A Reply / Contribution to Michael Albert's “Imagine and then Act”

Mark,
I wrote in response to your comments on Tom Wetzel's piece (here: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22097) a week or so ago. You invited me to respond to this article of yours here. So that's what I'm doing.

I've re-written this so many times, trying to get the right message across, but have boiled it down to the following:

You suggested that I "say more precisely what parts [of your program] you don't like and what parts you do". So here goes.
My misgivings start in the first stage. You say: "Before we can begin to formulate a program for social transformation..." Stop! That's the problem right there. Everything that follows is leading to this. The formulation of a program for social transformation. That's where I disagree with your perceived role for the Project for a Participatory Society.

I'll try to explain why I see this as the problem.

I think Michael Albert's 'Participatory Society' philosophy (for want of a better word) is just that. A philosophy. A set of ideas. If there is a role for a "Project for a Participatory Society", I believe it should be one of refining and promoting the philosophy so that people can understand how it might be applied to their own lives, rather than assuming the role of facilitator or organiser of any future society. If the ideas that lead to a participatory society as espoused by such a PPS are seen as worthy, practicable and desirable, ordinary people armed with a clear understanding of what it is that they are striving for will find ways of bringing the ideal into practise. I suspect that many aspects of such a society would bear a close resemblance to many of the views expressed here on znet and in Michael Albert's writings. I'm sure there would also be some surprising differences.

I don't see the role of a PPS as one of attempting to set up any structures with which to 'assume power' or even in preparation for a swing in the balance of power. Not, that is, unless the PPS was a grouping of organisations or communities that were already running their daily activities in accordance with the principles of a participatory society. Even so, I'd rather see any grouping like that as a 'congress' of participatory organisations intent on assisting each-other and others which may be striving to realise the principles of participatory organisation in their own sphere of interest. Such a congress might well become a nascent structure around which a future society could build itself. Such a congress would likely consult with the PPS (in its philosophical or dialectic role) or ask it to assist in clarifying any aspects of Participatory theory that they are struggling with. They may even suggest amendments to the PPS having tried one way and found it unworkable.

I get the feeling that this is what Steve D'arcy and Tom Wetzel are saying, though in far more eloquent language than I am able to use. Of course, I could be wrong about that, in which case I apologise in advance.

I'm sure you'll put me right if what I'm saying makes no sense, or mis-interprets your stance.

Crip

Justin writes: " I don't see PPS Chapters seeking to push a certain party line or ideological perspective, rather than providing a set of procedural or structural forms that can be taken advantage of by all to enable a transition to a post-capitalist society."

Then (a) your proposal is inconsistent with what Mark was advocating, and (b) it's misleading to call these organizations chapters of a political organization. I'm all in favor of mass organizations developing, being organized, in struggles outside the workplace. In my organization we came up with the label "community syndicalism" for this back in the  '80s. Examples of mass organization outside the workplace would be tenants unions, public transit rider unions, or the kinds of poor people's movements that exist in South Africa around issues like displacement and water shutoffs/anti-privatization.

But these kinds of organizations are not political organizations. They are formed on the basis of willingness to fight in some area of struggle. They typically have a politics of some kind, and it may be a radical, anti-capitalist politics, but they are typically broader than a political organization in terms of the conditions of membership.

A political organization formed specifically to promote parecon/parsoc, and having agreement with this as a condition of membership, would not be a mass organization but a political organization. When you say the only thing about the organization that you envision as being influenced by parsoc/parecon is its structures and ways of functioning, that's a good idea but if it doesn't have an agreement with that political viewpoint as a condition of membership, then it is likely to retain the kind of structure and way of operating you favor because there are libertarian socialist activists, or activists in general in agreement with parsoc principles, who play an influential role within it.

I will add however that is entirely arbitrary to specify that the mass organizations of struggle that are involved in the transition are only organizations developed in struggles outside the workplace. In fact in many capitalist countries it would be unlikely for this to be the case. You mention Black Flame but those authors intend their history to be a history of class struggle oriented anarchist *political* organizations as well as syndicalist and other mass organizations influenced by libertarian socialism. The orientation of this social anarchist/syndicalist tradition is on building self-managing mass organizations (in workplaces and in community). But this presupposes the distinction that I've been making between the political organization and the mass organization.

Moreover, I think it would be unwise for the libertarian socialist political organization to dissolve itself when the mass assemblies/councils achieve government power because there will in fact be contending political forces within them, including organizations that want to evolve them towards, or to build on top of them, a more state like or other hierarchical structures that would empower coordinators. I'm assuming, of course, that you agree that there isn't an ideological litmus test as to membership in the assembliies/councils.

Justin writes: "If a mass movement to overthrow captialism was successful, and if PPS Chapters were successful in attracting large numbers within chapters, then in the transition phase, such PPS Chapters could morph into local/regional councils  in most areas, using their existing participatory processes but openning them up to participation for all in keeping with proportional decision making. In this sense, the specific participatory vision we're discussing here would provide the blueprint during the transition from a capitalist to post capitalist society, but not limit changes/alterations/participation."

This makes no sense to me at all. It's the mass social movements that provide the numbers, the location for personal growth and growing radicalization, and also the legitimacy for the movement to change the society. What you're proposing in this case is that these mass movements hand over power to a political party to govern. This has been done before...as in Russia in Nov 1917. But the results were not pretty. Other political tendencies will be vying for influence. If they are not going to be excluded (and how to do that without a repressive apparatus?), then what is the point to the political organization setting up the neighborhood assemblies/councils? And if it is the mass movements that are the basis of change, why aren't they also the basis for the legitimacy of new institutions? Hence they would need to be the agents of the transformation. And thus they would be the organizations to set up the neighborhood councils.

Why is it necessary for the parsoc political org to be the entity to create a governance system based on assemblies of residents? Why can't the mass movements themselves introduce this form of governance? If it's a question of ensuring that parsoc principles are applied, doesn't this ultimately depend upon the influence for these ideas within the mass movements, which emerge and have their basis independently?

The principle that people get a say in proportion to how they are affected may work within a political organization, but if that political organization rules over others, then the principle is denied for those others.

The idea of neighborhood assemblies/councils as the building blocks of the polity is that the only criterion for membership is residence within an area. People could be exluded from decision-making if they are disruptive. But that is not the same as ejecting someone because of deviation from parsoc political org's line.

Hi Mark,

Elsewhere on ZNet, you asked me to explain my concern about a 'one-party state' in relation to your proposal. You write:

"Now if you think that the nested chapter / council structured political organisation that I propose can lead to a one party state then I think you need to back that up by explaining how this could happen ... but perhaps it would make more sense to do that in reply to my proposal and not here."

Mark, First of all I would like to say how good I think this proposal is. It's great to finally have a proposal for revolutionary activity that doesn't revolve around some cataclismic moment. I have just small problem, and it has to do with the order. I do not think we should necessarily go for political councils first. I think we should work on all of the councils at the same time. I have a number of reasons for thinking this.

1) If we only focus on one sphere of society then the others will get neglected and if we do manage to get a better society the institutions in those spheres will be weak and easily corrupted since there will have been no time for experimentation. If we ignore institutions in particular spheres until later then we lose the chance we have to work on them and figure out exactly how best to use them. And I think that we need this to be prepared for a new society. There needs to be transition time, not just in the political sphere but, in all of them.

2) Even if we do set up our democratic political councils and get them to the point that we can take power away from the current political institutions, the neglect of the others spheres (especially, I think, the economic sphere) will be our undoing. Using the example of the economic sphere, if we do not start creating our democratic workers' councils and consumers' councils to challenge the power of corporations those corporations will just crush our progress. One way they will do it is capital flight, and if we don't have workers' and consumers' councils then we won't be able to deal with that. That is what happened in Allende's Chile and many others. Or they will use their tentacles that are in other countries to get those countries to impose a blockade or even invade, like in Sandinista Nicaragua where both of those happened. Or they will simply use their force and resources to crush our councils. So we need our institutions built up in the economic sphere to counter this inevitable backlash from corporations. And in the kinship sphere, if we do not start building up proper mechanisms to combat racism and sexism then these will enter our political councils and subvert their participatory aims. And the community sphere brings similar considerations to those of the kinship sphere.

3) Working in all 4 spheres will be better for movement building and more democratic. Since different people will be wanting to work in different spheres, as different people are more interested in, or aware of, different aspects, our movement will be able to be alot bigger and cater to people's wants and needs better if we work on all of the spheres. 

4) I think that the best way to challenge the status quo is to attack it from all angles, especially with something as resilient as parliamentary capitalism. If we leave one or more parts of the system (that we dislike) unchallenged then those parts will strengthen themselves and will most likely branch out and sow the seeds of our defeat. Parliamentary capitalism has shown time and again it's capability to adopt to and then absorb challenges to it's legitimacy. And unless we challenge it from all angles that is probably what will happen to our revolution. 

In short, the only part I disagree with is that I think that for part 4.2 we should be establishing not only nested councils, but institutions in all spheres of society and I think that steps 5 and 6 should be for taking and consolidating power in all the spheres, not just the political sphere. I also think that, based on my idea that we should be building up all the spheres, part 6.1 should be about creating the necessary links between the institutions in all the spheres so as to make the totality of society participatory. 

Mark, the question for me is whether a strategic proposal includes enough on the kind of activities or structures that we feel would be necessary for a participatory society movement to have, based on what we know now, or whether it extends too far into unknowable details. I never feel too confident taking a strong position on long-term strategy, however, that being said, I also think it is also important to have some ideas and answers when people ask, o.k you advocate alternative features for some part of society, but how can we get there?

I agree with you on stages 0 and 1; refining our knowledge of society and developing a flexible vision are important. Although you do say that both knowledge and vision should be ‘open to further refinement’ I would prefer not to call them stages, rather ongoing processes, ever developing based on gained experiences.

I feel that a progressive movement would need more than only agreement that our vision should be open to further refinement. Even with initial benevolent intentions, to stay flexible it could need actual processes to help guard against tendencies towards dogmatism.  My question is how could we, other than only through verbal agreement, make sure that the popularisation of our advocated vision remains flexible? Perhaps this could be in the form of bodies where people are rotated in and out of that monitor and provide feedback on the character and manner of our outreach and raise any concerns? Some preliminary concerns I have in contributing towards developing a strategy are how we can organise the structure of a revolutionary international movement in a way that is not only effective but keeps us true to our guiding principles.

Stage 2: I also agree with you about the gradual development of groups of people organising in the form of chapters (I like the name chapter, but others have commented that it sounds too cultish or U.S centric) that exercise self-managed decisions that become federated into a structure over a wider scale. For me this would be an important component of how a participatory movement is organised so as to keep true to the principal that decisions should be made by those being affected.

I also agree that these chapters should be attempting to plant the seeds of the future in the present by fairly dividing tasks, self-managing, etc,, and that they would have the potential to perform a number of functions that you mention such as popularising vision, aligning with other organisations, initiating reform campaigns, meeting social needs, etc

For me, its from here on that I feel less confident supporting. Stages 3 and on may be too specific for a universal international strategy although I think they have key insights regarding the need to seek support from the army, building a media arm, etc. Having said that, I do feel that this proposal has more relevance to our situation in the U.K. since we are more familiar with the conditions here. I think your proposal is a fine starting point for further exploration and discussion and I look forward to discussing this further with you and others in person.

However, don't you think that there are also generalisations we can confidently make about how things will unfold?

I am not sure we can confidently predict how things will unfold, although we can state what we expect or hope to happen and why? and what this would mean for a progressive movement.

You are probably right. I kind of assume, maybe wrongly, that participants of the ReSoc project, and the broader Z community, have roughly a shared understanding of how the world works. A lot of this is also covered in the links on vision, I think, so no need to repeat it, I thought. But if you think there is important stuff missing please make suggestions...

I am more interested to hear how you reached your conclusions, it helps me personally to understand what you are trying to achieve.

I think ... maybe you are referring to more immediate needs? Well that could be incorporated into the program. Any ideas are more than welcome.

Just as a starting point, the chapters/councils may serve as neighborhood assemblies, securing funds for or setting up projects or campaigning against policies etc. The point I am trying to get at is they only serve to promote vision I would not expect them to gain much support, especially amongst busy and overworked people.

There are two reasons why I think this. One is simply that I don't think we should be spreading ourselves too thinly. This project is extremely ambitious and to succeed our resources do need to be focused. We need to be symmetrical to our ideological opponents and their resources are very focused - don't you agree? I have already given my second reason in my reply to your comment on anarcho-syndicalism.

Obviously I agree that we have to mange our resources properly, I just happen to think that setting up alternative institutions when resources permit is a good use of them and adds strength through experience to our ideological arguments. I also think we have most likely got a a lot wrong in our ideas about how things could work, by experimenting we will learn what those mistakes are and try and resolve them.

I'm not sure what you are saying when you say "I agree with Micheal Alberts comments regarding the Media Group, I would also query if it was specifically the role of the media group to target police and military forces, there may be better placed organisations." Perhaps you would clarify?

This is the part from Micheal Alberts comments I was referring to.

I guess, if this essay were written and offered as an internal thought document of the UK project you are working with, a draft proposal for now, for there - reproduced here as a matter of record and example - it would be fine. Then it would be contextual in place and time - and at most indicative for others. As is, however, I think it claims too much relevance...

The second point I was querying was would we leave it to the Media group to reach the military and the police, maybe we may try reaching them ourselves or we may have groups that specif icily work with the army or the police over issues within those organisations. I don't think the media group are the only or the best group to do this.

The power will come from the people who support the program. If there are few people there will be little power, if there are many people there will be lots of power. The role of the organisation will be to take power back from the elites and use it to create "another world".

Many people may have a power, the question I have is how will they exercise that power? i.e.in a strike they exercise it by withdrawing their labour. What did you have in mind.

Mark, I think you've ran into Daniel DeLeon walking backwards, so to speak, the theoretician of the old SLP. Lenin acknowledged him as the source of 'workers councils' or 'soviets' in his own thinking, although DeLeon opposed Lenin. The SLP stood for organizing the 'socialist industrial union,' nested councils within federated councils. It also ran in elections, but on the single plank that if it won, it would immediately move to dissolve Congress, the White House and the army and judiciary, ceding power to the one big SIU, not unlike the old OBU of the Wobblies. They never bothered much with reform fights, preferring to bring people to the whole vision through revolutionary education. 'Ultimatism' is what the SLP's line came to be called in the 2nd and 3rd Internationals.

What you're proposing, Mark, is an alleged strategy. This is not at all the same thing as what Steve Shalom was talking about. He doesn't address strategy at all. He merely presents a program or conception of a polity that isn't a state. He doesn't say anything about how this is to come about.

When you talk about an organization that is put together on the basis of agreement with a particular vision and strategy, if this is an organization basing itself on a fully worked out conception of participatory economics/participatory society, and theory of complementary wholism, it would be  at present a very small political organization. That's because it would be put together based on agreement with a narrow ideology.

I don't know what you mean by a "political council." A "council" in ordinary English is typically an elected -- or at least representative -- body of some kind such as a city council or a shop stewards' council or whatever. If you mean that this is a governing body for some region, then you're talking about a government. Where does the power to govern come from? How is it acquired? The sort of base "council" that Shalom talks about is a neighborhood assembly, and then delegate bodies made up of delegates from various neighborhood assemblies. This does not seem to be what you're talking about.

Based on your description, it sounds like a proposal for an ideological political group somehow setting up a new government. And why isn' t this a  proposal for a one-party dictatorship? This is not how the mass of the people can liberate themselves from the various structures of oppression and exploitation.

The mass of the population can only do that by building, from below, their own movement. Millions of people -- the numbers of people we're talking about -- only are likely to do this, and to come to conclusions about the need for a new system, through a protracted series of mass struggles. Through such struggles they can build organizations they control. To ensure that the new polity and economic structure is controlled by them, they'd have to create mass organizations, a very large movement, controlled by them.

To say that this needed level of mass involvement, understanding and commitment can be brought about by publishing articles and giving talks and recruiting people to what would inevitably be a tiny political group to start with, is extremely implausible.

An organization organized on the basis of agreement with a particular ideology is a political or ideological organization. This is what your proposed oranization is. You may not choose to call it a party but if your idea is that it is the basis of directing reorganization of society, then it is a party de facto. There is a distinction between ideological organizations and mass organizations being the basis of social re-organization.

You don't explain how the "councils" you propose are to come into existence. Are they to be simply expressions of a particular political organization? If not how? Are they to emerge from genuine mass struggle? If so, you will have no way to ensure what their program will be.

In regard to anarcho-syndicalism, the CNT in 1936 had a very definite program for re-organizing society. If you say that a political organization today has to be based on agreement with your conception of "allocation of goods", then I'd point out that is sectarian.

Where does this "popular support" for the "councils " come from? How does it emerge? These are the difficult questions which you don't even begin to address. If workers take over the management of industry generally through the development of "councils" this is a general strike on the job, in fact, no matter what you choose to call it.

to Mike: I'm in plenty of movements with people in favor of capitalism--stopping the wars, green jobs, single-payer health care, and so on. they may want to reform it in various ways, but that's another matter. They are not socialists, pareconists, anarchists, at least not yet. In fact, they are the majority of people I work with, and i suspect that you do, to. Advocates of imperialism or racism, however, are more scarce.

Mark writes: "As for anarcho-syndicalism my concern is that the strategy of organising workers into revolutionary unions for a general strike naturally increases the level of class tension within society and with it the level of violence. This increase in violence coupled with a lack of clear vision for a post-general strike society leads many people to conclude that anarchists are in fact advocating chaos, and I tend to agree."

The working class can't be liberated without taking away the property and power of the capitalist and techno-managerial classes. Those classes are not likely to go along with that voluntarily.

It seems to me that your proposed strategy is essentially partyist. That is, you are proposing that an organization defined ideologically around a revolutionary program, partecon/parsoc, set up new institutions. This violates the basic idea that liberation from the structures of oppression and exploitation has to be brought about by the mass of the oppressed. This requires that they have developed their own mass organizations. How are these organizations going to come into being? Historically they have come into being through a various series of protracted kinds of struggles, such as those that workers have undertaken through unions, tenant organizations, and so on.

How does your strategy differ from the classical Marxist idea of a socialist  political party rallying various mass mvoements behind it to take over the government or create a new one? It's true you don't talk about this political organization engaging in elections. Nor do you talk about it taking over the existing government. Perhaps the difference lies in your proposal that it is the "councils" that are to take power. To me the relationship is unclear between the ideological organization and the mass organizations (councils) is unclear.

Historically Marxists understood that this party would develop through its backing by the mass organizations/movements, which grow through the class struggle and various social movements and conflicts. You don't say how your political party is going to gain mass support for its program.

"Council" is an elected body and can mean anything. I would prefer to talk about the structure of a libertarian socialist society being based on assemblies because they are directly democratic, of course they can elect councils, send delegates to congresses etc. But supposing that your political party sets up "councils" why would people participate? Where does their mass support come from?

As to anarcho-syndicalists not having a "clear idea of a new society" you're simply mistaken. Workers Solidarity Alliance is a group in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition and we have a fairly worked out conception, as in our "Where We Stand" statement:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

I think that the details of a new social arrangement are things that would inevitably be debated and worked on as the larger social movement is developed. I think your approach places too much emphasis on a pre-cooked "vision" rather than in the process of mass movement development through struggle and learning on the part of larger numbers of working class people. Besides, there is no inconsistency between parecon/parsoc and anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalism is simply a strategic orientation to acheive a libertarian socialist society based on self-management.

The transformative general strike is something that would be likely to occur only as the result of the development and coming together of various strands of struggle and intensification of opposition to the existing system. It depends upon the system's increasing loss of legitimacy. There has to be a broad sense of "We've had it" among the population. Nothing in what you write explains how that loss of legitimacy is going to happen. Talk about dialogue with police chiefs and generals, in the way you express it here, almost sounds like a recipe for a coup. A dialogue with members of police and military, however, does makes sense, especially in the period where there is an intensified level of struggle and loss of legitimacy of the system in the eyes of a majority of the population.  Altho Michael is right that many police and military rank and file come from the working class and have less of a stake in the capitalist system, the officer ranks often do come from the more elite classes. Carl is right about the need to organize in the army and also about the important role that black police officers have sometimes played. In the early '70s there was the attempt of the American Servicemen's Union. A libertarian socialist friend of mine went into the army to organize and helped create a "soldier's council" with ASU at an army base in Germany.

When you talk about the councils "taking power" you're talking about a transformative general strike in fact. That's because the worker mass organizations in workplaces would have to take effective control of the industries and land and buildings etc and management power in the industries.

 Moreover, what does it mean to set up "workers councils" in capitalist workplaces at present? How would this differ from a self-managed, worker-controlled union organization? If this organization emerges at present, it presumably does so as a means to various struggles of workers against management. That means it's a form of unionism.

When the IWW advocated a "revolutionary general strike on the job" (their description for this process), they always envisioned this as a non-violent process due to the mass support for this change. Although it is desireable to avoid violence as much as possible, this sort of change is only likely to occur in the context of serious mass social struggles that may in fact involve some level of violence....violence from right wing elements, groups fomented and financed by the dominating classes. It's true that dialogue with members of the armed forces and police would be needed to minimize this violence. but I don't think we can say that we know how violence could be completely prevented. This has sometimes been used as an argument as to why it is necessary to go through the route of gaining control, thru elections, of the old state. But that strategy has its own problems.

Mark, thanks for the essay response to my earlier contribution.  Some reactions below - and I also took the liberty of replying, as well, to comments appended to your essay...

So, first, Mark...

You describe your effort as an attempt to “describe a complete transition of society from beginning to end where each stage builds on the next in such a way as to build a robust, popular and participatory international movement with real focus, direction and intent.” 

I am going to assume that you realize that any such attempt cannot possibly be accurate or complete - and will have to be taken as a mere indicator - to be altered and perhaps hugely overhauled as time passes. It is one thing to propose, now, the broad outlines - far from a blueprint - of a set of future institutions essential for classlessness, or for self management, or other broad aims. It is very different to propose a path from here to there - the reason being a path isn’t a matter of dealing with a fixed broadly knowable background. Rather, a path is a dance with present also evolving forces - who have a will, as well, and so it is overwhelmingly contextual varying over time due to the accumulating history, and also from place to place, due to different conditions, etc.

You intention to “to replace any feelings of being overwhelmed with a sense of sustained hope” is admirable. But, I think we have to be careful. It is one thing to try to do that by admitting the complexity and difficulties, etc. - it is another to try to do it by suggesting we already know much more than we do, about strategy, and even more, about the conditions that will unfold. 

I assume you know all that - but I think it is worth making evident, repeatedly, to avoid confusion. One can become inflexible, even sectarian, about vision, program, strategy, etc. 

That said, I agree with you that marxism leninism is flawed - well, I would use a bit harsher term, I guess - but okay. 

however, I don’t understand your comments about organizing toward a general strike. To have not seeking a general strike be some kind of general principle or priority makes no more sense to me than the reverse. I can imagine endless variants on scenarios in which general strikes play a key, and even central role early in a process, in the middle, or later. Likewise, saying organizing revolutionary unions for a general strike naturally increases the level of class tension within society and with it the level of violence, is also quite strange to me. Such formulations are so broad, so general - and yet you are talking about contextual situations that vary enormously over time and geography. Some places, firstly, such tension is or will be incredibly high, regardless. Other places it may be less, and violence relatively low, but this could as easily be due to the scale and effectivity of strikes as despite them. In fact, most often that is the case.

When you say “this increase in violence coupled with a lack of clear vision for a post-general strike society leads many people to conclude that anarchists are in fact advocating chaos, and I tend to agree” I think it is part fair, but part not fair. There are anarchists who reject vision, and who cling to particular programmatic or strategic steps as if they are gospel, etc. But there are others trying hard to generate vision and to have a flexible strategic approach that not only seeks to attain what is sought, but also seeks to recognize and work with and not violate the possibilities of the present.

Where Marxism Leninism has as a basic part of its very definition structural allegiances that I agree are contrary to desirable aims - I don’t think that that is true for anarchism.

Regarding ideas, I of course like the radical theory put forward under the pretty horrible name complementary holism, just as you do - but I wouldn’t say it was nearly as complete or ready to be the conceptual toolbox of contemporary successes, as it seems you think. It was developed thirty years ago, offered even then as but a broad framework. I would agree it contains much that ought to be in our conceptual toolbox, but my guess is the best tool box of concepts we could carry around, nowadays, would have some refinements and addendums/additions, etc.

I agree, with you, as noted repeatedly, about developing and having shared vision, which of course we in turn need to continually challenge and improve - noting, however, that there is no point, nor purpose, in trying to have a vision that transcends what we can now know, or exceed the level of specification we need. 

You suggest we should further develop our beliefs/concepts and vision, and, when able, establish chapters and federate them. I don’t think there is any correct order or procedure, it may happen in a slightly different pattern than you have in mind, somewhere, sometime, but that is one scenario, sure.

I agree with you on having our organizations embody the seeds of the future - as I repeat at nearly every opportunity - but we need to be sober and sensible about this. We are not future people and we do not live in a future society. We can strive, as possible, to have future norms operate in our current endeavors - but sometimes they won’t make sense now, due to the context now - or sometimes we won’t be good at acting in accord with them, and will need to be patient with each other, and so on. With that caveat, and it is not a small caveat but a critically important one that can avoid calamity, I agree.

You suggest, “in time, and as resources permit, chapters may also initiate reform campaigns that move us closer to our vision and gain us popular support amongst the general public” as well as “to seek support for our program from well known progressive organisations and individuals” working in various coalitions, etc. Of course.

You suggest, “chapter members may also consider organising social events within their area. These events may include music, food and drink (maybe four events per year?). The objective would be to raise funds and consciousness amongst the community within a friendly environment that is not overtly political. So basically, people have some fun, maybe make a financial contribution and find-out about the organisation and our overall objectives.”

To me, this is strange. Of course it is fine. But when you say something so specific - it suggests you are trying to be comprehensive and precise. That raises two problems. One, as noted at the outset, is that is impossible. Two, is that it causes one to think, okay if what isn’t specified isn’t okay - not much is okay.

I guess, if this essay were written and offered as an internal thought document of the UK project you are working with, a draft proposal for now, for there - reproduced here as a matter of record and example - it would be fine. Then it would be contextual in place and time - and at most indicative for others. As is, however, I think it claims too much relevance...

For example, you say “Once a sufficient number of local chapters are up-and-running each chapter will give a percentage of its funds to help finance a mass media working group. The group will be made-up of professional and aspiring journalists plus an editorial board of members from different local chapters. Together these groups will produce media (free newspaper?) that challenges the state / corporate world view and that focuses on exposing how the current system functions in the interest of elites plus debates around campaigns on social reforms and long-term vision. In turn, local chapters will help distribute / popularise the media to the general public throughout the country.”

Do you really want to say that whether in India or Thailand, Canada, or Bolivia, things must go this way? Do you really want to propose, now, working groups that every chapter must have, regardless of time or place, and not only that, but who should be part of it, how it should be funded, and so on. Self management means chapters decide for themselves, in any case.

It is one thing to have a possible idea for where you are working, and for the moment. The idea may be brilliant, or not, for the UK, your group, now. But it is quite another thing to write down such formulations as if you think they ought to apply to everyone. That goes way beyond what I think is warranted. 

When you say we should reach out to x - and you mention the military and police - I agree that movements should, when able, do that, but said as you say it - well, if that’s it, then that’s all we reach out to? Of course you don’t mean that, but still, some will read and wonder, if this is really offered as program. And how to reach out? Well, since that is contextual, the instruction - which is what it feels a little like - is really too loose to amount to much.

I don’t think there is need to react to the rest. Again, you offer something that may make broad sense, some places, if things unfold in certain ways, as if it is a program that everyone ought to, or must, relate to. 

To me that is the main problem.

I did not go back and look at my essay, that led to yours, again. I am sorry if anything I wrote was in the same tone I am here trying to address.

This is Parecon as intentional community spread through character formation/moral suasion and recruitment to a quasi-religious CODA, ie, 'complementary holism.'

I don't think it will go very far, anymore than previous attempts. The one that got the farthest was the Mormons, who were crushed militarily in Illinois when they began to contend for political power. They made an armed retreat, or 'long march' to Utah, where they thrived for a while as an independent new order, until they again came up against the armed power and the courts of the dominant order, until they were coopted and forced to submit. they continue to grow, but only as an enforcer of the existing order. As with Catholics, they are disproportionally represented in military and intelligence circles.

Another was the plan of John Brown and his men. They had an intentional community of Blacks and whites on farms in upstate New York. Brown and his core had written a new US Constitution and system of government based on consistent democracy for all. The plan was to form liberated zones in the Applachians, from which to wage war on plantations, helping the slaves to revolt and thus expanded the liberated zones. Unfortunately, the plan was thwarted at Harper's Ferry, which they raided to seize arms for the effort.

Still another is the Amish, who continue to thrive. But they are not interested in converting the world of 'The English,' just making for the continued natural growth of their holistic community.

From the counter-cultural communes of the 1960s, there are still some survivors in small pockets. Stephen Gaskin's 'the Farm' is most well known, and he runs in Green Party primaries from time to time. Others take part in the Solidarity Economy Network, as well as their own federations. But none have a dynamic or growth or expansion, only survival in a niche, isolated from the main centers of the working class or insurgent communities.

What I find odd is the point about appealing to chiefs of police and military generals. Why would this element of the existing state power be any more supportive than any other, such as the legistative bodies or the courts? It's not like these folks have an anti-hierarchy bias.

I'm currently reading Bertrand Russell's 'Power' and thought it might offer a response to some of Steve's concerns and informs a question of my own regarding Mark's great article.

I think Mark's point 3.2 may address Steve's concerns. As Russell writes, economic power is derivative, relying on military or 'naked' power. So if point 3.2 is successful, and if the transition arrangements outlined in points 4 provide a successful political change and constitutional arrangements, then remaining pockets of economic elites would be much more limited in effect.

I would see Venezuela as an example. While economic and political elites continue to resist and seek to undermine the Bolivarian revolution, they have had little success in leveraging that power in regards to the military, which in turn has limited their ability to resist popular changes. The situation is obvious more complex than this, but I think it points the way.

Or Steve, are you more concerned with suppression of such a growing movement before it even reached the transition stage?

My question for Mark is related to his description of 4 councils for each sphere of society- economic, kinship, community, political. Often responses to parsoc include comments that it would 'involve a lot of meetings'. Russell writes that the ultimate "limit to the power of creeds is set by boredom, weariness and love of ease". While Albert and Hahnel have written (I think convincing) responses to such concerns regarding Parecon, I'm curious as to how you envision this, especially in regards to strategy and appeal, and whether all 4 spheres can be addressed in a singular nested council system rather than 4 separate but interconnected ones?

Hi Mark,

First, let me say how pleased I am to see this piece. I believe that attempts to raise these long-range, wide-lens questions of anti-capitalist strategy are always to be welcomed, and there is probably not enough of this kind of thinking going on.

Second, let me add that I agree with much of what you say, notably on the value of combining the practice of advocacy for anti-capitalist analysis and post-capitalist vision with campaigning for 'reforms' and building movements against racism, sexism, imperialism, and so on.

However, I also think that there are some missing links in your overall analysis of how we get from here to there (i.e., how we defeat capitalism and replace it with a post-capitalist, egalitarian economic democracy or -- as you might prefer to say -- a 'participatory society'). In particular, I think that there are some 'missing links' in the chain, especially within 'Stage 4.'

You write (about Stage 4) that "As our vision and strategy becomes more popularly supported and more people join local chapters we will reach a point where it becomes possible for these local chapters to begin to function as local political councils."

I don't want to read too much into what you've said, but the way I interpret this, it sounds like you believe that the sheer popularity of a proposal for a post-capitalist alternative is sufficient to launch a revolutionary process of structural social transformation. But we know that often there are cases where the great majority of citizens in a certain political society favour some kind of radical transformation, but no revolutionary process unfolds, or, if one does unfold, it is often stopped in its tracks by a process of political repression (e.g., Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, to name just one example). Under point 5.2, you add some detail to this seemingly optimistic picture: "Once we have established a functioning nested council structure, with the support of the majority of the people, the National political council will assume power. The first act of the National council will be to introduce the new constitution." Again, this seems to overstate the influence of "the majority of the people." According to a recent Harris Poll, 85% of Americans believe that "Big companies" have "too much power and influence in Washington," and 76% of Americans believe that "public opinion" has too little "power and influence in Washington." So, should we expect there to be a series of fundamental reforms of the political process, to change this situation? Certainly not. It is simply not the case that public policy or the structure of social institutions under capitalism are responsive to public opinion in this way. So, even if the vast majority -- the overwhelming majority -- of Americans became fully convinced advocates of participatory economics, this would in no way solve the problem of how to make it a reality. We would still confront an entrenched ruling class that would be willing and able to fight 'tooth and nail' to thwart our efforts at every turn, and they would be endowed with formidable political and economic resources to aid in their ruthless attempt to defeat us. In fact, their willingness to resort to brutal political repression and the suspension of civil rights would be very much enhanced by the threat posed by the popularity of radical ideas.

So, to my mind, you seem to have skipped over one of the really crucial questions: the question of how to make the transition from (a) popularizing ideas about a post-capitalist alternative to (b) actually overcoming the resistance of the capitalist class and its underlings in governement.

The 'classical' leftist view on this question would be that you overlook the role of key social sectors, notably the working class, with its strategically important role in potentially shutting down business and government operations, via mass political strikes, and that sort of thing. I'm not (right now) going to say what I think about that classical view. I just want to suggest that you've removed that strategic 'move' without replacing it with any alternative strategy for breaking the resistance of the capitalist class. This leaves a rather gaping hole in the overall strategy, I think.

In solidarity,

Steve.

This is a valuable contribution to our understanding of strategy to win a desirable world. Mark wrote: "So a second objective in presenting this program is to make radical social transformation manageable" - you definately acheived this.

I could see a book written with expanded discussion of these points. In any case it makes a great basis for a leaflet or pamphlet on radical strategy.