Reimagining Revolutionary Left Organising

Great essay Mark!

The persistence of markets, classes and states has to do with a lot more than whether we include them in our vision and strategy. The Wagner Act declared that labor was not a commodity, but it didn't have much impact, despite the vision of the Act's authors did it?

The elimination of these features of our political economy has to do with objective factors as well as the subjective, especially the level of development of the productive forces, the degree of socialization, the degree of combined and uneven development, and the degree of conditions of scarcity over abundance, especially when all these are viewed on a world scale. In many parts of the world, people suffer more from the lack of capitalism and the lack of markets, than from their presence.

I am not a 'free marketeer.' I think the beginning of economic wisdom is that there is not such thing as a completely free market or a completely planned economy. I share David Schweickart's view of segmenting markets into three--wage-labor markets which can be abolished by the degree of worker-ownership, as with Mondragon; capital markets which can be severely restricted via public buyouts or confiscations, creating public asset funds for macro planning; and markets in goods and services, which will persist for some time, with intelligent regulation for health and ecological reasons. Together with working-class predominance in government and state power, some combination of these makes for a 21st century socialism worthy of fighting for as the next step in our social order. Moreover, it would also set the stage and serve as a prerequisite of my longer-term vision of a cybernated communism wherein states, markets and classes can begin to wither away, in a high-design economy of abundance where the working day approaches zero.

The attempt to abolish markets prematurely just leads to tiered markets and black markets, and, if you gain some wisdom, you just have to bring them back later for a period. Cuba's current efforts to increase the number of small farmers and legalize farmers' markets is a case in point, and should be welcomed. As i've said, I think history has absolved Bukharin over Stalin, Trotsky and the anarchists on this matter.

It's exactly on the early question of self-management that the goal posts were moved. I asserted that workers in Mondragon owned their firms, hired and fired their managers (they as worker-owners can't be fired), set broad policy via their worker assemblies, one worker, one vote, dealt with managers day-to-day via their factory social committees, and had far fewer supervisors in the plants, which gave them a big edge over their traditional rivals. This worker self management, to be sure, although certainly not the ultimate or only form. But my critics here then said, no, it's not. This doesn't count as worker self-management; it's not the real thing (goal posts moved). It's all a sham, and is really subjugation of the workers to a new boss class, the coordinators. It has to be replaced, not improved, because it doesn't match up to their Parecon notions and/or because it succeeds in the context of a market economy.

I'm not saying anything new here, just repeating the earlier arguments made. But perhaps the summary will help some get clearer on what's at stake.

As to whether my summary is a caricature or insulting or unfair, I'll let the reader decide, and also whether I might have the same beef against my critics.  The thread is here for anyone to read.

As to vision and reality, my own long-term vision is of fully cybernated communism--where work merges with play, where toil is done by automated machines, where the working day approaches zero, where classes, markets and states wither away. I confess there's not that much original with me in it; Karl Marx put it forward, for the most part, long ago.

But I'm wise enough to know that a division of labor, classes, market and states are going to be around for some time, and can't be done away with simply by revolutionary zeal or fiat. They persist for reasons that we do best to master, rather than simply rail against. The strategy and tactics for getting from here to there are necessarily in the midterm, and the strategy and tactics relevant today, in nonrevolutionary conditions, even more so.  So yes, my approach adapts to markets, classes, and states--opposing what can be opposed, and making use of that which we are required to employ to advance larger and wider goals.

But the devil is in the details, as it always is, and therein resides our differences.

In a dynamic web design we all know the necessity for separating the content from the structure. Socio-political thinking is no different conceptually. As both these aspects exist in their own rights, we can characterize political content  as personal and the political structure as public. In participatory politics, when you protect the public from arbitrary decisions, it is the structure that processes all the personal content being applied.

One problem in this discussion is the goalposts keep moving.

I started by giving a few elementary examples about how we needed leadership, democracy and varying degrees of centralism to wage struggle and get things done. I reject outright being 'blind' to the 'coordinator class,' with has no objective existence as such, in my opinion, and the phenomenon it refers to is better described as a coordinator strata within and across existed classes, precisely because it avoids sectarianism toward people who hold these positions to one degree or another.

But in an effort to get away from debates over Lenin's ancestry, or the role of anarcho-syndicalism in a brief period in Spain, or of the theoretical debates among and between Stalin, Trotsky and Bukharin, I've tried to anchor the debate to an existing and living example, the 120,000 workers in some 200 firms in today's Mondragon Coops, which are being used as a model here--two new firms in Cleveland--and elsewhere throughout the world.

Here's a case where worker own their firms, hire and fire their managers, and set policy at annual worker assemblies. Not good enough, since they have a division of labor, hence a hierarchy. (first goal post moving) Well, they have their own worker-owned university where they can gain skills to move into other positions, including managers. Not good enough either, since it's not Parecon's 'Balanced Job Complex.'  Then there's the matter of 4.5 to one pay ratios based on seniority and skills, the top scale for the managers (It's around 800-to-one here). But this is inequality (second goal post moving), remuneration is not in large part on the basis of effort, as in Parecon. These firms also lead the Spanish economy precisely because they have far fewer supervisors (anti-hierarchy point) to pay and have high quality product produced at less cost. No good, because they are still producing for a market, and are under 'market pressures' (third moving on the goalposts). I suppose anything that works under market conditions, then, is thus flawed.

The lesson I draw here is that no matter what one puts up, it's always possible to be more ultrademocratic, especially if you've put actually existing situations out of bounds. In fact, if you do well, it's proof you're wrong.

Of course anything can be improved, including MCC. I quoted them on how there are no angels or utopias there, so don't bother looking for them. What they do have is a practical and thriving example of worker ownership and control in their region. But for my critics, it's all an illusion, the subjugation of the blinded workers concerned to the dreaded 'coordinator class.' It needs to be replaced, not improved, and certainly not seen as a positive model. Those who been to MCC, taken part in its university, and now are trying to create and adapt similar firms here are on a fool's errand--the two startups in Cleveland, you see, sell their products in a market and have a divsion of labor, and so on.

So yes, at a certain point, one simply cuts through the Gordian Knot here. We're not going anywhere. The saving grace is that at least I've learned a few things about my opponents that I didn't know before, even if it means I'll be less likely to invite them to help on a common project.

I re-read Mark's essay which this informative discussion started off discussing. I thought I would quote from it-

"Another primary activity that members may want to get involved in is working in solidarity with other organisations on joint campaigns.  Again, such activities create opportunities for members to meet others to discuss vision and strategy in ways that create a healthy and non-sectarian dynamic" (my emphasis)

I'm not suggesting that the discussion end, or that agreement is necessary. I do sense it sliding towards sectarian positions rather than seeking to engage and work on points of (apparent) agreement and provide clarification on areas of disagreement.

Rather than have the discussion degenerate a refocus can allow for some constuctive outcomes- creating agreement and solidarity rather than mere disagreement.

I should qualify what I said. I've only touched the surface of what's been written about Mondragon. My comment is in regard to the limited set of things I've seen, and to the uncritical way Mondragon is often promoted by progressive writers. I've got a copy of William Whyte's study sitting here which I've only just started on, and it will be interesting to see the picture he presents.

But I have a basic objection to a structure that is based on a conventional hierarchical division of labor and then a formal workplace democracy structure imposed on that. I think that is likely to lead to the kinds of problems that Kasmir brings out. I think it's particularly undesireable to present this model as if it were an adequate conception of an authentically worker-run economy. I don't think this can be done in the context of a market economy anyway because of the pressures on the firms. The firms will all be seeking to maximize surplus of revenue over expenses, just like capitalist firms. I can't buy market socialism.

I think what will happen is that they will have to offer perks and hierarchical privileges to attract people with certain kinds of scarce expertise in the context of the existing capitalist economy. It's noteworthy that the wage differential has grown over time at Mondragon, from 3 to 1 to 4.5 to 1.  It's also likely to generate inequality between workers in different firms for a variety of reasons. In the Spanish revolution they had this problem in the textile industry. Competition between collectivized textile mills was disastrous...each competing with each other for scarce markets and inputs. It led the socialist and anarchist unions to jointly merge all the textile plants under a single Textile Workers Council, to eliminate the problems generated by market competition.

When thinking about an alternative to capitalism, what I'm concerned about is looking at this from the point of view of how the working class can liberate itself from subordination and exploitation by dominating classes. Kasmir's study gives very powerful evidence for the conclusion that workers at Mondragon are still subordinate to a boss class. If there are studies that refute her contentions, then it would be interesting to point them out.

I love it...Books and studies you disagree with are 'promotional' and 'propagandistic', while those you agree with are 'scientific' and 'in-depth. Moreover, it's not an ad populum; it's a call for all-sidedness. I've gone through the range of works on the topic, and talked with many people who been there, and people who have gone to Mondragon U. But those are commonly available, so I don't think it will help with those in opposition here. All I can say is buy a plane ticket, take a few weeks off, and go see for yourself.

Meanwhile, if the practice of Mondragon is to be the dividing line between us, so be it. It's as good a place to draw the line as any, and better than most.

Mike is correct. It's not valid to simply add up how many books are pro versus con. Many of the "pro" books are essentially pomotional or propagandistic. The one "outlier" book is an in-depth sociological study by a British sociologist who spent a great deal of time in the Basque country doing interviews and collecting data. To refute her conclusions it's necessary to actually address her arguments, which Davidson doesn't bother to do. Meanwhile Davidson completely dismisses the vast experiment in workers self-management in Spain in the '30s...workers running most of the economy... with the single comment "they were crushed."

I don't think it is a bad thing that there are these sorts of disagreements on the Left that we see here in this debate. In fact I think it's inevitable. People have different values, they have different experiences, they come from different communities. And by people trying out different approaches we can see what is more likely to work.

I gave the example of the Mondragon Cooperatives, which actually exist, as institutions that promote partcipation, equity, solidarity and so on. Save for one outlier book, almost all accounts agree with my use of this as a valid case in point. But it's not accepted on this thread, unfortunately.

Carl: "Moreover, you can't even run a large university as a 'committee of the whole,' let alone an entire country. Beyond the locality, participatory democracy, of necessity, turns into representative democracy. And when we pick our representatives, we don't simply draw lots, but seek who we think can do the best job according to a range of qualities, and so on for the next level up. What we try to do is subtract wealth, privilege and family power from the equation, and look to merit as we define it. No matter what label you put on it, that makes for elites and hierarchies. Our task is to make them fluid and responsive, not to deny their existence with word games."

Thanks for sharing. As I said before, you don't have any vision of a revolution where the working class liberates itself and ends up actually managing the industries and controlling the society. "Merit" is the ideology of the bureaucratic or coordinator class. It's how they justify their power over workers.

The business about running a university as a "committee of the whole" or a society with no representatives is a strawman fallacy. People here have refuted this before, but you continue your formulaic responses. It's as if you have a certain playbook "How to respond to the libertarian left". And there are various formulas in this book, "Always call them 'anarchists' even if they don't". "Always contrast 'anarchism' to 'Marxism' and wrap yourself in the 'Marxist' mantel...even if the real issue is not Marxist ideas but Leninism and state socialism", "Always accuse them of dumb things like never having any representatives" and so on.

—

Lenin was certainly not a member of the working class. He was from the landed aristocracy. His mother was the descendant of German immigrants to Russia in the 18th century and she owned a large landed estate. Lenin inherited enough money from her that he didn't need to work. He was listed in the St Petersburg city directory as a "man of letters."

Lenin was the equivalent of prime minister on the Soviet government, the Council of People's Commissars. This body was nominally accountable to the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Congress. But in early 1918 the Bolsheviks had packed the Central Executive Committee with 100 bureaucrats...representatives of the highly centralized Russian trade unions and soldier organizations. This violated the soviet principle of direct election. But it served its purposes for the Bolshevik leadership. By 1918 they were already ruling by decree...not even bothering to submit decrees to the nominal legislature, the Central Executive Committee...because they didn't have to.

Also, the political police, the Cheka, was accountable only to the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party...another violation of the soviet principle. When the Left SRs were in a coalition government with the Bolsheviks in early 1918, the Minister of Justice, Shteinberg, was a Left SR and the police should have been under his authority. But he could never control the Cheka...they answered only to the Bolshevik Party...it was really a party political police force....used to harass their competitors on the left.

Moreover, there wasn't even real representative democracy at the local level. In the  spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks were defeated in soviet elections in 19 ctiies in European Russia. And they simply refused to abide by the results of the election. They used military force to remain in power.

Carl is good at slinging the "anarchist dogma" epithet but not so good at explaining why a separate administrative/bureaucratic class is necessary. Nor is it clear why the working class should fight a revolution just to put in power a new group of bosses to whom they would be subordinate. It is possible to have delegate congresses as the legislature for a whole territory with assemblies at the base level still being able to exert control...through direct election of the delegates, requiring report backs, having the right of recall, and referring important decisions back to the base assembly. Also the delegates need not be full-time professional politicians/bureaucrats.

It isn't a question of "anarchist dogma" but of the very basic question, Who will be in power? Who will be running the economy and the country as whole? As early as Nov 1917 the Bolsheviks set up the Supreme Council of National Economy, charged with the responsibility of creating, top-down, a plan for the whole economy. People on this council were appointed from above. This eventually evolved into Gosplan in the '20s, the Soviet central planning agency. This approach is inherently inconsistent with workers' self-management of production. And then there is the advocacy of bosses in workplaces appointed from above beginning in 1918, application of oppressive Taylorist work organization, hiring thousands of czarist officers to run a top-down military machine accountable only to the Council of People's Commissars. With the nationalization of the economy in 1918 and elimination of elected worker management boards, the die was cast. The subsequent bureaucratic mode of production was prefigured in these various directions at the outset.

Carl asks, "As for Tom, does being against 'Partyism' mean that you're opposed to groups of workers and intellectuals forming a democratic political instrument capable of taking political power and wielding it democratically for a protracted period of socialist reconstruction of the new order and the deconstruction of the old?"

yes. a party is a minority. "political power" in this case is a euphemism for state power. a state is inevitably an instrument of some dominating and exploiting class. what i'm for is mass independent worker organizations, such as unions directly controlled by workers, taking political power. It's the working cliass as a whole that needs to possess political power, based on the worker asemblies and neighborhood assemblies, for it to be the power fo the working class itself.

political minorities have a role to play. I'm not against that. as organizers and educators. but the working class needs to develop its own independent movement...independent of union bureaucrats and politicians...to take over the running of industry and create a directly democratic form of governance.

this is a fundamental dividing point between Leninism and libertarian socialism.

Carl, If you think the differences between us are about "anarchism versus marxism," you've not been paying attention to what I've said. I said that I'm not arguing against Marxism. Back when I was a libertarian Marxist I was also a syndicalist and held similar politics to what I do now. There are in fact anarcho-Marxists and they are not inconsistent.

My argument wasn't against Marxism as a set of social ideas. I was arguing against the strategy I called partyism. Historically most marxists were partyist but there is no reason a Marxist has to be. Socialist partyism came historically in two forms, social-democracy and Leninism. The libertarian socialist left does reject Leninism, and, like me, most also reject your market socialism.

Like you, social-democracy and most Leninists tend to put off ideas about working class self-emancipation from subordination and exploitation by dominating classes so far into the future that it becomes meaningless...it acquires the sort of status the Second Coming has in Christianity.

If you want to say that it is the legal concept of ownership (I thought legalities were part of the "superstructure" in Marxism?) is what defines class, then who was the dominating and exploiting class in the old Soviet Union, Mao's China or Cuba today?

In Marxism a distinction is made between "minor" classes and "major" classes. A major class is any class such that a society could be organized around its characteristic way of making a livelihood. So the present system is called "capitalism"  because the plutocracy are the dominant class, and they make their livelihood out of their ownership of capital. An authentic socialism...not the fake "socialisms" of the 20th century...would be a worker-managed economy. Now, the reason that the coordinator or bureaucratic class can be regarded as a major class, in the Marxist sense, is because a class of this sort was the dominating and exploiting class in the old Soviet Union and the other "Communist" countries.

Their class basis isn't ownership of assets and private wealth accumulation, but a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and key forms of expertise relevant to management of social production and society in general.

You refer to a "managerial class" as if it's different than a "coordinator strata" (who are they?) even tho managers are the quintessential coordinator class occupation.

In regard to the people who you call "small producers," I take it you're talking about people who own their own tools and are self-employed...such as a self-employed plumber with his own truck. I do not regard them as a class apart from the working class. They have the potential to become small capitalists if they grow their business to the point of having employees.

"Professionals" are not a class in my opinion. Rather, the largest number of them are part of the skilled section of the working class, along with the blue collar skilled trades, as I see it. The fact that RNs, librarians, and school teachers and newspaper reporters nowadays often have college degrees doesn't mean they have power over, or participate in management power of ventures or other workers. The working class is segmented in various ways, and one such way is between the more skilled "upper" working class and the "lower" working class who compete for relatively less skilled jobs. With the lower working class in the USA being so beaten down in recent years, this segmentation has, if anything, grown worse.

High-end professionals (lawyers, financial officers,  asset brokers, engineers) who advise management and work with them in defending and elaborating financial and legal interests of firms and technologies and work flows to control workers...these people are part of the bureaucratic or coordinator class.

Conservatives in the USA will harp endlessly on the "opportunities" for upward mobility as an argument that there isn't a system of class oppression and exploitation in the USA. You use essentially the same argument in the case of Mondragon. If your argument is valid, why aren't American conservatives right then? From the fact that a minority of workers in Mondragon can advance into management, it nor more shows this is not a structure of class domination than the fact that a sizeable minority of the children of the working class moving up (into the professions or middle-management) shows the USA is not a system of class domination and exploitation. Sherryn Kasmir wouuld say you're wrong about the Mondragon coops having fewer managers than comparable capitalist firms in the Basque region. She provides evidence for just the opposite...that the Mondrgon coops have more managers than comparable capitalist firms.

Cooperatives are a kind of reform within capitalist society and they are likely to have various limitations as do reforms in general. Nonetheless, there are other models of how a worker cooperative could be organized than Mondragon...less hierarchical and more collective...such as a cooperative that tries to create jobs that balance for empowerment effects. Your comfort with managerial hierarchy makes sense from a Leninist point of view...but it's also incompatible with the liberation of the working class from subordination to a dominating and exploiting class.

You've basically not come to grips with the rank failure of socialism in the 20th century. Who was the dominating and exploiting class in the Soviet Union and the other "Communist" countries? How can that be avoided in the future?

In fact I believe that a society without classes could be constructed in a relatively short time in a period of transition...not the generations or centuries you envision. Nor is it necessary to imagine some impossible idea of "total automation" for this to come about.
 

I'm not sure how useful this dialogue is since you continue to repeat yourself, Carl. The name "coordinator class" is possibly misleading. i've found this to be the case in discussions with people. Sometimes people make the same mistake Carl makes here of supposing that the "coordinator class" is simply defined as "people who do coordination of work". To repeat my example, a taxi dispatcher might have no managerial power but coordinate the work of the drivers. She's not a member of the "coordinator class." Okay, so let's use the term I sometimes substitute, the "bureaucratic control class." I think we know who this class is.

Over the past century corporate capitalism has evolved and developed a particular division of labor for the control and exploitation of workers. In persistent de-skilling and re-org-ing of work they developed an elaborate managerial hierarchy...people who are not capital owners but who the working class is subordinate to, and controlled by, in the workplaces. This includes the legions of middle-managers and the various "professions"...which often didn't exist in the mid-19th century...like engineering, accountants and financial officers, architects, coporate lawyers and so on, who work directly with management in helping them with running the enterprise, developing plans and defending the legal and other interests of the firm. This layer in the companies and the state is the bureaucratic control class, as I call it, it's what Albert & Hahnel call the coordinator class. Again, as I pointed out before, this is not all "professionals." There is an even larger group of "professionals" who I regard as being a part of the skilled segment of the working class. Where they fall has to do with the particiipation in the power of management decision-making and planning and so on.

The working class cannot be free, but will continue to be dominated and exploited, as long as they are subordinate to this class. The Communist countries all had economies controlled by this sort of class. This is precisely at the heart of Communism's failure. We need to absorb and understand the lessons of that failure.

What we need to do, then, is to analyze what this class does, and figure out what is actually needed and what is there only because it is required by a system of  domination and exploitation of the immediate producers. What would need to happen in a revolutionary process is to re-organize the structure of decision-making and the definition of the jobs and the nature of education and training, as it applies to workers, to empower the working class to be able to directly manage the industries themselves.

Now, it is in fact quite instructive to look at the Mondragon cooperatives...to see what is not an adequate solution. Their cooperatives may provide certain benefits for the communities as a reform in the context of capitalist society...but they are no model for workers management. This is because superimposed on a nominally democratic structure of election and assemblies is the same hierarchical division of labor as we find in capitalist corporations. We find workers working 40 hours a week running a machine in the Fagor stove factory or doing cleaning or other physical labor. But they have no time to learn financial planning or engineering...and in Sharryn Kasmir's interviews they complained of this and of being treated as subordinates by the managers.

The way jobs are organized isn't just about how to produce the product...it also has effects on the people. If some people are in charge and giving orders and doing the planning, this empowers them, and they develop a sense of confidence and of entitlement to be making the decisions. These are "empowerment effects", in the language of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.

What we need to do is to re-design the jobs so as to distribute these empowerment effects. There needs to a re-design of the jobs so as to ensure that skills and conceptual work and decision-making tasks are more broadly shared. It's not only "anarchists" or Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel who advocate this. There are also some writers and thinkers in the Marxist tradition who advocate this. Harry Braverman advocated this. Michael Yates advocates something like this at the end of his book "Naming the System."

As I pointed out, some of what "managers" do is a kind of police work...tracking and monitoring and pushing, for purposes of labor exploitation. This is what accounts for the huge growth in the proportion of managers in the USA since the '20s...now 15% of the workforce. Some of the work they do is still needed. But to retain the same titles as under the capitalist division of labor is to imply continuation of the class relations. in other words, when you say that there needs to be a "plant manager" in a factory, this assumes that the job description that goes with what a manager does in a capitalist corporation would still apply even after a revolution. this means the relations to the workers would be the same. And I think that is unacceptable.

As I pointed out in the case of the revolution in Spain in the '30s, the workers didn't have some powerful individual with the same title as the old managers in the industries they expropriated. Typically the former shop stewards council was converted into an administrative council. The elected delegates did have coordinating or orchestrating roles. And this was merely in the initial stage of a transition.

I've had discussions with co-workers over the years about workers managing without bosses...and people understand what I'm talking about. Social ararchism or anarcho-syndicalism does not have huge numbers of activists in the USA, so I can understand why you might never have run into any in factories...but they do exist. In the '80s my organization had groups in the meatpacking industry in the upper midwest and in the textile and garment industry in the New York area. Nowadays our membership is more concentrated in healthcare, education and retail.  Of course in countries where there are more working class anarchists you will encounter anarchists in factories...in Spain or Brazil for example.

I've worked in blue collar jobs and professional jobs. I've worked in gas stations, in newspaper production, in college teaching, in computer hardware manufacturing and the software industry. As part of various writing tasks over the years I've interviewed workers in various industries. I've also done numerous interviews with workers in the course of various writing projects. I think I know what managers do.

Why the focus on factories? The bureaucratic control structure and division of labor is the same in public utilities, transportation, retail and healthcare to what exists in factories. Nowadays the same taylorist methods are used and the same managerial despotism exists there.

Presumably you are suggesting there is little current support for eliminating the managerial hierarchy among factory workers. I think that the extent to which such ideas take hold depends upon the development of class consciousness and libertarian socialist ideas within the working class. But the issues for factories are not fundamentally different than for transit systems or distribution or other areas of the economy. If you're a Marxist you should be familiar with the concept of "class formation"...of the process of the working class moving from being a class "in itself" to a class "for itself", in Marx's terms.

In regard to the state, there is not a single unified theory that Marxists have agreed to...and the same is true of anarchists. Engels presented the view that the state came into existence with the emergence of class society and is an administrative layer that is separated from effective popular control, standing over society. Now, I agree with that conception of what a state is. A political governance system for a society doesn't have to be a state in this sense. I already agreed that there is some inevitable element of representation in governance over a large territory...but we can ask what the relationship is to the base of society. Are these non-professional delegates who still work a regular job part of the time? are key issues or controversial questions referred back to the assemblies at the base for decision? is the ultimate armed force based on a democratic organization controlled by the pople...the armed people? or is it some professional hierarchical standing army beyond actual popular control?

The fact that a political governance structure exercises coercive force against external enemies or crimimal elements does not make it a state...that is obfuscatory. I already agreed that it will be necessary for the governance system to do this. Even tribal organization of society in early hunter/gatherer bands could do this...and these were forms of social organization where there was no state according to Engels. But of course you can continue to repeat the same formulas over and over again if you wish....

Briefly, the Spanish revolution went further than any other in history in creation of an economy directly managed by workers, and workers ran the industries for two and half years. For Carl, however, their example can be dismissed because "they were crushed." But worker management of the economy was successful. It was the people's army that was defeated...after the Communist Party gained control of it. It was defeated partly due to overwhelming advantage in foreign military aid to the fascist side from Hitler and Mussolini (as documented by Gerald Howson) and mismanagement and demoralization of the army by the Communists, as described in Antony Beever's "The Battle for Spain" and in some of the interviews in "Blood of Spain." But worker management of the transport systems, which I mentioned, was quite successful.

Carl, you  advocate managerial hierarchies, market governance of society and the continued existence of the hierarchical state apparatus. That looks pretty much like what we have now. It seems to me you are proposing various reforms within capitalism...some of which I might agree with you on...but in terms of socialism, your vision seems to me just changing who the bosses are. Why the heck should the working class fight a revolution for that?

I didn't say I was for "abolishing authority"....I said the opposite. I also didn't say people should never be in a position to "give directives." If a person is coordinating work of others, they are giving directives. The issue was different: I'm talking about a class power relationship. This is where in a society there is a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and key expertise related to planning and decision-making in the hands of a few. Those few will thus dominate workers under them. This is in fact the structure that exists in the Mondragon coops, this existed under Yugoslav fake "self-management", and it exists as a subordinate class within corporate capitalism. So long as this *class* exists, workers will not be free. It's as simple as that.

Management doesn't just "issue directives." They decide on the technologies in use, how jobs are defined, who gets what job, policies that govern the workplace, have authority to hire and fire people, they monitor people and track their work and discipline them for infractions. Because they can fire people or re-assign them to less desireable jobs or suspend them, they are in a position to threaten them. And hence they exercize coercive authority over them. This is not the same kind of "authority" as someone who is a lead or "supervisor" without authority to hire and fire who simply coordinates.

I was not the person who introduced the word "authority" into this discussion. You did.

Now, what  job balancing means is that these kinds of tasks and skills are broadly distributed within the working class. And thus we're talking not about something that can be achieved within capitalism, but something that a socialist society needs to embark upon at the outset. Within a libertarian socialist society, the point is to have a systematic approach to education and job design that  realizes this aim.

Within such an arrangement, the useful tasks that are now done by the coordinator class would still be done...including coordination of work, developing plans, dealing with friction and personal conflicts in the workplace.

Now as to its allegedly being impossible to run workplaces this way, during the Spanish revolution the former shop stewards committees were converted into administrative committees, and assemblies of the union sections became the regular worker assemblies. The administrative committee was responsible for coordination, but often members of this committee also continued to work at least part of the time at their old job. For example, a Revolutionary Railway Federation was created to run the railways. They hired an executive director but the national coordinating committee consisted of 12 delegates who continued in their old jobs. In each railway terminal there were assemblies every two weeks. The elected delegates who coordinated the work had to give reports and could be removed at any time if the workers were dissatisfied. This sort of structure is just a beginning because there also needs to be a process of training rank and file workers to do engineering and other skilled jobs and to understand finances and planning and other tasks related to administration. Even so, they did what you say can't be done.

In regard to Engels' word games, I know that Engels was pointing out that the capitalists (and I'd add, managers) are forcibly removed from power, from their ownership of assets. But my point is that he was calling this "authoritarian" as a way to criticize the liberetarian Left....and this is what you're doing too. The problem is, the libertarian Left would agree that force is used in this case....but they aren't being inconsistent since they don't use "authoritarian" to refer to "any use of force" or "any situation in which someone is forced to do something." If that were so, every possible society wouldl be "authortarian" because in any feasible social arrangement the society's governance system will have rules and ability to enforce those rules, and this means use of force.

Rather, "authoritarian" is used as a description of institutions and how institutions are run. Institutions are "authoritarian" to the degree that they are despotic in their relation to the people they govern. Also, policies or political practices could be deemed "authoritarian" to the degree they propose undemocratic, despotic methods. Removing a despotic regime in which a minority dominate and exploit others does not count as "authoritarian" insofar as it falls out of a democratic mass movement and is working towards the creation of social democratization. If you want to say that "it is authoritarian towards the capitalists", I will simply point out that this is not how "anit-authoritarians" use the word "authoritarian." That's why it's  playing games, which is not very helpful.

Carl,  "Authority" refers to decision-making. Wherever there is decision-making, there is "authority." Let's consider rather the concept of self-management. This says everyone is to have decision-making say or "authority" as you put it, in proportion as they are affected. Self-management in this sense is part of the positive concept of liberty.

If there is something that is only your business, then you are the person who should have control over that...that is your own personal self-management of your own affairs. But many decisions are social and affect groups of people, and the idea is that if a group is mainly affected by some sphere of decision-making then that group should have collective control over those decisions.

Another part of positive liberty is having roughly equal access to the means to develop one's potential. When we're talking about social production, these are related in the following way.

 Within corporate capitalism a new main social class emerged in which decision-making authority and key kinds of expertise needed for decision-making authority came to be concentrated into the hands of  a few. Tarylorism is based on this idea. When the "scienfitic management"  movement began in the 1890s there were very few engineers (mainly in certain new fields) and technical expertise was still mainly the province of skilled workers. Since the World War I Taylorist principles have been applied systematically, and have gone hand in hand with the building up of a huge managerial bureaucracy, and the creation of certain "professional" groups who are repositories for, and responsible for developing, certain key kinds of expertise that management wants to use to control the enterprise and the labor process, such as design of jobs and equipment and software to control workers.

So the new class consists of the ranks of middle-managers and high-end professionals who work with management, such as lawyers, engineers, HR experts, financial experts, management consultants etc. We can call this the "bureaucratic class" or the "coordinator class" (as Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel do). These are the bosses that most working class people deal with day to day in corporations and government agencies.

This class participates in the exploitation of the working class. They do so in virtue of the power and responsibility accorded to them as the bureaucratic control element, which earns them substantial wage premiums, stock options and so on, and also enables them to accumulate things like houses, some small investments, etc.

The hierarchy in skill and knowledge also exists within the working class. There is a minority that is the skilled section of the working class, both blue collar skilled trades and lower-level "professionals" like school teachers and RNs and newspaper reporters. The majority of the working class is the lower working class...people who work in jobs requiring only common skill levels, little training, working in more repetitive types of work, usually under close supervision, and making lower wages than the more skilled layers.

But people in the skilled layer of working people do not effectively participate in the management of ventures or departments, are not part of a boss class, even if sometimes their work involves giving some direction to aides. Their higher wage rates reflect the fact that they are exploited to a lesser degree than the lower working class.

Nor is a person a part of the bureuacuratic control class simply by virtue of helping to coordinate the work of others, such as a taxi dispatcher or a "lead." I've worked as a "lead" in a project with six others whose work I helped to coordinate but I had no power to discipline them or force them to go along with what I said. There are some jobs that we can consider to be borderline cases...and sometimes people are called "foremen" or "supervisors" or "assistant managers" but have little real authority over other workers. Some times a particular worker may be given some job of reporting on others as a way of sowing divisions and assistanting management in their work.

Now, the proposal for re-integrating the decision-making and skilled tasks, and learning and knowledge that goes with it, with the doing of the physical work...the sort of thing Michael Albert calls "balanced jobs"...is intended to assure the working population of effective ability to participate roughly as equals in the running of the workplaces and industries...and in society more generally. If people must work 40 hours a week or whatever running a machine, driving trucks, cleaning, whatever, when will they have the time to learn the things needed in order to effectively participate in the running of an industry? They won't be able. They will in practice be subordinate to bosses.

Another feature about the coordinator class is that understanding the basis of this class enables us to answer the question, Who were the dominating and exploiting class in the old Soviet Union?

Much of the work of middle management is essentially a police function. This accounts for why the size of the coordinator class varies significantly between advanced capitalist countries. In the USA managers are 15% of the population but non-Anglo-Saxon advanced capitalist countries have a much small bureaucratic bloat.

Managers do do some useful tasks that would still need to be done...and coordination is one of these tasks. But this can be combined with a person who does some of the physical work, or does the coordination only for awhile as an elected coordinating commmittee member, etc. Even more importantly, the expertise and skills needed to run industries need to be broadly shared within the workforce so that there is not a class of people who simply forced to do the donkey work, the least desireable tasks, or the tasks that give the least empowerment, in terms of skill development and effective participation in the industry's direction.

This business about "authority" seems to be derived from some word-games of Engels back in the 19th century. Sensible libertarian Leftists do not say that "all authority is to be abolished." It's a question of how authority is to be re-organized. "Authoritarian" doesn't mean merely "excerdise of authority." If people refer to a government as "authoritarian", they mean it is repressive, runs against popular opinion, is despotic in its methods. Capitalist management is "authoritarian" because it is despotic.

Contrary to Engels, a working class revolution to get rid of the power of the boss classes would not be "authoritarian." It would be an act of liberation. Calling it "authoritarian" is like saying that someone who retrieves a bicycle that was stolen from them by taking it from the thief is a "thief." The process of taking over the capitalists' assets and removing management from power is unlikely to occur with their blessing. It will have to be forced on them. But the idea is not to set up some new authoritarian structure or to substitute some new despotic form of management for the old.

In regard to why Leninism leads to the empowerment of a coordinator class, we can look at the early path pursued by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. What was their trajectory? The local Soviets set up by the Mensheviks were highly top down affairs...controlled top-down by the executive committees, usually members of the "intelligentsia"...plenaries of delegates were treated as a mere rubber stamp. The approach is one we should be famiilar with. It's the concept of "representative democracy" where the citizen's only role is to elect people who are given the authority to make the decisions. when the Bolsheviks gained majorities in the soviets they didn't change this...because they shared this assumption with the mensheviks. The Russian trade unions were also set up as highly centralized bodies controlled top down by their national executive committees. This was why in the revolution Russian workers formed a large independent shop commimttee movement based on assemblies.

In Nov 1917 the regional organization of factory committees in St Petersburg proposed that the factory committees should gain self-management power over the whole economy and hold a congress to develop from below a plan for the Russian economy. The only political tendencies in the revolution to support that move were the libertarian socialists and syndicalists. The Bolsheviks scotched that idea. Instead once they'd gotten the Congress of Soviets to put them in control of the central government they set up, a Supreme Council of National Economy, entirely appointed from above by the government, to develop, top down, a plan for the national economy. And Lenin vigorously insisted that worker delegates were not to be more than a minority on the regional bodies set up under this planning apparatus. And shortly thereafter in the spring of 1918 you had the beginnings of the move for "one-man management"....appointment of bosses from above...and the creation of a top-down conventional army run by thousands of czarist officers paid nice salaries to do so. Now, what we can see here are the beginnings of an administrative layer with dominant control over the Russian state and economy, that is, over the immediate producers.

In his study "Before Stalinism" Sam Farber, by way of explaining these tendencies, points out that Russian Marxism, in both its menshevik and bolshevik forms, never really believed in direct democracy, or building direct participation by rank and file people, they didn't see this as important. What was the important thing in their view was gaining control of the central government. Their conception of democracy was representative democracy...election of people to make decisions for you, not direct participation by people affected in charting the decisions. Thus Trotsky, for example, to defend one-man management and the hierarchical army he organized, made an analogy with a trade union. He said that just as workers control of the union was in election of officers, the election by the working class of the Bolshevik party in Oct 1917 was a form of worker control. Note that he conceives of democracy in a union totally in terms of representative democracy, not the members making the decisions.

This view that democracy is representative democracy was one of the main influences on political Marixsm....the Marxist parties...in the years before World war I. Organized political Marxism did not put an emphasis on direct democracy or self-management....those were ideas developed by the libertarian Left.

Thus we can see that 19th century liberalism contributed significantly to the weaknesses of the left. In the case of the anarchist left, some anarchists were influenced by the liberal idea of "autonomy" to the point of veering off in individualistic directions. But the debilitating influence of 19th century liberalism on organized Marxism was its poverty-stricken conception of democracy.

Now, I have no beef with Marxism as a set of ideas. When I first got involved in the radical left in the late '60s/early '70s, I participated in a Marx study group and read and was influenced by various Marxists...such as G.D.H. Cole's "The Meaning of Marxism." I still have my well-worn copy of that and it's been re-read numerous times. The first radical group I belonged to defined itself as "socialist-feminist". Around that time a member of the Los Angeles group "The Resistance" sort of converted me to anarcho-syndicalism, and brought my attention to the Spanish revolution and the role of anarcho-syndicalism in that revolution. So in the '70s and '80s I ended up working in an anarcho-syndicalist group...but I continued to agree with Marx's ideas, including his theory of history. My viewpoint in that period was sort of "libertarian-syndicalist-Marxist-feminist." Since then I've developed some more criticisms of things like Marx's theory of history but I still agree with a number of ideas from Marxism. The truth is, anarcho-syndicalism and the more working class-oriented wing of anarchism share a number of ideas in common with Marxism. So, as I say, my beef isn't with Marxist ideas.

However, Marxism historically has had a kind of dual meaning. On the one hand there are the social ideas. And, on the other hand, there is a political tradition....of Marxist political organizations. The thing about the history of political Marxism is that it's main strategic orientation has been partyist. That is, the idea is that socialism is to be achieved by building up a political party that rallies behind it the oppressed groups of socierty and then uses this social force to capture control of a state (either the existing state or a new one built for this purpose) to implement its program top-down through the hierarchies of the state. Of course the two historic forms of partyism are social-democracy and Leninism.

I think that neither social-democracy or Leninism is capable of being a path to the self-emancipation of the working class. The very fact they must work through the state in a top-down way will tend to favor and empower a coordinator or bureaucratic control class.

An alternative to partyism would be to think in terms of social change being driven from below by mass social movements, mass organizations, such as worker organizations and other kinds of social movement organizations, forming some sort of alliance and working out a common aim or program, what Steve D'Arcy calls a "common front".

One of the problems I have with much of the "Reimagining Society" discussion is that the focus is so much on the "vision" or program for a new society that what can be lost sight of is the process of self-emancipation, that is, the strategic path of change. Marx held that a revolution is necessary because it is only through a process of struggle that the working class...the majority of the population...change themselves, develop their knowledge, concsiousness, confidence, abilities...to "fit" themselves to take over the running of society. And on this point I am in agreement with Marx.

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.[to Humpty Dumpty]

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' [My Emphasis --CD]

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

Carl, you write: "So 'temporary' hierarchies are OK but 'permanent' ones are not?" I didn't call it a "temporary hierarchy".  A strike committee isn't a hierarchy as I use the term. Certain of the workmates are delegated the task to do coordinationa work, such as logistics around a strike, which is an action that presumably their coworkers have approved. They will be controlled by the fact that they have to continue working with the others and can't force the others to do things they don't want to do in that situation. This is not a hierarchy.

A hierarchy is a power relationship where there is a relative monopolization of ownership, expertise or decision-making authority. A worker committee might end up creating that sort of situation...but it might not. If we look at how AFL unions became bureaucratized originally, workers who were elected as a delegate might have gained quite a bit experience and knowledge doing that...negotiating with employers and so on. When they were fired, as they would often be, workers then hired them...and that was the origin of the "walking delegate", which became the business agent system. The problem here is that if the representative did nothing to train their co workers on how to do what he was doing, then they might become dependent on him. In AFL unions this then led to the development of circles of cronies of leaders, dependent on the paid rep doing favors for them, and it was a political machine that kept that person in office. But worker committees do not have to develop in that bureaucratic trajectory.

Carl writes: "When workers take a vote and decide by a solid majority to strike, should they make it binding on all, even those who voted ‘No'? That means should they use the social pressure at hand to sanction scabs? Moreover, should the workers elect a strike committee? Should they empower it to make tactical decisions in secret, subject to later review?"

I have no problem with what you've described here. Scabbing is job theft and destructive to workers' class interests. It needs to be opposed. This would be true even if this were a union where not all the workers were members...perhaps an open shop situation.

but the role of a strike committee is merely delegating a task temporarily to a group of one's workmates. This is not setting up a permanent hierarchy...such as a union executive board made up of paid officials who hire staff and monopolize various aspects of running the union. 

I disagree with most of this article, but I think it’s illustrative of many things holding back the development of strong left organizations. So here goes: 

Lesson 1: Reject Democratic Centralism

This is supposedly to wage class struggle against the nascent ‘coordinator class’ in our organizations that are trying to grow.

But let me pose the classic counter-questions: When workers take a vote and decide by a solid majority to strike, should they make it binding on all, even those who voted ‘No’? That means should they use the social pressure at hand to sanction scabs? Moreover, should the workers elect a strike committee? Should they empower it to make tactical decisions in secret, subject to later review?

I would answer ‘Yes’ to all of the above, and note that the Flint Sit-Down Strikes couldn’t have happened otherwise. And contained herein are the core principles of ‘democratic centralism’—the majority rules, and the minority goes along with the decision in practice; the organization has leading bodies, with a division of labor and a hierarchy; and not all knowledge is always shared with everyone, the organization can have secrets, as needed.

Having been in several democratic centralist organizations, I’m also well aware of where the dangers, distortions and corruptions are—not permitting factions, not permitting horizontal communication among cadre, restricting debate and access to publications, cooptation of new leadership by the old, and several more.

But if you want organization that can fight and win battles, that can sum up gains, sustain itself and grow, you had best not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

Lesson 2: Reject Monist and Pluralist Approaches to Organising

How one rejects BOTH ‘monism’ and ‘pluralism’ is, to be kind, something of a Zen riddle, like ‘what is the sound of one hand clapping?’

But the argument here is that making priorities means the same as ‘privileging’ one or several types of oppression over others.

That’s simply a huge non sequitur. Of course, not all organizations have to make the same priorities—some can decide to organize Blacks in communities, others workers in factories, and still others students in community colleges. In terms of strategic overview, one could even argue at given times that all the categories of oppression are equally secondary to, say, a Wall Street crash or global de-industrialization. In any case, an organization, to grow and thrive, needs a plan of work and a deployment of forces, none of which can happen without deciding on priorities. If everything is equally a priority, then nothing is a priority, there is no plan of work and no organization to grow. 

Participatory Democracy

This position argues: “As an alternative to democratic centralism I would like to suggest participatory democracy.  Unlike democratic centralism participatory democracy has no hierarchical division of labour.  Instead, to ensure an anti-elitist culture, a participatory democracy strives to distribute empowering and desirable tasks out evenly amongst its members. “

One major organization of the 1960s New Left, SDS, when participatory democracy was its main feature, still had a hierarchy, in fact several of them, all with pluses and minuses. One was whoever could afford to come to a quarterly ‘national council’ meeting. They got to make decisions, and those who didn’t, couldn’t. Another was our teams of ‘campus travelers’ and ‘regional organizers.’ These people made all sorts of decisions among themselves, which helped the organization grow to a mass scale. We set up semi-autonomous ‘elite’ projects, based on knowledge and commitment, many of which thrived beyond SDS and are still around—NACLA, Radical History, Venceremos Brigade, and others.

SDS failed for many reasons, and this is not the place to go into them. But a critical structural problem was its lack of the organizational tools to resolve serious differences—and this shortcoming created a situation wide open to the wrecking activities of the FBI’s Cointelpro provocations, and similar negative activates. But to think that participatory democracy—a core value I still uphold—is some magic wand is illusory

I do agree with this paper’s point about ‘shared vision’—not that all the left is going to share the same vision, but one group or even an alliance of groups can, and this is to be worked for.  But I also think that any given group does best to pick the vision most of its members share, and use that as a working hypothesis, rather than try to implement a multiplicity of visions at once. That’s a recipe for self-sabotage.

Mark, Thanks for your reply. Now we're making a little progress. When I say that my organization is "anarcho-syndicalist", what this means is that, from a libertarian socialist theoretical/social point of view, we adocate self-managed solidarity unionism as a strategy and this has been an important (but not exclusive) focus  for us. I've been an anarcho-syndicalist for over 30 years and I've always understood it as a particular strategic focus, not a worldview. But it's okay if we disagree about the words as long as we understand the substance.

In the early 20th century the socialist left in general tended to focus to a very great degree on the labor movement, which was regarded as its social base. Thus certain people on the libertarian socialist left in that earlier era did tend to view a syndicalist labor movement as the be all and end all, as you suggest.

Over time the radical left broadened its focus. To a large degree it was forced to by the new social movements of the past half century. This comes back to the point i made about humans learning things bit by bit...this applies to movements, too, such as the socialist left broadly considered. In the case of radical movements this is affected by where the visible fault lines in society are, where struggle is actually taking place.

Now, i have to say i'm not entirely clear in regard to your idea of a political organization based on participatory democracy. I mean, I entirely agree with you that a political organization should be based on a horizontal, participatory form of democracy, so that it's controlled by its members/participants. In my experience, however, people come together to form political organizations because they already have certain agreements (or hopes) about what they want that organization to do. It's not just a forum for discussion. Forums for discussion are also a good thing to have, and we don't have enough of them, but it's not the same thing, it seems to me.

michael, what you say about the views of some anarchists is no doubt true. but in nothing I've written in these dialogues have i made it my business to defend anarchism in general. what I did defend is a particular approach to one sphere of struggle...and that's what anarcho-syndicalism is. i also said that work in this sphere should look towards an alliance with other social movements and be conscious of the forms of oppression other than class, both in the way they affect the workplace situation and the society at large. I also did defend the contemporary current within anarchism that adopts an intersectional analysis.

Mark you write:

"When I describe anarcho-syndicalism as a pluralist approach to organising I'm not arguing that it only organises in the political and economic spheres. What I am arguing is that anarcho-syndicalists tend to prioritise struggles in the political and economic spheres over struggles in the kinship and community spheres. If your organisation adopts an intersectionalist / complimentary holist approach to organising then I would say that you have transcended anarcho-syndicalism."

People who are active in particular movements or mass organizations will inevitably "prioritize" their work there. Are you suggesting that a person must figure out what all the different areas of oppression are and spend some balanced portion of their time working in different movements/organizations in the different "spheres"? maybe i don't understand what you mean.

My organization is a libertarian socialist political organization whose members are involved in a variety of areas or "spheres" as you would call them, and we have been thus involved in various areas since the '80s. but an essential part of our perspective is the development of self-managed solidarity unionism, as I called it in my essay. as long as one sees the importance of that and supports that, one is supportive of anarcho-syndicalism. anarcho-syndicalism is a particular strategy. it has never claimed to be an overall worldview. to put this another way, anarcho-syndicalism is merely an application of social anarchist/libertarian socialist ideas to the workplace struggle. these ideas can of course be applied also in other spheres...to struggle against the prison/industrial complex, struggles of tenants, and so on.

i think it would be helpful if you explained more of why you think a labor/social movement alliance won't work. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Hi Michael, bell hooks is actually considered one of the main sources for the idea of "intersectionality." I'll suggest a distinction from the philosophy of science that may  help here...the distinction between a heuristic principle and a hypothesis. I read "Liberating Theory" but I don't think it offers an actual social theory. As I recall it didn't propose empirical hypotheses about the actual causal relationship between the different structures of oppression/exploitation. Rather, I take it as proposing a heuristic principle, that we should be always looking for these impacts, or "intersections" as the advocates of intersectionality would call it.

but I will also say that i object to any form of wholism because it is inconsistent with how human beings learn. people pick up one fact at a time. but wholism says you don't know anything unless you have already figured out all the inter-relationships throughout reality. Think about the way that people grow and learn from being involved in struggles and movements. it's well known for example that when workers are involved in major strikes or other major campaigns, they may initially start out only thinking about their own situation, but in the course of reaching out for support elsewhere and relating to others, and getting a better handle on how the system screws them, they learn about how other people are affected and learn more about the various structures of oppression. this is true for struggles in various "spheres." people need others, to develop a collective solidarity, so they have to learn about what is important to those others.

i also don't find the language of "spheres" helpful. when I think of what a "sphere" might be, i think of family life versus the workplace for example. but structures of oppression aren't that concrete, they're patterns or structures across society. certainly the family is very central to structural gender inequality and the workplace is very central to understanding the basis of the class structure. but the  gendered division of labor spreads out across society and the power of the dominating classes spreads throughout society also.

when you refer to the base/superstructure metaphor, you're talking about Marx's theory of history. but even this most central feature of marxism is being questioned by some marxists nowadays. in her latest book Ellen Meiksins Wood suggests it's just a vague metaphor that may be misleading.

and it's not relevant to anarchism. anarchism is a rather vague term. it's most basic analytical ide is probably hierarchy. anarchism is opposed to the state only because it's a hierarchical institution, an institution of domination. like marxism modern anarchism arose in the context of the radical workers movement which is where modern anti-capitalism derives from. most marxists and anarchists still retain a class struggle based point of view. since you presumably don't deny the existence of the class struggle, you'll presumably agree that this is still a part of the whole picture we need to retain.

as Martha Ackelsburg points out in her study of Mujeres Libres, it was the fact that anarchism didn't subscribe to the base/superstructure idea that intellectually the women who founded Mujeres Libres were free to view women as being su bject to a form of oppression distinct from class and not reducible to it while retaining their intensely class conscious viewpoint also.

in any event these political traditions evolve as the activists grapple with social reality and are motivated to develop their ideas in new ways. and this brings me back to my point about how people learn. this applies not only to invididuals but to whole political traditions.

Paul,

My question for Mark wasn't historical. He's not talking about a situation in the distant past but today. As I pointed out, many anarcho-syndicalists nowadays, including me, would agree that oppression is multi-faceted and that workplace based mass organizations are only part of the picture. I think I've said this on mutliple occasions and in various ways...in my own piece on self-managed solidarity unionism and here and in my piece on anarchist political organization. I'm not  sure how many times I have to say this. When you talk about gender inequality having a basis in the family and the gendered division of labor in caring work throughout the society you're preaching to the converted in my case. What i did argue is that the struggle against patriarchy and racism needs to shape the movement in the workplace struggle. This is not a claim that it can substitute for other social movements but that it needs to be influenced by, and develop alliances with, other social movements. Similarly, I'd argue that feminism also needs to absorb a class and race perspective. This is precisely what "intersectionality" is all about.

So if we agree that "on its own anarcho-syndicalism can't account for things like patriarchy" and so on,  why can't it be then part of the picture? And if it's part of the picture, what's the objection to it? Like Mark, your comment here seems to be directed against someone who holds that anarcho-syndicalism does claim to be the whole picture as far as what is required for the movement for a different society...but in fact it isn't necessary to view it that way -- and that was precisely the point of my historical reference to Mujeres Libres (as an early beginning of a shift that has gone much further in more recent decades) -- and many anarcho-syndicalists nowadays do not view it that way.

The class struggle is a reality. How do you propose that we relate to it? What does participatory economics/participatory society suggest in this regard?

Tom in response to Mark you wrote:

"Moreover, if you're suggesting that anarcho-syndicalism was focused only on struggles of workers as such against employers and the state, that is not an historically accurate picture. In the Spanish revolution the women who formed Mujeres Libres, the anarchist women's organization, were as committed to anarcho-syndicalism, as a strategy for class libeeration, as they were to women's liberation. But they regarded women's liberation and class liberation as distinct but complimentary aspects of the fight for social liberation."

I'm not sure that Mark was suggesting that anarcho-syndicalism and other justice struggles (like feminism) cannot be complementary, or exist side by side. It is just that on it's own, anarcho-syndicalism can't properly account for things like patriarchy - even if efforts to eliminate it in the workplace and the political system are successful, it will still be regenerated an reproduced within the family/kinship "sphere" or "relations" if you prefer. Mujeres Libres is a good example of that, as a large reason why it was set up was because the Spanish anarchist movement itself was generally quite patriarchal, in spite of it's rhetoric.

hi justin, thanks for the questions. i don't think of the workplace based organizations or unions as the only or most important organization or focus of struggle. it's just one strategy area. it is crucial because ultimately the power and assets of the capitalists and coordinators in the economy needs to be removed and it's hard to see how this is going to be done other than by the workers in the various industries themselves. but other focuses are crucial also.

although the workplace may be a focus of struggle it would be a mistake to think of it as only "economic" struggle because issues of gender inequality and racial inequality and discrimination against the non-straight also takes place there, and decisions there have great environmental and community impact. part of the idea of an "intersectional" understanding of class is that the other forms of oppression intersect with the actual people who make up the working class,  but i'm not saying that oppression on lines of gender, race -- or class for that matter, are to be dealt with only by workplace based organizations, but only that they do need to be addressed by workplace based organizations.

there are other social movement organizations that arise in other contexts than workplaces and deal with a wide variety of areas of struggle. an effective anti-capitalist movement needs to be based not only in workplace struggles but in an alliance of social movement and labor organizations who develop increasing ties and an alliance or "common front", as steve d'arcy calls it, against the system. these other organizations also will need to deal with various "intersections" in their own areas of organizing as well. thus we have environmental justice organizations which deal with the environment from the point of view of how environmental impacts affect communities of color or working class communities or indigenous communities, for example.

Mark,

You write:

"Another example of pluralist organising is anarcho-syndicalism which seems to prioritise the struggles within the economic and political spheres over those taking place within the kinship and
community spheres."

"As an alternative to monist or pluralist approaches to organising I suggest a "complimentary holistic" approach.  Such an pproach means understanding that struggles for liberation within the kinship, community, political and economic spheres are all equally important."

Anarcho-syndicalism, like other left traditions, has evolved over the years. Anarcho-syndicalism isn't a theory but a revolutionary strategy for getting rid of capitalism and empowering workers. As I described in my Resoc essay, libertarian syndicalism is a strategy based on the development of what I called self-managed solidarity unionism.

You seem to think that it is necessary for anarcho-syndicalism to hold that struggles in the "economic and political spheres"  are the only thing that are important. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "political sphere" in this context.

Also, when you counterpose struggles in the "economic and political sphere" to struggles around gender and racism/national oppression, you seem to be assuming that the latter don't take place in workplaces (or other parts of the "economic and political spheres") or that workplace organizations can't also address these areas...and I don't see why that is so. Struggles around discrimination and environmental justice for example often take place in the "economic and political spheres" even though they may be gender and race/national oppression struggles, partly or mainly. This is one of the problems i have with this talk of "spheres."

Moreover, if you're suggesting that anarcho-syndicalism was focused only on struggles of workers as such against employers and the state, that is not an historically accurate picture. In the Spanish revolution the women who formed Mujeres Libres, the anarchist women's organization, were as committed to anarcho-syndicalism, as a strategy for class libeeration, as they were to women's liberation. But they regarded women's liberation and class liberation as distinct but complimentary aspects of the fight for social liberation.

Nowadays quite a few activists who agree with a libertarian syndicalist strategy take an "intersectional" approach that views the various forms of oppression as intersecting in various ways in the lives of working class people. The working class in the U.S. is very heteriogeneous, and includes gays and lesbians, transgendered people, women, African-Americans, Latinos, people with various disabilities, and so on.

Thus many anarcho-syndicalists in various countries would agree with you that struggles against all the various forms of oppression are equally important. This is in fact the position of my own organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, which comes from an anarcho-syndicalist background and supports an anarcho-syndicalist workplace strategy. But we don't see this as the only sphere of struggle, by any means. We would see class, race/national oppression and gender as equally important.

I personally prefer the language of "intersectionality" to "complimentary wholism" but maybe this is just a difference of terminology. So, assuming that we agree that the worker struggle "sphere" is one of the aspects of struggle of the oppressed and exploited, would you agree that the anarcho-syndicalist approach to it makes sense? If not, what would be your alternative? And how would you see that as following from "complimentary wholism"?

Since we're talking about "approaches to organizing" here, I'm trying to get a sense of what "approaches to organizing" you do support. You mention the idea of a political organization around participatory society and "solidarity work with other organizations" but I don't have a good sense for what sorts of organizing you would support in the various "spheres".

If you agree  that there are all these various spheres of struggle...gender, race/national oppression, workplaces, environmental justice and so on, wouldn' this suggest then a strategy where the various social movement organizations or mass organizations in these various areas develop some sort of popular alliance or, in Steve D'Arcy's words, a "common front"?