Part two of a two part interview between Michael Albert and ZNetwork.org. Part one of this interview is here.

Noam Chomsky is a friend of the New ZNetwork. You have been friends with him for over fifty years. I won’t ask you to reveal all about him, though no doubt it would be interesting to hear. Instead, what impact do you think he has had on Z and on you?

I think for Z and also for me, Noam has been arguably the central locus of political, intellectual, and operational influence. It is partly his analyses, of course, but it is also his behavior: steadfast, always informed, always listening, just exemplary in so many respects. To have him as a friend, as someone to talk with about events, and as someone to publish, and whose interventions on our behalf were so powerfully helpful, has been a privilege, a model, and a massive aid. I doubt South End Press would have begun or lasted but for our relationship, and the same goes for Z right up to the present.

Back in South End Press days, in 1986, you co-authored a book titled Liberating Theory. There were six other co-authors Lydia Sargent, Robin Hahnel, Noam Chomsky, Mel King, Leslie Cagan and Holly Sklar. How did that happen? What was the process? And even more, what were you all saying and what role did the views play thereafter for yourself and South End Press and then for Z?

Well the ideas were circulating in the radically engaged air of the times, I suppose you might say they were blowing the wind, revolution in the air. Some of us called this aspect addressing the “totality of oppression,” which at the time meant addressing class, race, gender, and authority. The idea of the book was to give those insights that were then circulating more coherence and momentum. The hope was that the multi-author approach would both improve any text that would emerge, and also lend some credibility and importance to the book. The project happened because South End pushed hard for it and the various folks got on board. 

The process was to write a draft and circulate it to incorporate changes until everyone was happy to sign on to the result. I guess people can get the book and decide for themselves how well that approach worked. What we were saying, in a nutshell, was that societies inevitably have political, economic, kinship, and cultural/community spheres of life amidst surrounding international and ecological relations. More, each of those spheres are unavoidable and potentially (and indeed almost always) not just profoundly important regarding generating their own political, economic, gender, sexual, and racial, ethnic, and national hierarchies of oppression and domination (or of fulfillment and liberation), but also in that each of the spheres emanates influences throughout society that impact the other spheres to come into accord and that even bend other spheres such that they too become producers of the source sphere’s hierarchy. So, for example, kinship relations generate sexism, homophobia, etc., but they also bend other dimensions of life, like the economy for example, to not only accord with sex/gender hierarchies, but even to reproduce them. And vice versa. And so on. Round and round for all combinations of the four spheres. 

Liberating Theory addressed each of these four sides of life in turn. For three of the spheres, we mostly offered the concepts that had arisen from left practice regarding that sphere—thus concepts from existing feminism, anti-racism, and anti-authoritarianism—and beyond what was familiar from those approaches we mainly appended concepts to account for mutual interactivity, that was later called intersectionality. However, for one sphere, the economy, Liberating Theory critiqued certain underlying concepts of the associated dominant left perspective, which was then Marxism. Liberating Theory sought to add equal priority attention to the other three spheres to an economic approach just as it sought to add to the other approaches the interactivity of all four. Beyond that, however, in the economic case we sought to also add attention to a third class between labor and capital among other refinements. 

The upshot of the book’s offerings for South End Press and later for Z Magazine and ZNet was that each of the media projects emphasized all four spheres of life, sought to clarify their accommodation to one another, sought to discern their reproduction of one another, and finally I think the book’s approach also fed the idea of participatory economy, and then of participatory society, plus the need to address underlying institutions in all four spheres to conceive a really new world.  

Having talked a bit about one book, maybe we should take up some others. You and then later you and Robin Hahnel together wrote a few books dealing directly with Marxism and Marxist thought. How come? And what role did they play for your later pursuits? Do you think they are still relevant?

Way back even before South End Press, and indeed I suppose setting the operational stage for that project’s emergence, I wrote a book called What Is To Be Undone and Lydia and I produced it for a small press in Boston. For short, we called it WITBU and it offered an anarchistic, councilist critique of the then predominant Marxism Leninism, and at the same time as an alternative it began formulating the later much refined holist approach of Liberating Theory. Then, as you note, Robin and I focussed in on elements of Marxism, with a book called Unorthodox Marxism and with a two book set called Marxism and Socialist Theory and Socialism Today and Tomorrow. The critique in those books came up in articles and in other works, too. These works were consistent with but addressed a narrower focus than and preceded Liberating Theory. 

The reason all this occurred was that we felt that the then prevalent Marxist and Marxist Leninist orientations, while of course having many insights, also had very damaging flaws. We agreed, for example, that economics and class affect all else, but we argued that affecting all else was also true for polity, kinship, and culture/community. We agreed that economic ownership relations could generate class differences and especially class rule, but we argued that the corporate division of labor by which some employees are empowered but most who labor are disempowered could also generate class division and class rule. 

One of the abiding constants of Z’s history from South End Press days all the way to the present has been an almost obsessive focus on vision, and vision has occupied you personally over and over and arguably, in some people’s perceptions, even obsessively. Why is that? Why write a book, and another, and another, on essentially one topic? Are you obsessed?

The short answer is yes, I am, depending on how you define the word. My question is, why isn’t everyone? We want a better world. Doesn’t that make arriving at shared views about what that world can be something we should pursue? 

Take a step back. Why do people write yet another book on capitalism, or racism, or sexism, or imperialism, or why do they write three or four books on those, say, or eight or ten—when there aren’t just some books on those topics already available, but hundreds and probably thousands of books on those topics already available? 

Well, the writer who writes another book on one of those topics presumably thinks that the subject matter (capitalism, racism, etc.) is very important. And the writer presumably thinks that a new book may reach new people, or might perhaps clarify some related content, or both. I don’t think motives are much different than that for someone writing repeatedly about vision for a new society, or, for that matter, someone writing repeatedly about a particular vision for one part of society—for example a book about participatory economics—than are the motives for someone writing repeatedly about, say, capitalism, or racism. 

Is having shared vision important for answering the question, what do we want? Is having shared vision important for enriching our critique of what is, by way of our having a contrasting alternative that we seek? Is having shared vision important for not winding up somewhere we would rather not arrive, but instead winding up at a sought destination? Is having shared vision important for orienting our choices so they not only reject present injustice, but so they also offer a positive view of what is needed to attain future justice? Finally, do we need shared vision for all the above reasons in order to win a new world? I think we do. And do we want to win a new world? I do, therefore I keep at it, obsessively, if you like.

There are lots of long works on Participatory Economics, the vision you are most associated with, but how about if we get personal about it? What do you think it adds that is new to anti-capitalist thought and activity? What difference have its ideas had for your own life choices?

Participatory economics has five defining features: a commons of means of production, self managing workers and consumers councils, balanced job complexes, equitable remuneration for only duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valuable labor, and participatory planning. 

The idea that private ownership needs to be replaced is not new. The idea of a productive commons, even decades back when this vision was first introduced, was also not new, though I think we refined the meaning. Nor was the idea of having councils as sites of decision making new, though the idea of having self management as a basis for decision making within councils was new in the actual meaning we had for it, which is people having a say in decisions in proportion as they are affected by them. Balanced job complexes to replace what we called the corporate division of labor as a necessary condition to attain classlessness was new, though the concerns it addressed in an original way had much earlier precedent in certain past anarchist work. Equitable remuneration instead of not only profit seeking and income for bargaining power, which were familiar, was new in rejecting income for output and in being explicit about remunerating duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valuable work. And participatory planning in place of markets and central planning was new, though many others had urged the need for such a thing but not developed it. Seeing what was called twentieth century socialism as an economic type in which a class empowered by their position in the division of labor dominates workers below—we called it coordinatorism—was also largely new, and attracted much hostility. 

Why do the five institutions that I favor each work? How can they work together? Why will they deliver desired outcomes? What criticisms exist, and what answers do we have to those criticisms? These are the kinds of focus that move efforts to advocate participatory economics from the above single paragraph to the long books you mentioned.

As far as a difference in my life choices, you have rightly noted that believing in the vision caused me to spend huge even obsessive amounts of time and effort advocating it, debating it, and trying to improve it in talks, interviews, articles, and books. It also led me to try to understand what trying to implement the visionary aims, even while living in current society, calls for by way of organizing and activism, and to advocate and try to act on that. I wouldn’t say I am obsessed with vision to the exclusion of all else, but I would agree that I am obsessed with it to a degree beyond most anything else I focus on. 

What has been the biggest obstacle to advancing vision at all, and participatory economics in particular?

I wish I knew the biggest obstacle, and all the lesser ones as well, with any real confidence. Maybe then I could do a better job of getting past them. Attention to vision at all, and therefore to arriving at a shared conception of what we seek—not arriving at a blueprint but at sufficient clarity about key elements to both orient our activities and overcome widespread skepticism that any fundamental change for the better is possible—has not been a widely shared priority. Books, articles, talks, and whatnot not only on economic vision, but arguably even more so on political, kinship, and cultural vision, and not just values but institutions—there is not so much of that. Why is that? I have heard many answers. 

Some say, “it is easier to write about what is unjust and oppressive. When we do that we feel confident and are unlikely to make mistakes. When we venture to offer positive vision, we are not as confident and we may well make errors and get criticized for them.” Others say, “vision is not needed. What matters is understanding current relations and of course activism. Vision is too distant.” And still others say, “vision goes beyond what we can reasonably know” and for that matter some critics of vision wonder, “who are we to prescribe anything for the future? That is for people living in the future to do.”

Of those three answers, I get the first one, and it is true enough, but I don’t think it should deter us any more than the fact that organizing and activism are difficult should deter us from organizing and activism. 

I think the second reason is just wrong. Understanding our current situation and being active are of course priorities, but vision helps with the former and provides orientation for the latter. Plus, having shared vision addresses the constituencies we encounter who really want to know what they are being asked to seek and why it will yield sustainable and powerful results. 

The third concern, however, I agree with. That is, I agree that it is quite easy to fall into proposing things that are beyond our capacity to know to be necessary, and which in many cases, won’t even be necessary. And I also agree with the sentiment that it is people in the future who should decide the details of their future lives. That is their job, not ours. So why aren’t I deterred from trying to offer vision and from urging others to do so as well? 

Well, I am deterred by those last concerns from trying to exceed what we can reasonably know. I am oriented to address only what is necessary for us to achieve if future people are to be in position to self manage their lives. That to me is what the shared vision I hope we attain needs to be: a proposal for whatever is essential in the domains that it addresses for people to be able to self manage equitably, socially supportively, and without domination of some by others. And that is why for me participatory economics has only five core features. I think we can now know that those five are each necessary if we are to have a classless economy that is equitable, self managed, and so on. For economy, beyond those five features, and even in the evolution of those five features, I think there will be countless contingent additions informed by the experiences and desires of future people. 

What do you think ought to be the main guiding principles for a left media project such as ZNetwork?

Well, any such project should take into account, I think, its means, and its political leanings and given those it should decide where its work might best contribute what otherwise might not be available. So, if you can only reach a left audience with your content, recognize that. If you have means to reach much more widely, recognize that. If the audience you can reach is saturated with a certain type of material, and you think another type that is barely available is also important, recognize that. Some may disagree, but for me the point of creating a left media project, or the point of creating any left project, shouldn’t be simply to persist. It should be to contribute to the struggle for social change. The size of your audience isn’t the sole criterion of success. Tons of people accessing redundant material isn’t very good, it isn’t success. Even the quality of your product isn’t alone important. Perfect politics conveyed in perfect words accessed by no one also isn’t success. What matters is to utilize the means at your disposal to have a positive effect. There were plenty of times when Z could have done something that would appeal to more readers or to more donors, say, but to do that would not have been as much of a contribution as doing something with more movement benefit that was not yet popular. We didn’t always get it right, I am sure. And certainly a case could be made that, for example, critically using social media instead of only critiquing and boycotting it would have helped Z have better impact. On the other hand, had we done that, would we have then conveyed the message we did, or would that message have been diminished, diluted, and perhaps even entirely jettisoned? It is hard to judge these things, even in hindsight, much less at the outset.

Throughout Z’s iterations and your more than 45 years in left media and publishing, your work has been known as a constant in both elevating what is actually radical and worthy among left movements, as opposed to what might be proposed as radical at any given moment, and simultaneously as a constant in providing space for diverse voices and opinions that run against the grain. What advice do you have for the current and future stewards of ZNetwork, and for anyone involved in media and publishing, for achieving this combination of consistency of worth and diversity of dissent? Especially in the age of the internet, social media, and algorithms, how might we both stay true to worthy vision and analysis while remaining open to taking risks and encouraging creativity?

To ask the question so clearly and eloquently, betokens that you will answer it well. Each situation that arises has its own special features which make providing the obvious answer important but incomplete. Do not jettison your beliefs just to accommodate widespread contrary views. Test your beliefs as best you can, over and over, against the evidence of reality and reason. That many say something doesn’t make that something wrong or right. To stay true to worthy vision and analysis requires that you have a worthy vision, and that you continually test it. To remain open to taking risks and encouraging creativity requires, I think, that you understand that diversity of opinion and even presenting opposition views is part and parcel of participatory progress. Respect contrary views. Engage with contrary views. Of course, what makes all this difficult, is that if you are a media project, you want to do all the above but at the same time you don’t want to give precious time and resources to views that are wrong and harmful. When you get down to specifics, what to do becomes a case by case judgement call. One thing that I think can sometimes help transcend the implied singularity of each situation is an advisory to debate contending views. When dissent surfaces, assuming it isn’t just idiocy—and sometimes even when it is idiocy but lots of people relate to it—one very useful approach, is to say okay, let’s debate these issues fairly, civilly, and without resort to impugning motives and otherwise straying from argument and evidence to defamation or to appeals to scriptural type authority.

Of all of the media and political projects that you launched and worked on during your long activist career, which one are you proudest of and why?

I once wrote a memoir, mentioned earlier. I tried throughout it to describe events and projects in ways that would discern and highlight lessons. Since I worked on that, almost twenty years ago, this interview is, I suspect, the most time I have given to thinking about my past involvements. But to answer, I am honestly not proud, I think, of any of it. When I think about past projects, and I admit that I would rather not, I instead feel the gigantic gap between where we ought to be by now, as a country, as a left, and even as individuals, and where we are, and I wish I and my generation had been able to do better. But, that said, there was something about the Z Media Institute, in particular, that was quite special. The mood that Lydia’s creativity and spirit imbued it with each year created an amazing atmosphere in which people shared and learned at a remarkable pace and with remarkable intensity. So I guess that is what comes to my mind, spurred by your question.

As you take a step back from Z and forward into the future, how do you envision spending your time and energy unencumbered with daily activities of Z? Do you plan to Kayak off into the sunset to play Go for the rest of your days?

Actually, truth be told, I am a bit afraid of not doing the daily activities, or not thinking about what to do with ZNetwork as a staff member. Will I have the wherewithal to fill my newly available time with other worthy activity? I haven’t kayaked in some time. I do play Go, online, when I need a break. And honestly, I watch a lot of popular TV and read a lot of best selling books. When I get hard at work writing something long, it takes up most of my time and the TV and game playing diminish. But I don’t know, and how can anyone know in advance, if I have any more of that in me. And if I don’t, then there will be more time to fill. I hope it isn’t more time with my eyeballs glued to the TV. I guess we will see.

Perhaps we should have more sessions like this, but lest this one gets too long, one last question. Who else has by their words or actions been a major influence on Z and on you?

I don’t know how to answer that. Over the decades many friends, many people I have worked with have of course influenced Z and me. But to list them seems inappropriate and impossible. Many writers, too, have influenced me. Anarchist and libertarian socialists, Pannekoek, Rocker, Kropotkin, Bakunin, and more. I can also remember some one-off writing that had a big impact. For example, there was an essay called What Do Bosses Do, by the economist Steve Marglin. Another essay called, Why Don’t Hungary People Steal, by Wilhelm Reich, also sparked thought. And of course there was the essay by Barbara and John Ehrenreich on what they called the Professional and Managerial Class—and much else, of course. Really, I could go on like that for quite a time but the same problem arises. To do so seems inappropriate and to get it right and comprehensive would be, I am sure, impossible for me. 

So, okay, to try to point to something, I will acknowledge that when I was just opening my eyes to the big old world in High School, and then for years thereafter until my path in life was solidly established and seriously proceeding, popular music—the Stones, the Beatles, etc. etc.—had a big impact on enlivening me, connecting me, and arousing me. In particular, via his words and his sound too, Bob Dylan did all that and also helped educate me. Maybe I should have put the next two sentences at the top of the interview. Don’t read this. Find a quiet place and listen to music that moves you, and which has real insight.

There was, as well, my friend and roommate from college, Robin Hahnel. He was in economics while I was in physics. I remember one day, in the MIT student union, after a Rosa Luxembourg SDS meeting, asking him to sit down and teach me Marxist economics. He did, and together, later, we got beyond it, and still later, our heads in sync, out popped participatory economics.

And then there was my other key teacher or mentor, I suppose you might call him. If you don’t have a quiet place for music or you tend not to find and feel insight in it, and if Robin isn’t a roommate, well, okay, open YouTube and sit down for a time with Noam. 

I have to say, to be influenced by geniuses, like these three, was wise on my part.