Solidarity and Participatory Economics

Carl:

You write that I think "1. An economy of the future will have an allocation system. All economies do. If it is markets or central planning, then that economy will not be a solidarity or a participatory economy."

You are correct, I do think that. I believe - in fact I think it can be proven about as well as any claim about economics or society - that markets and central planning are not just not part of parecon (by definition) but are antithetical to self management, equity, etc., produce class division and class rule, and obstruct and even destroy social solidarity.

You say, I guess thinking it is a reaction: "'Of the future' is rather vague. But for the foreseeable future, almost all the SE projects I know of sell their goods and services in markets, and have to do well enough at it, maintaining a market share, so as to be able to pay their bills and otherwise be sustainable. So even if they are 'anti-market' in principle, the had best set that to the side and figure out how to compete in a sustainable way."

I was part of establishing such an institution, South End Press - with almost zero resources - thirty years ago. It was and remains anti market. It does sell books, via the market - no alternative exists, you are correct. But if its actors had taken the view that our task was to be best at that we would have done almost everything differently, to horrible effect. And that is just an isolated project - in a sea of horrors - not, for example, say, thousands of workplaces and other economic units in a country like Venezuela...which, if they see themselves as setting aside their rejection of markets in order to succeed, uncritically on the market, would doom all chances, in my view, for Venezuela to attain as you say, a participatory or solidarity economy.

You have two points here - one markets exist, to ignore them or operate as if they are not there is delusional and suicidal. I agree. Two, markets exist, we have to operate in the context they in part set, so we should set aside our anti market thinking and acting and work as they dictate, etc. otherwise we will fail, and that is obviously not useful. This is, however, false.

Now take factories in Argentina. They are occupied. They start up without owners. They want to be egalitarian, equitable, democratic, etc. One option - they adopt and make forefront an analysis of the faults of markets, understanding how markets push against their innovations and values, etc. In light of this, they operate in the market, yes, but also trying to develop other allocation procedures and steps, and, more, understanding the ill effects and thus being prepared to deal with them. Second option, they say, ah, market shmarket - that is irrelevant and for the future - and so they compete like others, endure the effects, are blind to them, and blame the return of inequitable relations, hierarchy, class difference, alienation, etc., on human nature, becoming despondent, etc.

I prefer path one. And that, again, is without looking at the broader society - thus efforts to bypass and replace markets on the large scale.



Next you say that I believe "2. An economy of the future will have a division of labor. All economies do. And if this includes sequestering empowering work into the hands of a few while most do only rote and obedient work, that future economy will not be a solidarity or a participatory economy."

Again you are correct, I do believe that, because having this type corporate division of labor guarantees a class division between workers below and coordinators above - destroying solidarity, self management, etc.

You then say, "'Sequestering,' 'rote' and 'obedient' are also rather vague or ambivalent."

Well, yes, but you wrote those words, here. And I do not think there is anything vague or ambivalent about parecon saying that instead of 20% doing primarily tasks that convey empowerment, and 80% doing primarily tasks that disempower - all should have a balanced set of responsibilities so all are broadly comparably empowered in their work, and all are thus prepared to fully participate in economic decisions. I have never had anyone who works in a factory or any workplace not understand exactly what balanced job complexes were about, very rapidly...

And that is just a tiny paragraph - but as you know, there are whole books on the topic.
You then suggest that "'balance job complexes' isn't the only way to skin this rabbit" suggesting that another option is (a) respecting all work, and (b) having the option for workers to go to school to gain credentials and knowledge requisite to occupying empowering positions.

I say, yes, we should respect all work, but respecting washing dishes does not make washing dishes a job that conveys skills, knowledge, information access to levers of daily choices, etc. that empower the person doing the task.

And - if you have a society that has 20% of the jobs empowering, let's say, and 80% not - then, in fact, the school system will graduate 20% ready for the former, and 80% willing to or resigned to accept the latter. In other words you will have a school system that literally robs the initiative and creativity of most students - as does ours, for example. If, instead, you actually had all 100% of students graduating into adulthood, so to speak, expecting and prepared to manage their lives, to have empowered and engaging work, and so on - then you would have a problem. Either society would provide that to everyone, with balanced job complexes - or society would have a rebellion of immense proportions to deal with.

You next write that I think "3. To have solidarity requires classlessness. Solidarity won't be extensive if some own the economy and others only labor in it. It won't be extensive if some rule the economy and others only obey in it."

And again you are correct - if we have capitalists owning or coordinators ruling - while workers produce in jobs that are overwhelmingly disempowering - we will not have classlessness, by definition, nor solidarity, self management, etc.

You then wrote, "Some of us in the SE movement worked on a public school we consider part of the SE. It's written up in the 'Solidarity Economy' book mentioned. One of the things that makes it work is its partnership with about 20 hight-tech, high road companies, as well as unions and community groups. This is a cross-class partnership promoting both cooperative and high road private ownership, built into the schools mission--all aimed against the load road economy.  'Classlessness' doesn't make sense here.
Maybe not...I'd have to know more. But your words are a non sequitor to what went before them. Both can be true.

It is as if you think that to reject corporate divisions of labor, markets, private ownership, means one cannot accept that they currently exist and that one has to operate in context, in part, of their existence. But that is false, obviously.

You conclude "If Pareconish firms are to be the standard or even the lodestar for the SE movement, I think the ball is in Michael's court. It's his task to produce the compelling examples from current thriving projects, not just compelling ideas."

Actually, that isn't true, and presumably you know this as well. So, let's suppose there really were no examples, that south end press, or Z, or the various outfits in Canada and elsewhere, did not exist - so that nothing in practice could be pointed to as full instances of a pareconish workplace, and suppose as well that we couldn't point to all kinds of actions, activities, and features that are partway pareconish, as well. Even if that were all true, would that say that nothing can be had and advocates of parecon should shut up? No. Of course not - if so, no new idea or aspiration could ever be voiced. This is the kind of argument people make against peace, too, or feminism, and so on.

So, (a) there are pareconish workplaces, modest ones, to point to - some that I know of, most I think I don't. (b) There are tons of instances of activities and features, and studies too, that bear out aspects of parecon. And (c) everything you want to point to as SE, by virtue of SE being anything you want to point to, basically, I will wager if you describe those efforts fully I can suggest various steps that might be undertaken - not cataclysmically, but sensibly and soberly - that would move them further in desirable directions, further toward being inspiring, being models, benefitting folks now, etc. etc. And that last point is actually a real touchstone for arguing the merit of parecon as a vision that SE might wish to discuss, debate, perhaps even adopt. Would being for parecon's features provide a perspective and orientation to SE activity and projects and organizing that would make it better - short and long term - or not?

 

By Len Krimerman

CLARITY, YES – BUT HOW ACHIEVED AND ABOUT WHAT?

Michael,
You have raised an important question about SE:

...some degree of clarity about what SE stands for might be good!....there is a sense in which SE's vagueness makes for some arbitrariness, on the one hand, and perhaps for a lack of overall impact - on the other hand.

Yes, there is some unclarity about the boundaries of SE; it’s often vague just what belongs to this growing movement and what is excluded from it. Whether this has been detrimental, as you suggest, is another question; I know of no tangible evidence that supports that concern.

There is however a different and, I think, much more profound issue: “How – and about what – should SE seek self-clarification?”

In their article, “Building a Solidarity Economy Through Real World Practices” (in Solidarity Economy, edited by Allard, Davidson, and Matthaie), Emily Kawano and Ethan Miller offer a provocative response to this question. They seek clarity, but do not offer or rely on any “specific definition of the solidarity economy”; instead, they prefer to utilize “a process through which participants would define it themselves”. Rather than “a few people coming up with a ‘big model’ of how the economy should be organized” – a tendency they attribute to the “Left” – they see the “solidarity approach” to self-clarification as

... more of a dialogue to bring people together to find common ground from which to organize and build movements.

The Kawano and Miller article actually describes a workshop in which this bottom-up and dialogical approach was used at the Atlanta US Social Forum in 2007. Participants were provided with “stepping stone cards”, each of which briefly described a single solidarity economy initiative. In small groups, discussions took place about these initiatives with the aim of discovering the “values and principles the Stepping Stones held in common”. The result was considerable agreement around this consistent set of six principles/values:

• stewardship of the environment/sustainability;
• cooperation;
• shared well-being (with an emphasis on the importance of diversity);
• equality;
• exploring and promoting non-monetary and non-traditional forms of wealth;
• democracy and participation.

The “Stepping Stones” exercise exhibits in miniature how the solidarity economy writ large is endeavoring to define itself. Pioneering practitioners have been inventing new forms of economic activity; they are making the paths we all need “by walking”, and not by following pre-constructed definitions, models or revolutionary recipes. A framework of shared values and principles which can help define SE then emerges from reflection on these practical inventions, on what has worked well and what hasn’t, what they share in common, and how they can link and ally with one another to gather more strength and larger constituencies.

Thus the call for more clarity is addressed, but in a way that most fully respects the basic bottom-up democratic spirit of SE. Practice becomes primary; the role of theory, reflection, research is a secondary or supportive one; e.g., identifying where and how disparate SE initiatives can collaborate, or helping to “animate” SE practitioners in their own efforts at self-definition. (For more on this, see M. A. Rahman’s People’s Self-Development.)
On the whole, I am drawn to this bottom up and dialogical approach to clarity. But by itself, or as framed by Kawano and Miller, it leaves some important questions unaddressed. How, for example is it decided just who – which practitioners – can engage in that process: should AID, which often generates economic opportunities for marginalized groups, while remaining an arm of US military policy – be included or excluded?
In addition, consider this statement from veteran SE activist Dan Swinney:

There’s a crisis that’s global, that’s environmental, that’s economic, and this is destabilizing our world....While I’m heartened by what we’re doing, I know that we’re way behind the growing power of the Low Road, and we are losing at this point. We urgently need a program that speaks to how we would differently organize the economy in a comprehensive way from the micro to the macro level. (from Solidarity Economy, op. cited)

Or this, from a spokesperson for Brazil’s avowedly anti-capitalist MST:

In the 20 years of the MST, and with all the struggle that we have had along with other rural social movements, we have settled 580 thousand families, 350 thousand of those during the eight years of Fernando Henrique’s government. But the evaluation of FHC’s government is negative because if we achieved the expropriation of 16 million hectares of land for 350 thousand families, in the same period due to other policies of property concentration, through buying land from their neighbors or the appropriation of public land, large land owners have accumulated more than 70 million hectares in their patrimony. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7036
João Pedro Stédile interviewed by Otto Filgueiras January 16, 2005 Gazeta Mercantil

What these two quotes illuminate is that there is a need for clarity about more than “principles or values”. That is, the clarity arrived at by the Stepping Stones exercise, or by iterations of it throughout the solidarity economy, will not automatically yield the sort of “program” Dan Swinney is calling for, or reverse the sort of losing battle dramatically highlighted by the MST case. For this, a different level of “clarity” is needed; i.e., consensus around what could be called “oppositional strategic priorities” (OSPs), ones that gain ground against global capitalism; that take power and resources away from the Low Roaders and remake and reallocate them within solidarity institutions. For SE to become all that it can be, I submit, some of its current practices must be seen as less and some as more desirable than others, even if both are informed by “principles...that have been articulated around the world as characterizing the solidarity economy”.
To take a perhaps controversial case: the Grameen Bank, and many other micro-credit initiatives. Critics have argued, I think rightly, that

the effectiveness of microcredit programs to reduce poverty is unclear. In Bangladesh, the Grameen Bank determined that its microcredit program raises 5% of participants out of poverty each year. But...these conclusions are misleading. The Grameen Bank reaches out to 20% of the Bangladeshi population. As a result, the program lifts 5% of that 20%, or only 1% of the total population out of poverty each year, while the population increases by 1.8%. In other words, microcredit does not eradicate poverty; rather it makes it easier for countries to live with poverty. www.globalization101.org/index.php?file=news1&id=58

In the current global economic climate, microcredit as a poverty alleviation tool, by itself, is analogous to giving a man a fishing pole, and telling him to go fish -- in the wake of a giant trawler whose net spans the horizon. http://www.ieo.org/kav001.html

This does not imply that micro-credit programs are always part of the problem or should all be condemned. But to be considered a “best practice” within SE such programs would need to be firmly connected to an OSP that did not contribute to or leave people exploited by global capitalism; nor could they remain dependent upon outside capitalist sources of finance capital.

In this way, AID micro-credit programs could be sharply distinguished from those supported by India’s Self-Employed Womens Association (SEWA), in which participants have formed their own Bank and won union recognition. Clarity would then have much sharper edges.

Len,

Thanks for the very serious reply - it is long, so I will try to be succinct...to keep the reply manageable...

You point to three aspects of your article, I think wondering my reaction...

You identify "several of SE's most prominent initiatives as pioneers of new, up-scaled, highly participatory - and institutional - forms of democracy." And I of course support and appreciate each - seeing each, by the way, as well, as part and parcel of seeking parecon...and a participatory society, too...

You "call for a much expanded SE focus on building so-called support organizations, that is, ones which offer crucial resources for starting, maintaining, and growing SE enterprises." Again, of course I support the idea. But I do think SE enterprises is a very vague phrase and I don't actually know what qualifies, and what doesn't.

You "strongly recommend an institution-building alliance between SE and what I called solidarity governance (SG). These latter grassroots activists are challenging the nation state's claim to exclusive authority, and have created ways to share governance and remake power by inventing new forms of direct democratic governance." Again, no problem from me. And parecon is really just one part of participatory society, including participatory polity - you might take a look at Stephen Shalom's essay on the latter.

But the one thing I would add, so far, is, while I like the list of specifics you offered, I feel, for example, there are even more inspiring other relations, too, for example in Venezuela, Bolivia, etc, and it seems to me solidarity needs to include solidarity for movements around the world seeking more just relations, in all domains of life, even as SE emphasizes economic aspects.

You say, "For the most part, this seems to be proceeding in a bottom-up direction; that is, the sole or primary criterion for second tier, support, or larger scale institutions seems to be whether they are "woven together" by and serve to protect the self-determination of ground level grassroots groups."

I am not sure I get this. Of course we favor, both parecon and SE - I hope - bottom up grassroots activism, structures of self management, etc. etc. But being grassroots, or ground level is not necessarily the same as being exemplary, or even good...obviously. And presumably, even while favoring, as an example, a group of workers at a GM plant, creating a new way of working together inside the firm - or for that matter, supporting a small feeder business that was instituting some new relations in the auto industry - we would/should also support firm wide or industry wide efforts at desirable innovations as well.

You "call for SE to adopt the following principle of cross-organizational or cross-movement collaboration; this would apply between grassroots initiatives, but also in the creation or remaking of institutions of whatever size or scope."

Once again, what's to dislike? Except that it is a bit vague as in - what if there is a grassroots racist organization, or sexist one, or classist one, and so on. I presume the answer is, well, obviously, that has nothing to do with solidarity. But, it is often not so simple...I think. So while regimented norms are probably unecessary and counter productive, some degree of clarity about what SE stands for might be good!

You urge that "SE ENTERPRISES COLLABORATE TO BUILD A JUST, FULLY DEMOCRATIC, AND PEACE-BASED SOCIETY.
They collaborate with a diverse range of other grassroots democratic or citizen-shaped groups to build, and share power in, a fully democratic society whose institutions, resources, and opportunities are accessible equally by all, and where non-violent dialogue and conflict resolution are widely used to prevent and manage conflicts."

Okay, very nice. But now arises the question, what steps and structures propel that aim, and which ones incorporate, if elevated to a matter of principle, the seeds of dissollution of that aim? Suppose there is a capitalist firm that says because we produce something nice for people, or we do neighborhood service, or something, we are an SE firm? Are they? If not, why not? If so, why? Microsoft, I am quite confident without looking, I admit, probably does more social services, by volume, than any other existing SE firm, and can claim to produce nice things for people, including the disabled, etc. yet, I doubt SE would welcome it aboard. Or the U.S. government, say, is that an SE institution?

In other words, there is a sense in which SE's vagueness makes for some arbitraryness, on the one hand, and perhaps for a lack of overall impact - on the other hand.

Then you add that you think my "view appears to be somewhat at odds with this bottom up, and primacy of practice, approach."

Really? I spend my time building and working on alternative instittuions. I support them in many ways. I seek an end to top down decision making in all domains, and so on.

But, yes, it is also true that I am somewhat at odds with the idea of "the primacy of practice" if that phrase means one cannot apply one's mind as well, discerning what acts and approaches - now, as well as in the long history we can examine - are harmful and which ones are promising - and then cautiously rejecting the former and advocating the latter.

My guess is that you would not want to be part of a leninist party. Whether you would or not, I am very confident many SEers would not want to be, probably a large majority. But why not? The hypothetical party says it is for everything SE is for. The members are sincere, indeed, taking huge risks and working tirelessly - far more so than many in SE. So why would many in SE, say, well, no, I don't think it is for me? Suddenly anything goes - no longer applies. Answer - if you would say that,I suspect it would be because you felt the Leninists' commitments would obliterate their fine aspirations, regardless of people's desires. Okay, that is, in my view, correct, but more important, wether right or wrong, it is an example of thinking about structures and deciding that one is simply contrary to the aims of SE. Does it mean SE, if lots of SE-ers felt that way, would have to in sum total make it a plank, so to speak? No, not necessarily. It might make that sensible, at some point, or it might not.

So the same holds for private ownership of productive assets, corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for property, power, or even output, and market allocation. In my view, these are contrary to SE's aims, at least as I tend to hear the aims expressed. So, I would have to argue if I was in SE, that in the long run those institutions are anathema...and that in the short run, experiments, projects, etc. that challenge those institutions, moving away form them and toward alternatives, are exemplary. I would also argue, on the other hand, that projects that innovate a bit but retain a high level of commitment to those structures, not just as temporary necessities, but as desirable in the future, are not exemplary in remotely the same degree.

You note that I asked how you "would react to parecon's proposed workers and consumers' self managing councils, balanced job complexes, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of conditions of work, and participatory planning? Could you see SE continuing to pursue its many diverse experiments and projects, but developing, over time, a commitment to these core institutions as being essential if a new economy is to be truly solidaritous and self managing?"

You answer: "My own inclination, as you know, is to be skeptical of claims about essential or necessary core institutions; such claims, in my own experience, have often divided our ranks along ideological lines and kept us from the collaborative work and mutual appreciation of diversity required to build a formidable movement."

And, in the abstract, formulated thus, I agree. But it does not answer the question to say that - unless you think that that suspicion, if you will, warrants ruling out apriori, without even looking at their attributes, any proposals for future structures.

Take Venezuela, now. Does it foster diversity and mutual appreciation, say, to assert the property rights of owners, or to argue for top down planning, or markets for that matter? Or not? This is on the agenda, now, in many places in the world.

You add, "For me, our main source of guidance in creating upwardly scaled institutions are those which have already stood the test of time, are replicable in flexible ways, and exemplify to a large extent basic SE (and Parecon) values. In this way, we make the road by walking; practice guides theory."

That's fine, but we have been walking for a couple of centuries. And all I have said is that based on those two centuries of experience there are some actually quite limited claims we can quite confidently make - about some institutions that violate the values you mention - and others that propel them. If that is ruled out apriori - I don't see how or when more talking can yield more shared insight.

You then add, "Nonetheless, the specific core institutions you mention sound a whole lot better than most allegedly indispensable institutions; they would I think be of considerable interest to many within SE - especially since there is so much genuine agreement between Parecon and SE on fundamental goals. This then in my view would make an ideal place to begin a dialogue between Parecon and SE, with the hope of it leading not only to (a) verbal common ground on what SE/Parecon institutions would or should look like, but - more importantly - (b) active collaboration to reshape current institutions and/or invent and implement more fully democratic, just, and effective (capitalism-resistant) ones."

Well, that is precisely the agenda of solidarity I think makes sense, too.

You ask: "How to start this dialogue ball rolling? One way would be for Parecon and SE folks to co-create workshops at major SE events; e.g., conferences given by the US Solidarity Economy Network(SEN), US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation, North American Students of Cooperation, and Eastern Conference for Workplace Democracy, among others."