Michael and others. But I’ll ask again, is it that all we need is to be taught self management, as a general kind of set of skills and to be re-educated in how we evaluate or view certain work to not have to worry about BJCs?
Unfortunately one question or thought, or maybe there are numerous ones but all kind of similar, arises. If reevaluation of work is all that is needed, coupled with self management of course, then aren’t you really just saying there is in fact no such thing as disempowering work at all? Flipping burgers is now seen as equally important and deserving of equal respect as doctoring? So it’s not disempowering at all if you do that flipping all the time in certain workplace conditions if we have all reevaluated the job to see and know and believe that it’s just as important and deserving of respect as doctoring? But of course the flipper is skilled in self management and in a Parecon, perhaps workplace conditions and other things are much better and ecologically sound etc., but essentially, the flipper could just flip for the rest of his or her or their lives and not feel disempowered thereby negating the need to balance his or her’s or their job with say doing something less tedious and banal? And he, she, they, are getting remunerated as much as a doctor and not more, as I originally thought, because his, her, or their job is no longer seen as onerous or burdensome to use your word, because all work is freed if the liberal myth and seen as equally deserving, and he, she or they have equal access to the social pie so feel disenfranchised in any way. Is that right? Sort of? Am I being too repetitive?
Fuck.
“…don’t feel disenfranchised in any way.” One correction of many I can’t be bothered to correct.
Also, I just began wondering if you could be clearer in how you envision workplace organisation if there are to be no need for BJCs. For instance how your approach or your ideas about being trained in self management…gettting rid of managerialism… in transitioning to or within a full formed participatory society and reevaluating work…dispelling the liberal myth…would dismantle a CDoL and what the workplace may look like or organise how shit gets done.
Also, I just began wondering if you could be clearer in how you envision workplace organisation without BJCs and after dispelling the liberal myth.
Also, just thought if this. Have you posted this on the Participatory Economics website forum? It may me worth it. Probably get more feedback than here and it’s designed for that.
I really wish you could edit or delete messages here. Sometimes I accidentally post because I’m not Mr Careful.
I’m not sure I understand the motivation to abandon balanced job complexes. There is the suggestion at the outset of the piece that “simplifying” the participatory economy vision might make it easier to gain adherents … although this is not explored in any detail. I’m not personally persuaded that “complexity” is the reason that support for the vision is not greater. But even if it were, abandoning a significant feature like balanced job complexes seems like a non-starter to me. Whether or not balanced job complexes are a “necessity” also seems (to me at least) to be beside the point. Balanced job complexes are desirable, in my opinion, both intrinsically and instrumentally — including in ways not even touched upon in the original commentary. Remuneration for effort and sacrifice is arguably made easier by balanced job complexes, but it isn’t a substitute for them. Yes, differential pay *can* be used to compensate for unequal effort — but the intention was not to do so in lieu of balanced job complexes, but to do so in tandem with them. (For example, paying people more for working *longer* hours at their already-balanced job package — or paying someone *less* because they prefer to work less, and have more leisure time. If some dangerous but socially necessary work cannot be automated, and cannot be fairly divided, then remuneration for effort and sacrifice could try to offset that with higher pay. But again, that’s meant to address things that affect the average balanced job complex, not meant to replace them. )
But leaving aside that side of it, balanced job complexes are meant to share the burdens and benefits of a productive economy fairly — not just within a given workplace, but across them. To me, this is so self-evidently crucial and desirable **if** we care about elementary fairness, and egalitarian structures and divisions of labour. Perhaps I’m missing the point, but I have never heard an argument against a fair and balanced division of necessary labour that has **not** been rooted in some form of class hierarchy.
Even without talking about the political and self-management effects (i.e., the fact that meaningful workplace democracy requires, among other things, an empowered and knowledgeable workforce to be able to make informed judgments about the fate and direction of the workplace), even if we forget about that crucial insight, and the elementary fairness of sharing and balancing socially necessary work … balanced job complexes are **also** desirable on diversity grounds alone. Many, if not most people like to mix up their work day or work week, with different kinds of tasks. It’s not that we can’t also appreciate and value continuity for certain purposes (and yes, continuity is very important for some things), but that we value diversity in our lives too. Balanced job complexes give people opportunities to switch gears, in a way that is the absolute opposite end of the spectrum from rote repetition. Any proposal to abandon elementary fairness and diversity in terms of the division of labour seems, to me, to be the antithesis of a meaningful workers’ self-management.
I’m still not sure I understand the motivation or rationale behind such a proposal. I’m certainly unpersuaded that abandoning balanced job complexes would somehow position us better to build an equitable, self-managed workplace (right now), let alone an entire economy (in the future).
Hi PP,
Thanks for taking the time to read my article and for sharing your thoughts!
You mention motivation both at the beginning and at the end of your comment, so I will start with that. The motivation here is to see if it is possible to conceptualise an alternative way of addressing the corporate division of labour to that of BJC’s. That is pretty much it. My feeling is that if we can do this then it opens up more options for us, which I think would be a good thing. Do you disagree?
My claim is that exposing liberal myths about work in conjunction with the reevaluation of existing jobs represents an alternative to BJC’s that also addresses the CDoL. If you think this claim is false, could you say why?
Thanks again!
Mark
HI Paul – I am assuming PP is Paul, if not, my apologies…
As I am about to move and functioning in a pile of decay, and with little time…I will keep this short.
I agree with your confusion about why MArk feels the proposal is strategically desirable, and I also agree that even if balanced job complexes weren’t essential they would still be positive, but I think the issue of necessity does matter. If they are necessary to attain classlessness, as I believe, than when someone describes the participatory economic vision, it needs to include balanced job complexes. But if they aren’t essential, it can be left out, the way countless possible features that are contingent are left out.
Mark isn’t the only one to propose eliminating what Robin and I propose as a core feature to reduce complexity – the same has been offered as a reason to get rid of participatory planning. If we are talking about something contingent I understand the inclination to simplify, but not if we are talking about something essential to meet the values, etc. So I think Mark is right given his proposal to try to make a case that jobs balanced for empowerment are not essential – though I don’t find his case at all convincing. I’ll put that in an article.
In the actual history of the ideas, balanced job complexes were defined precisely to allow effective self management for all, and to prevent a coordinator class / working class division with rule by the former. I agree with you that they have other virtues, but Mark is also right that they involve considerable efforts – it is just that I think those efforts are not only worth the benefits, like you say, but while it is only due partly reason and partly to intuition I suppose, I don’t actually think there will be a classless post capitalism that doesn’t in the process of struggling against existing obstacless challenge the corporate division of labor as well as its rationalizations, etc., and also guard against cooption of anti capitalist desires for coordinator ends. The reconstruction of education and ideology that Mark wants, rightly in my view, is not going to occur without challenging the corporate division of labor.
Hi Mike, yes, this is Paul. Perhaps I should change my login name?
Also, just in case my perspective wasn’t conveyed well enough: I absolutely agree that balanced job complexes are *necessary* if our goal is a classless, worker-run workplace and economy. I just wasn’t assuming that everyone shared that goal — so I tried to explain why I thought they were desirable instead.
I don’t think you can meaningfully eliminate a corporate division of labour without balanced job complexes, to be honest. But perhaps that begs the question of what exactly a “corporate division of labour” means? To me, it means hierarchical, both in terms of decision-making power and in terms of division of tasks — and I don’t think there’s a way to eliminate both sides of that equation without balanced job complexes.
Hi Paul (sorry, I wasn’t sure if it was you).
If you are 100% convinced that the only way to remove the CDoL is via BJC’s then my article is probably not for you and I can understand why, from that point of view, you are puzzled by my motives.
My article is more for people who are interested in economic vision for a participatory society but who also remain open to and interested in the possibility that there could be more and maybe better ways to imagine such a system than that formulated by Michael and Robin.
I hope that helps you better understand where I am coming from.
Hi Mark, so let’s assume we both agree that a “corporate division of labour” ought to be abolished in any just society/economy. What does this CDoL mean to you — in terms of the actual division of tasks that a workplace or wider economy wants to allocate? Because if you’re not balancing for a range of things (executive functions, rote and creative, mental and manual, empowering and ‘managerial’ versus otherwise) then you are, in my view, by definition utilizing a CDoL.
We can imagine a hypothetical, worker-run restaurant collective (say) where everyone has both formal and de facto equality in terms of decision-making, but where the collective members decide they don’t want to balance jobs at all. The cooks want to exclusively cook, the waiters to wait, the bartenders to mix drinks, the janitors want to exclusively clean the toilets and other facilities, and those with the skills to do book-keeping, accounting, and ordering inventory, etc. want to exclusively do those kinds of tasks. And when all of these formally equal collective members get together, they all ostensibly make overarching policy decisions and business decisions together.
Let’s leave aside for the moment the question of whether the people who exclusively clean toilets or the people who exclusively serve tables or exclusively wash dishes will have the information they need to make informed decisions/votes on budgetary and investment questions. Let’s also leave aside for the moment whether or not the people who exclusively work in the back room, away from customers, doing the accounting and inventory and ordering, or perhaps making the shift schedules, and so on, will have the knowledge they need about the day-to-day operations, lunch and dinner rushes, what liquor and food items are in demand and what tend to sit or spoil, and what times of day need more or less staff to cover the work (and why).
Even if we leave aside these not-insignificant questions of whether or not people have the information they need to make informed decisions that affect them, and even if we assume they can and should simply believe one another when such things DO get discussed at a workers’ council meeting — we still have this work environment where everyone is doing a single type of task, all day and everyday. Let’s assume (and this is a big assumption) that, in this hypothetical collective, all the workers simply LOVE this arrangement — because they’re doing exactly what they want to be doing, they don’t want to learn / train in new areas, and some of them don’t want to clean toilets, but they fortunately found someone willing to do exclusively that.
Would we call this arrangement, even with the formal equality/voting rights of all members, an end to CDoL? I can’t imagine describing this scenario as a challenge let alone end to corporate division of labour, when it replicates everything about corporate division of labour other than voting rights.
Let’s not forget, as well, that balanced job complexes does NOT mean everyone does everything. It does NOT mean you can’t have people who primarily cook (along with a smattering of other tasks to round out their tasks), or who primarily mix drinks, or who primarily (say) write novels or plays or act in films (but again, still do a range of other things that round out their overall job complex). But refusing to do ANY balancing at all, is to elevate a corporate division of labour to a matter of principle. And I still don’t understand how anyone might imagine an end to CDoL **without** balancing work for onerousness, fairness, relative desirability, empowerment, danger, creativity, menial tasks, and yes, preferences too. The fact that there is an element of subjectivity to the desirability and preferences side of the equation, does not mean the goal is illusory. Even if some people find the less-desirable, more onerous, more menial, or more dangerous work more attractive than others, or are willing to do it *if* compensated better for taking those things on — this also doesn’t mean the goal of balancing is illusory. Some workers’ councils and workplaces will make different choices than others. But refusing to balance for fairness and empowerment and (yes) desirability is, to me, tantamount to refusing to abolish (say) child labour in the coal mine. A society that aspires to classlessness and workers’ self-management has to include some degree of job balancing. Otherwise, it seems to me that we haven’t learned any of the significant lessons of the “State Communist” / centrally-planned economies of the 20th century.
Hi Paul,
My critique is not of your personal take on the CDoL (which, of course, you are entitled to). Nor is it a critique of my personal take either. Rather, my critique is of an aspect of Michael and Robins model for a participatory economy. I outline my understanding of that aspect in my article in the section titled “The Logic of BJC’s ” so if I have misrepresented their work it can be highlighted here.
By your definition of the CDoL I think I would be guilty as charged. But I think the same would hold for Michael and Robin as I don’t think they balance for “mental and manual” tasks, for example.
I’m afraid I still don’t get the point. But given that you are the one posting an opinion piece arguing that a corporate division of labour (CDoL) *can* be dismantled without balancing job complexes, it seems significant that you don’t define CDoL. You quote Albert once making reference to it, and you refer to it a lot, but you don’t define it yourself. I’ve asked a couple times what *you* mean by that term, which is reasonable given that it’s in the subtitle of your piece, and your thesis appears to be that balanced job complexes (BJCs) are unnecessary for the dismantling CDoL.
But regardless of how I, or Albert & Hahnel, or anyone else imagines BJCs ought to work, and how far they might wish to take such balancing within or across workplaces, you’re still the one saying that CDoL can be eliminated without BJCs. These two things have an antithetical relationship, almost like matter and anti-matter. But given that you don’t seem to think BJCs are necessary or desirable, it’s all the more important that *you* fully elaborate on what you mean by CDoL. Both myself, and Albert & Hahnel (according to my reading of them) have stated that a CDoL entails a lot of things: not just a hierarchy in decision-making authority, in a category of people who gives orders, and one that takes orders, but also a hierarchy in the way jobs are organized (the division of tasks into ‘job roles’ according to both desirability and empowerment tiers & effects — but in this case, designed in a way that benefits the givers of orders, and over-burdens the takers of orders).
Balanced Job Complexes are not just one of the institutions designed to obliterate that kind of hierarchy — not incidentally overlooked by much of the Left for during the 19th and 20th centuries — and designed to obliterate the inherently unfair essence of any social relationship rooted in *class* — but arguably BJCs are the only way to meaningfully do it. (BJCs are necessary, but not sufficient to this task — along with other things, including the abolition of ownership and class relations that work in tandem with decision-making and work hierarchies.)
But given that you’re the one insisting that BJCs are not needed to get rid of CDoL, it behooves you I think to elaborate on what you mean by the latter. Your piece seems to be suggesting that the latter is more of a “managerial” ideology than a social relationship — but I think that is an unusual reading. It certainly draws upon an ideological apparatus, but the social relations are hierarchical, the decision-making structures are hierarchical, the job roles (and associated skills and knowledge) are hierarchical. That hierarchy doesn’t just get dismantled by education — which is implied by your conclusion.
Anyway, I will call it quits on this for the moment. I’ve asked for you to define CDoL in more detail, because it seems like we’re talking about apples and oranges here. But also I’m still not sure why we would want to work so hard to abandon BJCs in the first place. I get that your argument is that we don’t need them. I disagree. I think we DO need them *if* our goal is a classless society. But shouldn’t we actually want them — both intrinsically (because they can make work more diverse, enjoyable, and fair right now), and instrumentally (because over time, with proper training, they will make everyone more skilled and more empowered and more confident in the work they do, and even in areas that are less primary — and this is crucial for making informed decisions, not only inside one’s workplace councils but also in one’s consumer/neighborhood councils, and in other important domains as well — such as political forums? Why on earth would we want to abandon the idea of equitable and fair balancing of necessary work, in ANY sphere of life? I haven’t heard (yet) an argument for why we might want to do that. Anyway, gotta run! It’s my son’s convocation tonight. Cheers.
Hi Paul,
Here is the working definition, from my article, that I use for the CDoL:
“The specific feature that BJC’s are designed to replace are referred to by Albert and Hahnel as the corporate division of labour (CDoL), which can be understood as a division of labour based on an uneven distribution of empowering tasks.”
But this isn’t my definition exactly but rather my understanding of what Michael and Robin mean by the term.
I hope that helps.
I read through, or scanned Paul’s points and agree with him. On both points: That I don’t understand what you are really saying. It’s not clear. And that what you actually conclude is that CDoL can be eliminated by education or reevaluation, dispelling the liberal myth and training in self management, without the implementation of BJCs. As to the latter, fine. But what would a workplace look like then? How would it organise? What tasks or jobs would people be doing as Paul suggests? If it isn’t BJCs, what is it? A CDoL that isn’t a CDoL as we know it. Reminds me if Graeber saying, who knows what markets may be like in the future, they may be very different to what we have now. Ok Dave, that’s cool, but this is how we define markets now, so is it sensible to use the word markets for something in the future that’s different without actually defining what that difference is or may be. Sounds rather ridiculous to me. Even silly.
Hi Mark. I am in the midst of packing for a move, and then in just a few days actually moving, and I almost missed even seeing this article as a result. I apologize that it may take me a bit longer to reply than otherwise due to these circumstances.
By the by, I will say now, however, even without having time to spell out reasons, that I of course appreciate the care and thought you have put into your proposal and welcome it. But I also, I guess unsurprisingly, seriously disagree with it. I should perhaps say already, however, that on a quick read as I am shoving shit into boxes, I think your shift in primary (but not sole) focus from job structure (the division of labor) to an ideology called managerialism is in tune with your desire to shift away from balancing jobs. In fact, an earlier shift in the opposite direction from the name Professional Managerial Class to Coordinator Class was similarly motivated, though in reverse. We wanted to elevate attention to the division of labor as compared to highlighting only differences in prior training, but of course not to erase the latter, etc.
While I will try to address your views on this more as soon as I have space and setup to do so–by then having moved–I would even now like to ask a question, as I don’t want to misinterpret what you are saying. You refer to the strategic benefits of not trying to balance jobs for empowerment. Can you just clarify here what benefits you have in mind and, well, why you feel they are benefits? Do you mean, for example, that inside a workplace we would get better results, or get better participation, or perhaps get some other benefit by opting for a corporate division of labor? Or do you mean that writ larger it will be easier to organize against capitalist economics if we don’t talk about and seek to replace the corporate division of labor with jobs balanced for empowerment effects? Or am I completely missing this aspect of your proposal?
Hi Michael,
I am arguing that exposing liberal myths about work in conjunction with a reevaluation of existing jobs represents an alternative way of addressing the corporate division of labour. Therefore BJC’s are not necessary. Furthermore, I think there are a number of strategic benefits to this. Perhaps the most important is that changing this aspect of the vision would make the transition from capitalist to participatory economics more straightforward and therefore easier for the simple reason that there would be less involved than would be the case with establishing BJC’s.
Good luck with the move!
I am trying to get time to write a full response in any article. Exposing liberal myths and values bearing on work as you urge is good, of course. So to is a reevaluating existing jobs, Indeed both these pursuits are natural virtually automatic outcomes of ultimately pursuing balanced job complexes. The question becomes, if we don’t pursue such jobs, what are we pursuing when we reevaluate? One can address the corporate division or labor, no doubt, in many ways. The question is, can you keep it and have classlessness – and if not, why not, and what can you put in its place that does create classlessness and facilitate self management? You know, it would also make the transition from capitalism to participatory economics more straightforward and easier if we said particpatory economics can retain markets because participatory planning is unnecessary, or can retain private ownership because a productive commons is unnecessary – but those aren’t arguments for leaving those aspects out of the vision unless the result of doing so would still be what we seek – a collectively self managed, classless, equitable, sustainable, solidaritous, etc., economy. I feel like your proposal is driven by a desire to not have to make a case against the corporate division of labor, and for balanced jobs, mainly to avoid putting off a large portion of the population that will initially, and in some cases long thereafter, not be receptive to that change. But I assume you would’t argue we should leave out a productive commons because some people won’t be receptive to that. So, you recognize that you need to make a case that unbalanced jobs, let’s call them, don’t really themselves do any serious damage – and so arises the idea that it is only myths we lay on unbalanced jobs that makes a real mess. I don’t know how to put this without a bit of incredulity creeping in. But – do you really think that in a workplace with unbalanced jobs there is a class hierarchy but it is there only because of attitudes, and not the actual social relations?
Hi Michael,
Just to get this out of the way (again) your speculation about my motives – “your proposal is driven by a desire to not have to make a case against the corporate division of labor, and for balanced jobs, mainly to avoid putting off a large portion of the population that will initially, and in some cases long thereafter, not be receptive to that change” – has nothing to do with my thinking. If I thought that I would say it but I don’t, which is why I don’t say it – ha!
You ask a couple of questions in your comment that I attempt to address in my article. That you ask those questions here without any reference to my proposed answers makes me wonder if you have really heard and considered what is being said.
I am open to the possibility that I am wrong about how I see the source of power for the third class and my alternative approach to addressing the CDoL. However, it may also be the case that the incredulity that you feel towards my ideas is actually the product of over-confidence and narrow-mindedness on your part. This may also help to explain, as highlighted above, why you are projecting thoughts into my head that are not actually there and why you are raising questions in your comments that I have already attempt to answer in my article.
You said not seeking balanced job complexes has a strategic benefit–but not what that benefit is. I wrote, “I feel like your proposal is driven by a desire to not have to make a case against the corporate division of labor, and for balanced jobs, mainly to avoid putting off a large portion of the population that will initially, and in some cases long thereafter, not be receptive to that change.” It was meant as a question – is that the strategic advantage you refer to or is something else? By the by, I actually do agree that that would be a strategic advantage of not having to seek balanced jobs… and I do not see any other.
I am not sure where I evinced increduality…but okay, perhaps I did and perhaps it was due to narrow mindedness, or over confidence or, as perhaps it was just because I find it hard to conceive that you think the difference in power and condition between doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., and assemblers, cleaners, etc., derives from how we view their jobs as compared to from the actual implications their jobs have on them. And maybe the rest of what you attribute to me is right, too, or perhaps it is a bit of the other way around or even both ways.
That is, you think that because I, am not convinced by your essay I must be closed minded or over confident, say, I guess because to your eyes your essay is solid and convincing, as compared to that I just disagree and don’t find it convincing. I get why it might look that way to you, or in reverse, why I might be incredulous and I get that we each could be wrong but not both right. Perhaps when I manage to get the time to more fully reply, things differences will become more clear all around.
Meanwhile, you replied to Paul, “My article is more for people who are interested in economic vision for a participatory society but who also remain open to and interested in the possibility that there could be more and maybe better ways to imagine such a system than that formulated by Michael and Robin.” I take it for granted that Paul is such a person, as am I, as is Robin, as are you, and so on. I would hope yo agree. I also think but being open doesn’t mean we automatically agree… and again, I hope you agree.
Okay,
So my answer to your “question” is no. And I do think that I at least indicate in my article what the strategic benefits could be.
In an earlier comment you wrote “I don’t know how to put this without a bit of incredulity creeping in”. My comment was in response to that.
I have already said that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong so I don’t know why you write “I guess because to your eyes your essay is solid and convincing”.
And no I don’t take it for granted that the people you list (or anyone else) are open to exploring alternative ways of looking at things and new ideas. Rather, I look at what people actually say and respond to that.
“ The essence of what is being suggested below, therefore, is that adopting these alternatives would increase our chances of transitioning to a participatory economy. ”
Is this the indication of the strategic benefit in a nutshell.