a simple incorruptible carbon tax is best for this capitalist system. we wouldnt need such a tax mechanism for a participatory economy since the cost would or could reflect in prices of goods. that is, during the participatory planning process the price of such planned activities (among other things) would be included in final prices.

this is a long term goal. something we should be building towards.

but i think what hahnel is saying, and he will correct me if im wrong, is that while a carbon tax would be ideal that is no longer a possibility due to time and political reality at the moment. a more likely possibility and just as effective is a particular kind of cap and trade treaty he describes in his foot note. so while cap and trade is what is most likely to get passed, we should be pushing for that particular cap and trade treaty.

In Response to Antonio Carty Edwardo Issac:

With regard to the US -- and the political situation may well be quite different elsewhere.

To pose the problem as it is here: What if we have to choose between a carbon tax that is only high enough to yield a 20% or less reduction in emissions by 2050 and a carbon cap and trade policy that will yield an 80% or more reduction in emissions by 2050?

BTW 1: There is particularly strong political support among the populace for auctioning permits. Most people can't even imagine why the government would give them away for free to polluters. The free permit give aways are the result of lobbyists inducing elected representatives to act contrary to the will of the people.

BTW 2: It is unlikely that the damage that a poorly regulated US financial sector will cause over the next few decades with a new commodity called a carbon emission permit to play with would be significantly bigger than the damage caused without a new commodity. In other words, how much damage the financial sector will cause depends mostly on how successful, or unsuccessful financial regulatory reforms are, not on whether or not the US government creates carbon emissions permits for sale.

A carbon neutral energy system is necessary to avoid climate change in the long-run. As a matter of fact we may discover as the years roll on that if we don't come very close to carbon neutrality by 2050 we are in serious danger. That means that supplying all energy through renewables is necessary, and fortunately, it is also possible as you argue. However, (1) even if all economies in the world were participatory economies instead of capitalist economies we could not accomplish this overnight, (2) there are significant costs associated with the transition to a new fossil-free energy system, which means that energy conservation, not just replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources, is key to a successful transition, and (3) since we do not live in a  just economic system, who bears the burdens of those transition costs and who foists those costs onto others will  be determined by how well different interest groups fight to avoid paying to avert climate change. We need to fight effectively on the side of the angels for the devil is strong!

So, the prime question is how to achieve those 5% shifts in energy sources you describe year after year(as well as move energy conservation forward) in a global capitalist economy over the next 10 years or more. Understanding that it is necessary and technically possible is well and good. But that, in and of itself, is not going to make it happen.

In response to Paul Donahue:

I was only outlining the logic of regulation, tax, and permit programs in broad theoretical terms. There are  a host of practical issues that arise -- whether we are talking about regulation, a tax, or a permit program. One important practical issue is "how far upstream" the policy is applied. That is what you are asking about.

Most economists are in favor of applying a carbon policy as far upstream as possible to minimize the number of actors one must worry about with regard to monitoring and enforcement. Your list -- oil and gas well-heads, coal mines, and oil sand/shale plat feedstock are the "upstream" targets, although you must also add the importers of carbon fuels at all port of entre into the US as well. But designing a policy to apply as far upstream as possible is generally recommended regardless of whether we want to regulate carbon entry into the economy, tax carbon entry into the economy, or require those who introduce carbon into the economy to own a permit whose total number is capped. In other words, applying the policy upstream where carbon is first introduced into the economy is a good idea, but it makes regulation or a permit program just as  "extremely simple and efficient to administer" as it does a carbon tax.

When you apply any of these policies upstream the price of all carbon using (and emitting) activity will rise as this price is passed on by what lawyers call "first users" to those they sell to and on down the line. That is how all users of carbon fuels --whether businesses or households, whether the transportation or agricultural industries, and whether they are direct users of carbon fuels or use carbon fuels indirectly because they use inputs that carbon is used to produce --  are "induced" to reduce their demand for carbon fuels.

Robin,

Ok, I understand your response, but aren't all the tradable carbon credit schemes currently in use or being contemplated based on actual emissions of C02 (and other more potent GHG's like methane), not the carbon content of fuels produced?   For example, I work as a regulator for the mining industry, and I have read in industry magazines of schemes where coal mines can call themselves "carbon neutral" and sell all their carbon credits at a handsome profit, by merely removing the methane from the mine ventilation air emissions.  The coal coming out of the mine is not counted at all becasue it isn't a greenhouse gas - yet.  It is a similar situation with an oil refiner of oil sand processor.

Please correct me if i am mistaken about this.  Thanks.

In response to Michael McGehee:

Yes. A participatory economy has a far better way of handling this problem. As McGehee remarks, the social cost of carbon emissions would be included in the estimates of the social costs of producing and consuming different things in a participatory economy that are generated automatically by the participatory planning process so that users -- both worker and consumer councils -- would know how to take this into account and have every incentive to do so. Most importantly, unlike market systems that generate no estimate of how high a carbon tax should be, the participatory planning procedure generates an estimate of how high the carbon tax should be as part of the planning process where the goals of averting climate change as well as producing and consuming goods and services we need and want are all weighed into the balance.

But back to the present: While the albatross of capitalism remains around our necks, a carbon tax would be the best  domestic policy response because: (1) It creates no new market that can go astray. And (2) because the government automatically awards the new property right to "us the people" when they collect the tax., whereas in a tradable permit program we must win the battle to auction 100% of all permits to accomplish that same goal.

However, unfortunately we live in a country of tax-phobes. What that has meant is that either a carbon tax is declared poltically dead in the water, or the tax that is considered even discussable is so small that it would only reduce emissions by a very small amount. (Those opposed to any effective response to climate change have seized on that to now support a carbon tax instead of any of the cap and trade proposals on the table which would reduce emissions by much, much more. We must not become their accomplices!) On the other hand, due to the persuasive power of the scientific community it has become common to accept caps that would reduce emissions by 80% or more by 2050 as quite worth discussing. As a matter of fact cuts that deep how have considerable political support within the US.

If we could win political support for a carbon tax that yielded equivalent reductions to a cap and trade program that now has strong political support, I would be all for a carbon tax over a cap and trade program. But the truth is we did not, overcome America's tax-phobia in the past, and I see no reason to believe that will change in the near term.

So I think it is a worthy "second best policy"-- "second best" does not count replacing capitalism with a participataory economy  as a "policy option.." It is our best option and acceptible as long as we fight and win something close to 100% auction for the emission permits. Unfortunately, capping without trading makes no sense in a market economy. So we wil also need to fight to "tame" the permit market and prevent the "usual suspects" from speculating in their usual dysfunctional ways.

Robin,

Thanks for the update. I would add the following:

Since energy consumption is by and large (though not universally) positively correlated with income, so will the energy tax incidence, whereas a uniform energy dividend/rebate will be by definition equal for all incomes. So in this case the net tesult, i.e. rebate minus tax incidence, will be progressive -- not only in absolute terms (dollars and cents) but also relative to income. It will actually be a net loss for higher income groups, and possibly a net gain for lower income groups with energy consumption much below average.

One exception is the very bottom of the income scale, where the energy consumption curve flattens out and can even curve up: there are many incidences of poor people living in shoddy housing with bad insulation, resulting in large heating bills. Some supplementary measures would be required to make a flat dividend more progressive for these groups, i.e. extra rebates for groups below a certain level, e.g. tied to housing conditions.

Oh, and thanks for great articles, by the way. I've referred them all (as well as "A Climate Change Policy Primer") to my network in the Climate Movement here in Denmark. They will definitely contribute to our discussions around our political platform.

Cheers

JF

(Moan!!!)

Interesting that this executive recommends sending earthquake aid money to the singer Wyclif-Jean's orgainzation.  From what I can determine, Wyclif Jean is a Hatian version of the neoliberal, capitalist ass-kissing Bono!

Consider sending donations to these instead:

1. Haiti Action:

http://www.haitiaction.net/

or Partners in Progress- Haiti

http://www.piphaiti.org/

Crip - you write " My misgivings start in the first stage. You say: "Before we can begin to formulate a program for social transformation..." Stop! That's the problem right there. Everything that follows is leading to this. The formulation of a program for social transformation. That's where I disagree with your perceived role for the Project for a Participatory Society."
Then you say " If there is a role for a "Project for a Participatory Society", I believe it should be one of refining and promoting the philosophy so that people can understand how it might be applied to their own lives ..." 
Now here I think we are saying the same thing (see 1:2 and 2:2).  However, you finish that sentence by adding that " ... rather than assuming the role of facilitator or organiser of any future society."
At first sight this seems like a big difference in approaches to organising - but Im not sure that it is.  You continue saying that "If the ideas that lead to a participatory society as espoused by such a PPS are seen as worthy, practicable and desirable, ordinary people armed with a clear understanding of what it is that they are striving for will find ways of bringing the ideal into practise." 
Yes I agree!  This is, in my opinion, exactly what members of PPS should do, and it is exactly what this member of PPS-UK is doing - along with other "ordinary people" who are interested in organising for a participatory society.  What you call "bringing the ideal into practice" I call a "program for radical-progressive social transformation". 
But let's not get side-tracked by such trivial issues - lets instead have a serious exchange about the practical issues involved in creating a participatory society.  Perhaps you might consider fleshing-out your ideas in an article ("Bringing the Ideal into Practice" is a much better title than mine) and I can comment on that - if you don't use that title I will - otherwise, if you prefer, we can just continue here ...

I don't think there's any rule on where to start/pick up. Dififerent situations lead to different issues and focuses. This may sound trite but I think we start wth forthright conversations...with neighbors, colleagues, fellow workers.  Reality-based conversations without illusions about the actual nature of the society and political cuture we inhabit and the change we seek and how we might attain it through concerted action from the bottom up. But also with a lot of listening.  Solidarity starts with conversations and in conversations and susequent meetings and actions I would tend to stay away from over-doing philosophical and "ideological" labels and focus on the issue and the action in question: instead of giving a lecture on finance capitalism, no let's talk about the nuts and bolts of how resist this eviction.  Instead of a big lecture on anarchism or council communism or Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution , no  Let's occupy this plant: ..this is how.  Without elaborate long-winded discourse on imperialism, let's oppose miltiary recruitment at this high school or college...let's talk about how.  Let's occupy this congressman's office (for funding illegal wars and backing a corporate-funded fake health reform ) or insurance company office or bank HQ (etc): how. . Let's organize and speak and march and occupy against this tuition hike: how.  I'm not sayng mute ourselves on our full ideals and visions but the big, revolutionary change and consciousness we feel/know to be essential will have to emerge out of concrete and immediate struggles with people who haven't read Marx or Gramsci or Chomsky ---- nothing new. We will re-build - maybe I should say build - a left democratic presence in this country by difficult nuts and bolts work on issues that hold real life meaning for ordinary wokring folks beneath and beyond the corporate-crafted candidate-centered quadrennial electoral extravaganzas that pass for the only politics that matter in this country.

I appeciate your recomendation and in my knowledge K is aware of the legal options but the idea behind the publication is to break the omerta. In a lawsuit the facts remain in the court room and the story ends with settlement of confidentiality. I believe that publicly exposing the facts would conribute for a creation of proactive atitude. Overcoming the fear is the first step for a change and work place relations in the United States are in a desparate need of it.

Hi Mark,

Of course, the problem of 'false consciousness' is an important one, but I tried to address it in the article, so I'll re-direct you to the passage where I take up that problem:

"[C]hanging society is bound up with changing oneself, and people are liberated from oppression or exploitation by mobilizing themselves to struggle on their own behalf. At first, this self-organization, or "self-activity" as Marx called it, might not seem "truly radical" to other activists, who may think that they know better what the real problems are and what kinds of change are needed. But, in the course of such self-activity, exploited and oppressed people not only begin to change the world; they also begin to change themselves: they begin to see the potential power of collective action, to see connections between capitalism and racism or sexism or imperialism that they may not previously have grasped, and they begin to contemplate more and more far-reaching social transformations as they gain deeper insight into the systemic roots of the social problems they hope to remedy through social action. This process of politicization, sometimes leading to radicalization, may take some time, and different people will draw different political conclusions from their experiences in struggle, arriving sometimes at radical positions, and sometimes at more reformist positions. But, according to advocates of self-emancipation politics, there is no viable alternative to the difficult learning process in which social movements, based on self-organization of exploited and oppressed people, serve as spaces of mediation (bridge-building) between masses of people and the transformative agenda of radical politics. Grassroots social movements for self-emancipation are the mediating bridges that make it possible for the ambitious aims for social change embraced by otherwise-isolated radicals to connect to the grievances and aspirations of masses of people with the potential collective power to transform society from below."

Steve - you write "what I'm saying, in short, is that it just isn't true that false-consciousness keeps people out of struggle..."

I’m not arguing that false consciousness keeps people out of struggle. Im arguing that false consciousness is a major obstacle to self-emancipation.

So, I agree that "Self-mobilization of the exploited and oppressed, or of other citizens with grievances and aspirations that go unaddressed in contemporary society, is quite routine." And I also understand that false consciousness "is no barrier to self-mobilization." But neither does self-mobilization, by itself, result in self-emancipation. I think we would both agree that there is still a long way to go.

You add that when they engage in self-mobilization "people become exposed to new arguments and gain access to critical insights in the course of their self-activity that opens them up to a dynamic of politicization and sometimes radicalization." First of all I don’t think we have to wait for people to self-mobilise before we consider them open to radicalisation. This seems to me to be what we might call a "re-activist" approach to organising and I think we can, and should, take a much more "pro-activist" approach. That aside, I can see how such a dynamic could begin to bridge the gap between self-mobilisation and self-emancipation. However, it seems a matter of common sense that the success of such a dynamic depends on the actual details of the "new arguments" / "critical insights" and what form of organisation the activists advocating these arguments / insights need to set-up - after all, not all new arguments / insights and forms of organisation lead to self-emancipation.

This is where your account of the politics of self-emancipation ends, and yet for me it is where the real debate begins.

You conclude by stating, "therefore the answer to the question you are concerned about is clear: promote grassroots self-activity and self-mobilization, and within that context, work to encourage new or intermittent activists to draw more and more radical and wide-ranging political conclusions from their experiences in struggle." But this only goes to illustrate my point - it is a statement with no real content.

Consider, for example the "critical insight" that competitive markets help maintain the class system and the "new argument" that they must be replaced by participatory planning if the working class are to free themselves from class exploitation and oppression. Now, I think that a serious account of the politics of self-emancipation would, amongst other things, try to explain how the transition from competitive markets to participatory planning could be organised. And it is, in my opinion, through the popularisation of such an account (or program) that we can overcome the problem of false consciousness and begin to build a popular movement.

You do seem to have some awareness of the limitations of the process you advocate when you say –

"That's what the whole 1960s thing was about: people were activated by entering into the anti-war movement or the Civil Rights Movement (to give US examples, with some general relevance), and then the dynamic of "snowballing" politicalization and radicalization took hold for many of them, so that the pool of committed radicals demanding systemic change of one kind or another grew to a relatively substantial (but obviously not sufficient) size." (my emphasis).

My feeling is that unless we have more to say about the politics of self-emancipation history is likely to repeat itself.

robin,

but brecher isnt calling for a freeze to carry through to the end of the century. he wrote:

"The ultimate goal of the campaign would be a just and binding international agreement and national legislation requiring greenhouse gas emission reductions to the level science determines safe."

from that i deduced that the freeze is a strategy to help get us to a "binding international agreement," perhaps, along the lines of what youve been suggesting.

for me, the question is: would this strategy hinder/prolong or help/quicken efforts to achieve said treaty, or not? if not, what other strategies can we employ that are more efficient?

Goodness, Paul, instead of ranting about us, show the way! Put your plan out there, in detail, I'd love to see it. Especially how we're to deal with Teabaggers in 2010. If you can't deal with that, you plan's a non-starter in my book. But tell us anyway.

carl, not that i find your request to be genuine (because we have talked about movement building not reliant on corporatist political parties), but since it was folks like you who helped get these capitalist thugs elected by hoodwiking workers and minorities which only left them so forsaken and jaded and which provided a vacuum for rightwing populism to flourish here is my advice for you: you made your bed now sleep in it.

I wasn't directing my comment at you Mike, just a general observation. I see the anarchist versus Marxist thing all over the place on FB and elsewhere and to me it loses interest and gets boring and dysfunctional...people trying to get me to choose sides in a pissing contest between Marx and Bakunin (often confusing Marx with Lenin and Stalin) and so on; ughh. The Republic Door and Window  workers didn't care about that stuff - that's for sure; they occupied their plant and held the day from the bottom up for a bit. I'll help occupy a plant or fight an eviction or resist tuition hikes that price working class kids out of school or march against militarism (or pick your issue...the list is long)  with anarchs (various varieties), marxists (different flavors) , left liberals, progressives, libertarians, and even conservatives (some people with bad ideological orientations really hate their bosses and want to fight 'em) and Christ, even with Truthers for God's sakes. Beggars can't be choosers.  I'd love for us to have made the anti-capitalist revolution and be in a position to meaningfully fight out  some of the intra-left differences we have in a post-capitalist society. Obviously we are pretty far from having organized anything close to what's required to get there...but time is running out.

I made some small corrections (fixed typos) in the sub-section titled "THE SORRY SURRENDER OFF THE 'SO-CALLLED RADICAL LEFT': LEAVING THE FIELD OPEN TO THE RIGHT." 

Left unity is essential. There's way too much sniping. I'm very electic in terms of allies, not purist.  I have personally tired of being caught in the crossfire between Marxists and anarchists (a minor matter). For what its' worth,  while I am considered pretty out there left and am personally libertarian socialist and anti-authoritarian, PDA has been putting some of my political essays up on their site, which I take to be encouraging. 

Can't stop gatekeeping about Truthers can you?   The Masters always need a few helpful lefties, don't they?    

Jens, good analogy. I feel the same.

Stephen, the key book is Peter Hallward's "Damming the Flood". Randall Robinson's "Unbroken Agony" is also good. There's a book about the previous coup called "The Haiti Files" that's quite good. And Paul Farmer's "Uses of Haiti".

corbett, dont you think that just as 100% auctioned permits is an improvement within cap and trade that a carbon tax could be taxed progressively - domestically and internationally - too so as  to mitigate the regressiveness of it?

Alex, its not a matter of 'muting', so much as where you aim the main blow. In the 2008 campaign, PDA made its criticisms of Obama clear by sticking to 'Out Now' and HR 676, while aiming the main blow at McCain.

Same goes against a Teabagger. We make our views known and how they differ from the regular Dem, but we say get out and vote for him or her anyway to defeat the teabagger.

Why is this so difficult? Our politics are value-centered, but they are also practical. Otherwise, start a church, not a political group that works in both elections and mass movements.

Sometimes people think to much about how they imagine things will or won't work in a market economy. This is one of those times.

If you are worried that sources will not reach for the high fruit when you send them price signal P(1), but instead only harvest low fruit and fail to tackle the hard and costly changes soon enough, the problem is you sent out a price signal that was too low and the best solution is to raise the price signal. Raise the price signal to P(2) > P(1). When they see P(2) they will presumably see they cannot afford to only harvest low hanging fruit they will also have to harvest hgher up the tree. If they don't reach as high up the tree as you want them to, then you need to make P(3) >P(2) > P(1).

What's wrong with doing it your way -- which is to order fruit companies to pick the fruit in the top branches? If their quota of fruit is met by picking only the high fruit you ordered them to pick, that leaves the low hanging fruit unharvested which, because it was easier to pick means you have inflated the cost to society of achieving a particular level of reduction.

I suspect you are assuming the low hanging fruit will eventually be harvested as well and you are concerned with making sure the high hanging fruit does not go unpicked since we will eventually need to pick all the fruit-- although that assumption is unwarranted if all you do is order companies to pick high hanging fruit. You are definitely assuming that the high hanging fruit will not be harvested if you permit fruit companies to harvest fruit in whatever order they find most convenient because they will make the mistake of not buying ladders until it is too late to harvest in the top branches. But if you send the price signal P(3)  >> P(1), then smart companies will know that while they are harvesting low hanging fruit this year they better also start buying ladders to harvest the high fruit ten years from now when there is no low fruit left. Only dumb companies will react too slowly -- which is your fear. In capitalism dumb companies get replaced by smarter ones. If that process is too imperfect and slow for you, AND IF YOU THINK OUTSIDERS WILL BE SMARTER ABOUT NOT WAITING TOO LATE TO BUY LADDERS, then you can order ladder purchases as well.

I'm not against domestic policies that require certain changes in a certain time period. when it is very clear they will be necessary and be the best way forward.  For example, once the US government faces a specific set of tightening caps on national carbon emissions between 2012 and 2030 it may make all the sense in the world to pass domestic legislation requiring electric utilities to either implement 100% carbon capture and storage, CCS, by 2030 -- which I personally suspect will prove impossible -- or shut down by 2030. The reason to do that would be fear that the utilities are too dumb to figure out they need to not only buy allowances (low hanging fruit) now, they also need to be investing in CCS or grid modification (buying ladders) as well. given how much the caps will be tightened in the future. An electric utility in South Dakota faced with this US law will either install CCS that works by 2030, or ,when they figure out that isn't going to be possible, they will have to adapt the power grid to accept electricity from wind turbines sprinkled across the state to supply electricity to their customers.  

Michael,

I guess the question is, how are you going to "collect it progressively from the start"? All answers I've ever heard to this question have been quite complicated schemes indeed. Much more complicated to apply than the procedure outlined in my previous comments, anyway.

The thing is that it's fairly easy to tax individuals' income progressively, because you get your income from one source or a very few sources (your paycheck, or whatever) and the tax is collected right there, maybe with some adjustment once a year on tax day, end of story.

But CO2 emissions are not exactly like that. For individuals, CO2 emissions are indirectly associated with consumption, which happens at hundreds and thousands of different places and times. If you wanted to directly tax individuals progressively, then a CO2 tax would have to be like a sales tax on each of those items. But how would you make that progressive relative to each person's income? And how would calculate the CO2 tax on a banana or a tire? You could certainly concoct a scheme, but it would be pretty complicated.

The approach where you tax CO2 emitters (e.g. power plants -- or even oil/coal extractors) and redistribute the dividends is super simple in comparison.

help me cuz apparently i dont understand something. why would collecting money regressively and then redistributing it progressively be easier than collecting it progressively from the start? that seems more efficient. what am i missing here?

A tribute to a great activist! Rest in Peace!

You are welcome Sanda.

Here is a quote from Chris Hedges' book Empire of Illusion (2009), Chapter III (titled "The Illusion of Wisdom"):

"The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive.  They organize learning around minutely specialized disciplines, narrow answers, and rigid structures designed to produce such answers.  The established corporate hieararchies these institutions service - economic, political, and social - come with clear parameters....and also with a highly specialized vocabulary.  This vocabulary, a sign of the 'specialist' and. of course, the elitist, thwarts universal understanding.  It keeps the unititated from asking unpleasant questions.  It destroys the search for a common good..."

Exactly.

A refusal to bend to ethical relativism does not, in fact, say anything about one's belief in the superiority of one culture.  I rejegt ethical relativism on it's face, because one cannot claim to support human rights and be a relativist.  If you believe that all human beings have a right some certain freedoms, you are saying that ethical systems that put the group above the individual are lacking.  So, anyone who claims that subjugating women must be accepted or understood on the basis of cultural and ethical relativism cannot be a proponent of human rights.  The very idea that culture makes oppression acceptable is the antithesis of international human rights.

Saying that does not imply, state, or in any way support the idea that I think Western cultural views are, in their entirety, "right."  It is possible to believe that parts of a just ethical code exist in all cultures, but no one culture encompasses them all.  I do believe there is a universal ethical code that all people should conform to; the concept of human rights cannot exist without such a belief.  I just don't believe that any single culture currently incorporates that code.

marc schuler,  There was also Sen. Eugene McCarthy's candidacy for the Dem. Pres. nomination in 1968, anti-war on Vietnam.  I was living in Denver for one year and gave out flyers for his campaign. 

I think the legal system is complicated - and I am no expert, to say the least.

Of course anyone who is working within the judicial system, in any mix of capacities, should have a balanced job complex, equitable remuneration, etc. etc. 

Of course there are learned skills and accumulated knowledge involved in various of the judicial functions - much of what is now done by judges and lawyers, police and investigators, etc., for example - so that while these tasks may change, of course, still there must be people who have jobs in this industry, so to speak. 

So yes, there will be a workers council for an industry, and in units within it, and so on. Sure. But beyond that, I think how to actually define tasks and apportion them, to get functions accomplished and justice served, etc., is not simple, and very likely can't be thought through very well save by people who have a lot of familiarity with the detailed kinds of problems and tasks, etc. Maybe your ideas are right on target, maybe not. My point is, my guess on that wouldn't be worth much...

Michael - you write that " PS shouldnt reap the rewards or assume power" adding that " that should be left to the social movement which the PS would undoubtedley belong to".

You then say " if PS is a dominating influence, which is what us advocates should be pushing for,　then hooray!"

Okay, lets take a closer look at this with reference to my proposal.

Let’s image PPS chapter (see 2:1) organising within the social movement - involved in what I refer to as "solidarity works" (see 2:5). But image that alongside this solidarity work chapter members also popularise participatory vision and strategy (see 2:2) within the social movement.

The idea here (as you rightly say) is for the PPS chapters to become a "dominating influence" within the "social movement". But what will this likely mean in reality? Well I think that it will mean that more people from the social movement will join the PPS chapters. So, if this came to be, we might say that the social movement would take on the form of PPS chapters - at which point the distinction between the two forms of organising would begin to breakdown. But as this distinction breaks downs, surely as a consequence, the claim - that the social movement and not the PPS chapters should assume power - also becomes less meaningful?

Now I grant you that the distinction between the social movement and the PPS chapters would probably never completely breakdown but you seem to be saying that no matter how popular the PPS chapters become they should never assume power. You also seem to be saying that instead of the PPS chapters (who have quite a clear vision for a post-revolutionary society) you would prefer to have the social movement (with all of its internal contradictions etc.) running society after the revolution.

If so I think it is a big mistake to celebrated these internal contradictions as defining features of a genuine democratic system (as has also been suggested elsewhere by others during this exchange). The reason for this is that we not only want to live in a meaningful democracy we also want to live in a functioning and stable society. My feeling is that a system riddled with contradiction (markets? central planning? participatory planning? etc. etc. etc...) would not result in a functioning or stable society and would most likely loose very quickly any popular support it had (if it could ever achieve popular support, outside the current Left, in the first place) which in turn would most likely lead to capitalist / coordinator class regain of control - which, in the end, means we loose meaningful democracy.

For me these internal contradictions need to be ironed out of the social movement before we can assume power. Of course, it is unlikely that we will ever get 100% consensus over vision and strategy but we do need to achieve a level of unity that is morally acceptable and practically affective before we can establish a participatory society. As you know I have offered one third as a starting point for debate but as you also know I am happy for this figure to be disputed - as I think it should be (personally I think it could possibly be lower).

You finish by saying "... if not, then our struggle continues post-revolution".

Okay, so we are back where we started, but we still have to answer the question - how do we get to a participatory society?

Given that nobody has said why my proposal could not work, or has offered an alternative program that answers difficult questions like - how do we get from competitive markets to participatory planning? - then my position remains the same. In addition, not only does my proposal suggest answers to such questions it also institutionally blocks coordinator class rule, plus makes the need for a general strike less likely. With its emphasis on vision, it also promotes a more proactive approach to organising, which means we don’t just respond to the general publics reactions to the existing system but also try to build a movement around how things could be. Combined I think these features address major weakness within old Left programs that together account for past failed attempts at social transformation.