Author’s note: I originally wrote this June 21, 2008. Now that the Copenhagen Climate Talks have failed – with the “Copenhagen Accord” being a complete sham (no targets for emissions reductions, no enforcement, no monitoring, no legally binding procedures, etc… – all of which, if we didn’t take action ourselves from the grassroots to stop climate change, would be tantamount to genocide and mass murder – mostly working class people and people of the Global South) – I’m reposting this article. I think its more relevant now than ever before.Enjoy and comment!

- – -

Early one morning, pulling the daily paper out of the mailbox, a small headline in the center front page caught my eye: “Utility finds foes to renewable energy line plan.”

The problem the article talked about was straightforward. We desperately need a green energy revolution – this goes without saying. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. wants to build a $1.5 billion solar power plant in the California desert which would provide clean power to half of the utility’s population, almost 750,000 people. Fair enough. So here is the problem: power plants need power lines, and SDG&E wants those power lines to cut through 23 miles of pristine desert parklands. Quite understandably, many people aren’t too fond of the idea.

It should not be surprising. Corporate destruction of communities and the environment is inevitable and endemic under capitalism. And for good reason – people have no democratic say in what companies do with their land and to communities and the environment. You would be hard pressed to find someone who does not want economic democracy. When asked, people always say they want a democratic say over the decisions which affect their lives. People want a democratic approach to our economic life, and when pressed, most people support either venues for public input or outright government regulation. Put aside democracy for a second, and consider how both methods involve an intentional and planned response to market chaos and tyranny. Government regulation prevents markets and corporations from completely destroying our society, while avenues of public input – which are usually very limited or a sham – prevent people from completely revolting against their economic masters by providing concessions to them. Both methods give a semblance of democratic checks on the naked tyranny of the so-called “free” market.

I advocate what I think is the only solution to this problem: the abolition of market capitalism as an economic system, and the establishment of a democratic and participatory economy with participatory planning to take its place. In short, I want to replace the system we call capitalism with real economic justice, freedom, and democracy. This is the topic I think we all need to start talking about.

Whatever one thinks about cutting through pristine parklands – especially considering the myriad of alternative locations and methods for construction – there is an irrefutable contradiction in our current economic system. Under capitalism, people neither have or ever will have a democratic say in the decisions which affect their lives. Development, economic growth, and the shaping of our economic future are all left up to people in corporate boardrooms with no connection to the lives of ordinary people. Every time there is a new technological development, no matter how it might improve our lives in the long run, ordinary people somewhere end up getting the short end of the stick. This usually revolves around one of the central tenets of capitalism, namely that someone else – virtually always the superrich and their mega-corporations – gets to define your economic future. Or more precisely, your economic hardship is the byproduct of the prosperity of the owning and coordinating classes. Markets have no mechanism to allow for democratic input – we could not have a democratic say in the economy even if we wanted to. In a market economy, the interests of the owners of society are always fundamentally opposed to the needs and aspirations of society’s poor and working people, which, in America, are disproportionally people of color.

What makes all this more tragic is that there are alternatives to the chaos of markets and class inequality. Democratic workplaces where all people have an equitable share of tasks (empowering, managerial, and more difficult work) can replace undemocratic workplaces where ordinary workers have no say in decisions and do only grunt work. Such workplaces could be collectively owned and organized to benefit our entire society. These democratic workplaces – along with community councils or governments – can network into local, regional, and national networks of councils – that is, our society can form economic institutions to democratically decide our economic future. Workplaces and worker-run industries could submit annual workplace plans for production. Community councils could submit annual plans of what they need and want society to produce. A process of negotiation – a sort-of economic conversation about what is needed and wanted for the year – would occur and, after a few rounds of back-and-forths between the councils, would lead to a plan for that economic year. The plan could be changed as needed throughout the year, but we would accomplish something truly remarkable: we would have a directly democratic way to decide what products we want to use that year, what we thus should produce, how to effectively and sustainably use resources and protect the natural environment, how to go about promoting growth, what technologies to invest in, how to protect human, civil, and labor rights, and how to have a more empowering and secure society and economy. It is not difficult to sketch out some of the possible democratic alternatives to society’s current chaotic institutions.

If green development is left up to big corporations, not only will they be resistant to it – coal and oil companies certainly will not give up without a fight – but it will be the rich, and not the rest of us, who will benefit from efforts to green our economy. As is evident by the San Diego power plant example, many corporations that do “go green” will do it out of a drive for power and profit, instead of ecological necessity and sanity. Even if that were not true, plans made in ivory-tower board rooms will never take into account the needs and ideas of our communities and families. Ordinary people will suffer from these failings. Areas of the natural environment will be destroyed, communities will be devastated, and much, much worse. Such devastation will happen without a clean energy revolution in a thousand other, and more destructive, ways. A clean and just energy revolution is needed more than ever, yes. But we can also have economic justice and democracy. And more, it is more than likely that we simply cannot solve the climate crisis without moving to economic democracy.

If economic democracy is a desirable aim, then it is necessary for environmental groups fighting for clean and just energy to put economic justice and democracy – namely democratic workplaces, social ownership of those workplaces, liberatory labor compensation norms, and democratic economic planning – on their agendas. A participatory economic future needs to be one of our central demands. We need to build such an economy from the bottom up. We need to fight for reforms which leave us stronger than we were before, lift up those who most need lifting, and move towards democratizing the economy. This is one of the most important tasks for our generation. It is our generational calling.

1. At a public talk someone asks you, “Okay, I understand what you reject, but I wonder what you are for? What institutions do you want that you think will be better than what we have, for the economy, polity, gender, race, ecology, or whatever you think is central to have vision for?”

I want a self-managed, solidaristic, decentralized, sustainable, and participatory economy. I think this means that we need an economy with:

1. A decentralized and participatory planning process.
2. Remuneration (payment) for effort and sacrifice (and need for children, the elderly/retired, the injured and disabled, and those on maternity/paternity leave or vacation).
3. Social ownership of productive property, democratically controlled by the people most effected by them.
4. The organization of workplaces into democratic/self-managed federations of workers and consumers’/community councils.
5. Self-managed workplaces and councils where people have a say in the decisions which affect them and resources on which they are dependent, in proportion to the degree to which they are affected by the decisions and dependent on the resources.
6. Jobs balanced within and across workplace and industry, with each person having a relatively equal share of onerous work and empowering/managerial tasks.
7. A process of wealth equalization and sustainable development across the world, directly controlled by the people.
8. An end to “planned obsolesce” – the process by which capitalist companies make products that are designed to break after a short period of time so that they can sell consumers more of the same. Products in the future must be made to last – and last, and last, and last!

I want feminism, queer liberation, and liberatory kinship. I want a system of kinship, love, family, and friendship which includes:

1. Sexuality without fear;
2. The freedom to express one’s own gender and sexual identity without fear of hatred, violence, or discrimination;
3. Diverse forms of living and family relations (for this goal, see the great marriage and beyond statement here http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html).
4. Full healthcare for children and the elderly.
5. The equitable sharing of all processes of care-giving (child care giving, care of the elderly, care of the sick and disabled).
6. Equitable divisions of labor in regards to sex, gender, and sexual orientation.

I want intercommunalism and global justice and equality. I think this means, at a minimum:

1. The attainment of a post-racial society. By this I mean that arbitrary racial categories which give some people (white people, Americans, Europeans) power and privilege, while other people (immigrants, Jews, people of color, immigrants, third-world people, indigenous people), oppression, exploitation, violence, and death.
2. The attainment of an ethnically and culturally diverse society where all communities are encouraged towards egalitarian practices, and are provided with the resources and space needed for their cultural, religious, and ethnic survival.
3. Open inter-communal and intra-communal dialogue to promote understanding and cooperation towards unified ends (see “Solidarity within Autonomy” under question three of this interview).
4. For the United States, this will surely mean a gigantic process of Truth and Reconciliation, and massive, long-term processes of cultural and monetary reparations. It will require processes of wealth equalisation both within first-world countries, and from first world countries to third world countries and indigenous nations within first world countries.
5. Equitable divisions of labor in regards to ethnicity, culture, community, geographical region, and religion.

I want a system of participatory and liberatory education. For more on this, see Yotam Marom’s great Reimagining Society Project essay on the topic: “Reimagining the School: A Glimpse at Participatory Education”.

I want a system of global media which stems from local communities of power.

I’m sure we can and will include many other things in our vision of the future, but these things are what come to mind in a preliminary exploration for myself.

2. Next, someone at the same event asks, “Why do you do what you do? That is, you are speaking to us, and I know you write, and maybe you organize, but why do you do it? What do you think it accomplishes? What is your goal for your coming year, or for your next ten years?”

The system attempts to control or destroy everything I love. It murders millions of people. It starves them, bombs them, rapes them. It robs them of their potentialities and of the wealth that they create themselves. It denies people access to empowering work and empowering situations. It commodifies love, and pits men, women and gender non-conforming people against each other. It limits sexuality and soaks it in fear and violence. It forces us into limiting notions of what it means to be this or that gender – and punishes those who don’t comply. It creates arbitrary notions of who is deserving, who is criminal, who is good and who is evil – calling the good people “white”, “straight”, “male”, “American”, and so on.  It makes us insecure, anxious, depressed, suicidal, violent – it tries (and often succeeds at) bringing out the worst in all of us in its narrow pursuit of profit and power.

I fight because this system kills millions of people. Because it has put our climate in jeopardy; because it kills millions of species of animals while putting the ecosystems of the world in fatal peril.

This system – or rather, a “system of systems – (patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism, the authoritarian state, etc…) is my enemy. I work every day in an attempt to destroy it and replace it with something better – something good.

So I fight because all of this is bad, but more so, because something good is so very possible.

I fight because I have a personal stake in our end goal – a participatory, sustainable, feminist, intercommunalist, participatory economic and participatory democratic society – and because I understand that while I might not be able to comprehend completely why others fight for revolution, I understand that they fight for similar reasons as me.

Growing up gay in a heterosexist society, I experienced tremendous fear, self-loathing, anxiety, depression, and worse. You feel out of place, alone, wrong, damned even. You hear homophobic comments intended to enforce a rigid and narrow notion of masculinity and male sexuality.

I remember having constant anxiety. I remember watching what I said – and how I said it; what I wore – and how I wore it; what I thought – and how I thought it. When I was still “closeted” everything I did had to be self-regulated in an attempt to keep from being “outted”. I wouldn’t wish what I went through on the worst of my enemies. So I oppose the system because of what I went through – but also because I understand that billions of people have had to go through, much, much worse – infinitely worse – than I did (and do). I fight this system because it is a death system. It is a system which spreads its evil everywhere in pursuit of its horrific goals, and through horrific means.

I fight because I dream of a day when I could hear my children say, “dad, what was capitalism?”, “dad, what was racism?”, “dad, what was patriarchy?”, “dad, what was the state?”. I fight because I believe in the ability of ordinary people to organize their lives free of outside interference. I fight because I believe that a nonviolent and peaceful society is possible – free of war or needless conflict. I fight because I believe that religion, ethnicity, and geography need not divide us. I fight because sexuality free from fear is possible. I fight because a participatory and sustainable economy is possible.

I fight for many more reasons, but in short, I fight because I believe we can institutionalize and spread a culture of good, which I believe can triumph over the evil we see today. Another world is possible!

3. You are at home and you get an email that says a new organization is trying to form, internationally, federating national chapters, etc. It asks you to join the effort. Can you imagine plausible conditions under which you would say, “Yes, I will give my energies to making it happen along with the rest of you who are already involved”? If so, what are those conditions? Or – do you think instead that regardless of the content of the agenda and make up of the participants, the idea can’t be worthy, now, or perhaps ever. If so, why?

Yes, of course. Anyone who received such an e-mail would have to consider it very seriously and consider signing on if certain conditions are met. Here would be things I would want such a project to consider, and if it had enough of them, I would probably consider getting involved and fighting for the realization of the others.

Political Unity

1. Shared Vision: Any organization which aims to help build a revolutionary movement is going to need to develop a vision of what a participatory society would look like. To get involved in an organization, it would have to take seriously the need for a shared and flexible democratic vision.
2. A Complementary and Holistic Conceptual Framework: Our problems don’t just stem from capitalism. Patriarchy, white supremacy, and the authoritarian state – as well as the systems of imperialism and environmental unsustainability – must all be confronted. We must have a framework which sees the need to unite against all our enemies and against all systems of oppression and exploitation. We can’t win without doing this – as we’ve seen all too clearly in the past.

Strategic Unity

1. Dual Power: Our organizing and organization has the goal of reaching what is called a dual power situation. A point which puts the current system into a state of crisis where millions of people shift their allegiances from the old system to the new. The institutions and movements of the people reach a point where the revolutionary movement can take power throughout all levels of society. We must organize toward this end.
2. Counter Hegemony: in addition to institutions, the system has what we call cultural hegemony. We can’t just focus on new institutions. A new left must also take seriously the task of building a counter culture. It must promote new narratives of self-rule. Narratives of liberated gender and sexuality, of a post-racial and ethnically diverse society, of religion beyond oppression, of participatory democracy, and participatory economics, of ecological sanity and environmental sustainability. To summarize this point, I turn to the words of Arundhati Roy:
   “Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we are being brainwashed to believe. The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling: their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability. Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
3. Institutions and Culture, Not People: while individuals participate, represent, and carry out the will of systems of domination and hegemony, our enemy is the systems themselves. Our goal should always be to reach new hearts and minds, and win new people to revolution. While systems need to be overthrow, dismantled, and replaced by new ones, people must be won over. We must fight against bad institutions (and institutional roles) and culture (and cultural roles) but not against the people themselves people. We must build a beloved community.
4. Maximal nonviolence: A left which is serious about its values must necessarily despise violence. It must understand that like hierarchy, violence changes our psyches. It leaves a trace on our souls which is difficult, if not impossible to remove. We can look to soldiers who return to war scarred and riddled with wounds that aren’t necessarily visible to the naked eye: PTSD, depression, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and self-loathing. Violence is wrong. A left movement, therefore, should commit itself to opposing violence wherever possible.
5. The Purpose of Action is Power: We take action to build our power and win more power. We should judge our actions by how they expand our ability to win further reforms, how they increase our power and ability to self-govern ourselves, and how they advance our goals. Action without a plan and vision will almost always leads us down bad paths. We must be goal- and vision- oriented, and use our actions to build our power.
6. Seeds of the Future in the Present: Like our commitment to maximal nonviolence, any new left must commit itself to egalitarian practices and strategies. We can’t use undemocratic means to achieve democratic ends. We can’t, in the words of Martin Buber, “expect a tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.” This means that in our theories, analyses, strategies, practices, and visions, we must ensure that our values are implemented to the highest degree possible. We must ask ourselves “what can we do today, so that tomorrow we can practice our values even more?”
7. Communalism: We must live together, share our wealth, practice new diverse forms of living and loving. We can’t win a new world by merely through fighting the old system – even if we are organized into movements. We must actually begin to build the new world in the here-and-now – while dismantling the old system, with its authoritarian institutions and culture, and reforming them in a manner which sets us on a path to greater power and control over our own lives. (For more on this see “Revolutionary Communalism: Where Vision and Strategy Meet” by Yotam Marom)
8. Collective Liberation: None who were born under the system can say they are yet liberated. All of us are deeply scarred. Oppressed people must free themselves from the notions of identity and community which the system has heaped upon us, and groups who are doing the oppressing must confront and reject their privileges – using them for the goals of revolution. We must actively work to confront inequalities and injustices in the here-and-now – both within our organizations and in the world at large. We must pass the finish line together. We call this collective liberation.
9. Solidarity within Autonomy: Each community of oppressed and exploited people knows what’s best for them. This isn’t to say that needs and desires within each constituency – workers for example – is identical. But it does mean that workers should be at the lead for issues of labor, class, and economics. Similarly, women and queers should take the lead on issues of gender, sex, and sexuality; people of color and immigrants should take the lead on issues of race, ethnicity, community, and culture; and so on. We should have solidarity across our movements, and self-managed autonomy for issues that affect mostly our constituency.
10. Local Power, Regional/National/International Unity: We must build local power in our communities – both institutionally and hegemonically – while striving to unite those communities into regional, national, and international blocs. We can’t substitute national organizations for the slow and patient work of liberating entire communities from the grasp of the system – and we can’t ignore the enormous size and complexity of the system by falling into the trap of localism. Both are needed. National, regional, and international unity must be rooted in strong, organized, and powerful fighting communities.
11. A Rejection of Substitutionalism: Pat Korte put this well in his RSP interview. We can’t liberate people for them – they must do it themselves. Our organizations must be aimed at putting control of society directly into the hands of the organized people’s movement. Anything else is a fool’s errand and will result in failure. We’ve seen this time and time again. It is indisputable. If we take state power, the role of the state must be to dismantle itself – to pass ever increasing power directly to the self-organized institutions of the people.
12. Within the Oppressed: Our revolutionary organizations must make their home directly within oppressed communities. It’s the only way to win. Winning organizations will have organized entire communities and put oppressed people – queers, workers, people of color, women, gender-nonconforming, immigrants, alternatively abled, and the like, directly at the helm of our movement.
13. An Open-minded view of State Power: The state is an oppressive institution. It is more than an institution of class rule – it also enforces a political order, a gender order, a sexual order, a national order, and a racial order. For these reasons it must eventually be destroyed and replaced with an authentic and participatory democratic system of governance. But we can’t ignore that the system is something that exists. Like our workplaces, if we are able to take it, that should be something we think very long and hard about. And if we do ever take state power, it can’t be like revolutionaries have taken it in the past. The primarily goals of a people’s state must be to dismantle itself while actively dismantling the old order. A state which continues to centralize power despite its stated progressive values is an enemy state – it has nothing to do with authentic democracy or egalitarianism. That being said, our primary goal must always be to build and strengthen the self-managed institutions and culture of the people – nothing can replace that.

4. Do you think efforts to organize movements, projects, and our own organizations should embody the seeds of the future in the present? If not, why? If yes, can you say what, very roughly, you think some of the implications would be for an organization you would favor?
We can’t win (at least win anything desirable or holistic) if we don’t embody the seeds of the future in the present. If we continue to use the old ways – the ways that the death system has designed to maintain its power – it will be impossible to win. We can only win if we practice our highest values and aspirations right now in the present, to the highest degree possible.

I think the implications are far reaching. It means that we must engender a culture within our organization that is welcoming and empowering to oppressed constituencies. We must practice internal democracy, anti-sexism/feminism, anti-racism/intercommunalism, and, if we have paid positions within our organizations, balanced jobs, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and workplace self-management. We must think about the implications of this norm (practicing our values in the present to the highest degree possible) in everything we do.

5. Why did you answer this interview? Why do you think others did not answer it?

I hope others will answer it soon. I know I took a very long time. Partly it was because I am a busy person, and partly its because it takes a while to get my thoughts down on paper. I encourage others who have signed up to participate but haven’t yet to take a chance and get something down on paper!

It’s the first step to developing shared unity on vision, strategy, and analysis – and organization!

ZMag and Parecon: Defying Capitalism

by Ricky Angel

“May a Republic, so wisely and happily constituted, last for ever, for an example to other nations, and for the felicity of its own citizens! This is the only prayer you have left to make, the only precaution that remains to be taken. It depends, for the future, on yourselves alone […] but to render that happiness lasting, by your wisdom in its enjoyment” Jean-Jacques Rousseau from A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

It was during the Spring of ’07 that I first met Michael Albert. I had just finished reading his quintessential book “Parecon: Life After Capitalism.” Admittedly, I was enthused, buoyant even, about his proposed economic model; I felt like a kid playing with a new toy. Upon reading the book, I had formulated in my mind that the author must have been some sort of smooth operator, wearing a black suit and sunglasses at night. However, the man that came to Pace University was not at all as I had imagined.

Albert emerged unkempt and borderline slovenly. In all honesty, if I had seen him on the street, I would have offered him change. Yet despite his appearance, Albert was undoubtedly brilliant. That night, I purchased his memoir: “Remembering Tomorrow.” Over the next few weeks, I read his memoir cover to cover; in the memoir, he lamented the lack of constructive criticism he had received over his hypothetical economic model (parecon). To a certain degree, it was then that I began to think of parecon critically. Specifically, I began to wonder about how parecon translated from theory to practice. Sure it was a good idea, but could it function in the real world? Would it be like my experience with Albert, a radical departure from my expectations? I wasn’t sure, but it would become my driving force in studying ZMag and ZNet.

Capitalism: The Death of Horatio Alger

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone,” John Maynard Keynes

 

            In 2003, economist Paul Krugman wrote an article entitled “The Death of Horatio Alger.” In the article, he explained how Horatio Alger had been the title of the “from rags to riches” stories over a century ago (Krugman, 2003). Essentially, Alger was the embodiment of the American Dream, but as Krugman’s title would suggest, something is gravely wrong with the American Dream: it’s dying. He explains that now “sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago” (Krugman, 2003). He goes on to explain: “[…]between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent[…] the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the…top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the … top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent” (Krugman, 2003). It should be noted that Krugman’s data was compiled before the recent nationwide financial crisis. In addition to a growing decline in socioeconomic mobility, capitalism is infamous for exploitation, vast inequalities in wealth, environmental degradation, alienation, and promoting selfishness over solidarity. In an interview, political activist Noam Chomsky compared capitalism to a form of slavery; however, in this case it is wage slavery, selling oneself off for survival  (Chomsky). Albert defines capitalism as having “private ownership, market allocation, corporate divisions of labor, remuneration for property, power, and output, and capitalist class domination of decision-making”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 24). Albert says, “indignity, disempowerment, and hunger accompany capitalism worldwide” (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 1); and that “profit and power drive all calculations. In sum, capitalist globalization produces poverty, ill health, shortened life spans, reduced quality of life, and ecological collapse” (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 4). Furthermore, IWW Organizer John Cronan writes, “In capitalism, one is encouraged and often required to ignore and/or promote human suffering and pain on path to their own advance. In other words, in capitalism, ‘nice guys finish last,’ or even more fitting, ‘garbage rises!’”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Clearly, an alternative economic model is needed.

Parecon, an alternative to Capitalism

“It merits close attention, debate and action,” Noam Chomsky

            Participatory Economics, or parecon for short, is a proposed economic model created by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Parecon arises out of “anarchist and libertarian socialist ideals and practices”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Furthermore, Cronan says, “We can define economy as a set of institutions concerned with production, allocation, and consumption; and within this framework there are identifiable divisions of labor, norms of remuneration, methods of allocation, and means of decision-making”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). According to Albert:

[Parecon] emerged from a multifaceted process. Contributing to its shape was our critique of what are called market socialism and centrally planned socialism, our understanding of class relations including a group between labor and capital who we called coordinators, our emphasis on the full material, personal, and social inputs and outputs of economic activities, our experiential and theoretical rejection of markets as well as central planning, and our critical familiarity with previous libertarian thought and practice and with the South End Press experiment in visionary economic organization  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007)

 

Essentially, through their critique of capitalism and market socialism, Albert and Hahnel decided they wanted to create an economic model that in many ways was the antithesis of these previous models. So, they designed parecon to promote four values, which are: “solidarity, diversity, equity and self-management.”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007). For example, while capitalism promoted competition and alienation, parecon would promote solidarity; while capitalism was homogenous, parecon would be diverse. By emphasizing these four values, Albert and Hahnel built a series of institutions they hoped would best promote these values. Subsequently, by taking the framework of an economy (as mentioned by Cronan), they laid out a set of institutions with remuneration based on effort and sacrifice, dissolved ownership, workers’ and consumer councils, participatory planning, and balanced job complexes. In order to best explain the relationship between these institutions and ZMag, this paper will be divided into a section for each institution, explaining how it functions in a parecon, and how it actually functions at ZMag, followed by an analysis of the participatory economic model and ZMag.

ZMag

“ZCom not only provides information and analysis to already existing organizations, it helps launch new endeavors. Countless activists have joined struggles, started organizations, and brought vision and strategy into already existing efforts because of Z. No project more consistently provides accessible analysis of current events and systemic oppressions, making it possible to seriously address questions of vision and strategy.” Cynthia Peters

 

In 1987 Z Magazine was started by Michael Albert and Lydia Sargent with the intent to “publish articles about the totality of oppression – especially race, gender, class, and power – and would try to offer both vision and strategy, rooting itself in needs and hopes emerging from activism”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 275). Additionally, they “also saw a need for a media project that would have an audience that related to it regularly, with at least the potential to become a kind of community” (IBIT). The magazine “got going when […we had] sufficient means to start the periodical we wanted, or at least have a chance at it;” the means were made much more attainable with the advancement of desktop publishing which made “two people publishing a multipage, monthly magazine viable” (IBIT). The name was inspired by Costa-Gavras’ movie Z, which was about “the spirit of resistance”  (Z Communications, 2009). In 1994, ZMag created the Z Media Institute, which offered classes based around creating and understanding alternative media. In 1995, another branch was created: ZNet. Essentially, ZNet was the online counterpart of ZMag. According to Albert, “ZNet, a free Web site that has grown steadily and is, as I write this, perhaps the largest progressive site in the world and surely the largest site that is so assertively anticapitalist”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 300). In 1998, another spin off was incorporated: ZVideo. Eventually, the various Z media would fall under what would be officially known as Z Communications.

The point of ZComm is not necessarily to be a news source, but rather a source of analysis  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 394). This paper will shine a particular focus on ZMag and ZNet.

Effort, Sacrifice, and to some extent Need

Traditionally, in a capitalist economy we are remunerated based on capital, output, luck in the genetic lottery pool (and luck in general), and to some extent, time. The problem with being remunerated on these bases is that it isn’t a just system of remuneration; not everyone may own capital, not everyone is lucky in life, and the option of time (hourly wage) tends to be compensated for unfairly in comparison to the former two. Albert says, “differences in contribution to output will derive from differences in talent, training, job assignment, tools, luck, and social endeavor, only effort merits compensation”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 114).

In a parecon, people are remunerated according to each person’s effort, sacrifice and need  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 29). Albert elaborates: “By ‘effort’ we simply mean personal sacrifice or inconvenience incurred in performing one’s economic duties. Of course effort can be longer hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 37). For example, in a parecon an ice cream distributor (a relatively safe job) would be compensated a bit less than a more dangerous or onerous job such as fire fighter, or a coal miner; the rationale being that fire fighters or coal miners expend more effort/ sacrifice. Additionally, it would not be only dangerous or onerous work that would be compensated more but also jobs that are less desirable or demeaning, such as garbage collection and disposal.

Another crucial part to parecon remuneration is need. Remuneration according to need is used to establish a type of universal healthcare; if someone is in need of say open-heart surgery, would be eligible for the procedure. Additionally, the need aspect is used to take care of individuals who are for whatever reason unable to work.

Additionally, within each workplace everyone is paid approximately the same if they exhibit the same approximate effort. However, within each workplace, effort will be evaluated by fellow workers: “Imagine each worker receives a kind of ‘evaluation report’ from their workplace that determines their income to be used for consumption expenditures”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 115). Basically, this peer evaluation is used ensure that workers who clearly put more effort into their work are compensated for it, and those who don’t put in much effort aren’t compensated as much.

ZMag: Remuneration

At ZMag, “each [staff member] earns the same take home monthly salary of $2800” and has healthcare coverage; for the staff, “salary with all taxes and health insurance plus various bank charges and accounting [come out to] $365,000 a year” (Z Communications, 2009). However, the situation is much different for Z Writers. Originally, writers were all paid the same amount, with exception to those who opted to write for free. This changed when journalist Alexander Cockburn agreed to write for Z. At the time, Cockburn was a well-established journalist famous for his work at The Nation, producing in-depth articles. Cockburn agreed to write for Z “with some conditions. Alex wanted twice what we were paying other folks”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 282). At the time, “[Noam] Chomsky wasn’t taking pay for his writing” so Albert asked Chomsky to “donate” his check to Cockburn  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 283). Accordingly, this kept Cockburn happy. Eventually, he discontinued his work with ZMag due to political differences.

Unfortunately for ZMag, due to recent economic difficulties they have had to discontinue paying writers, meaning writers contribute material for free now. In an interview with Albert, he said, “For some time we haven’t been paying writers due to the difficult financial problems we – and all media – face. Before that, everyone got the same rate” (Albert, 2009).

Essentially, ZMag does remunerate based on effort and sacrifice for staff members. When it comes to writers, they are no longer compensated for at all; however, they were previously paid at the same rate, with the exception of Cockburn. So, the parecon notion of remuneration is primarily emphasized on staff members at ZMag.

Ownership

“In a participatory economy ownership of the means of production no longer even exists as a concept. It is banished, and with it goes the category ‘capitalist.’ No one is distinguishable from anyone else by having different ownership of means of productions,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 90). Basically, in a parecon there are two ways of looking at ownership: 1. Everyone owns the means of production, or (more aptly) 2. No one owns the means of production. The logic is that “by separating ownership from non-ownership of the means of production, society places some of its members on top and others below”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 90). As discussed earlier, in a capitalistic society ownership or capital essentially translates into a form of unjust remuneration because not everyone can own the means of production in capitalism. Additionally, ownership also leads to the hierarchical division of labor – that is, the owner is in charge, and the workers are subservient.

ZMag: Ownership

Ownership at ZMag is similar to that of a co-op, in which the workers maintain control over the organization. The founders of ZMag are Lydia Sargent and Michael Albert. Unfortunately, ZMag staff members weren’t available for comment on ownership at ZMag. However, long-time writer for ZMag Andrej Grubacic, said it is owned by “the workers of Zmag, under the name of Institute for Social Communication”  (Grubacic, 2009). Furthermore, IWW Organizer and frequent contributor John Cronan said that ownership at ZMag is closely related to its structure, under a workers council (Cronan, 2009).

Workers’ and Consumer Councils

            In a parecon, society is divided into federations of worker and consumer councils. According to Albert, “economics is conducted by and for workers and consumers. Workers create the social product. Consumers enjoy the social product”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 91). Under this basis, the intent of worker and consumer councils is to detail structure within a parecon. So, in each workplace there exists a workers council and “when necessary, smaller councils are organized for work teams, units, and small divisions”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 92). Essentially, Albert and Hahnel created worker and consumer councils to address the idea of decision-making. As mentioned, in a capitalist institution, an owner (or coordinator) tends to be the person in charge, and the workplace is constructed in a hierarchical fashion. However, in a parecon, the workers council is meant to be democratic, with each worker having a say in proportion to how they are affected  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 163). For example, in a workplace, if a worker brings in a stereo and plays it loudly, his/her fellow workers would have a say in whether it is played (or how loudly) based on the fact that they are affected; however, if the worker had instead decided to bring in a photo, and pin it on their desk, virtually no one else would have a say in that process because no one else is affected.

            Additionally, in the workplace, workers are no longer primarily concerned with profits; instead, they are concerned with the social product and its reception. “Instead of selling books to make profits, Northstart’s workers consider themselves successful when readers are entertained or enlightened”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 174-175). As for consumer councils, “The nested federation of democratic councils would organized consumption, just as the nested federation of democratic workers’ councils organizes production”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 93). A more detailed explanation of how worker and consumer councils interact will be expanded upon in Allocation.

ZMag: Workers’ and Consumer Councils

            Initially, “Z was not complicated structurally because it began with just Lydia and I” ((Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Even as the organization progressed through the years, the structure still wasn’t very complicated because there were only five members. Furthermore, each staff member partakes in roughly the same amount of hours per week, 40-50, with no truly assigned hours of operation; basically, they don’t necessarily adhere to the traditional 9-5 work hours. Albert said, “[There’s] nothing formal, but everyone works 40 to 50 hours in a typical week, would be my guess – and then it goes up when there is more to do” (Albert, 2009). However, in his memoir, Albert says:

The structure of ZNet has been very loose. I run the show, I guess I have to admit, in that I do have final say. But all people working on ZNet have pretty much complete autonomy in their area unless they’re doing programming that affects the whole site, or perhaps an article that arouses concern among other participants  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303).

 

            Additionally, given that ZNet/ZMag’s structure is so loose, meetings aren’t that frequent. Albert said the reason they don’t have formal meetings often is:

because we all know what we are doing. More, there are so few of us. So, Chris and I work next to each other, and can talk all the time – no need to formally meet… and Lydia and Andy are the same, also working next to each other. Eric isn’t on site, but no need. So the only real meetings are roughly once every other work, for everyone[1] (Albert, 2009)

 

As for the writers of ZMag, when the organization first started, Sargent and Albert had thirty to forty writers and had intended for them to have a say in how ZMag progressed as a paper  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). Essentially, they tried to make writers, “part of a broader community, which would include having a say in how the periodical proceeded”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Unfortunately, they found that it became difficult for writers to participate in the ZMag process; it was one thing to write for ZMag, and another thing entirely to aid in its development. Albert writes “participatory plans never came to fruition. The authors didn’t have the time or focus for it […] It is another thing to become fully vested in a periodical as a person who takes responsibility for its well-being” (IBIT).

As for the relationship between writers and staff:

Our approach to authors was if we signed you up for regular submissions, then what you wrote would run unless it was really horribly off base. And if we felt it was horribly off base and we didn’t want to run it, the author would have an option to pick three other regular writers to see the piece and if two of them liked it and thought it should run, then it would run even over our objections ((Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 285).

 

            Albert believed this to be a “good policy to empower regular writers while checking our power” (IBIT). Accordingly, in twenty years, this situation has only come up once, and in that situation the piece ended up running.

            The relationship between ZComm and consumers is a convoluted one because of the fact that ZComm operates, in large, in a capitalistic society, thereby dissipating opportunities to establish consumer councils. Instead, Z operates in response to its readers. “When Z began, each issue was 112 pages” however, they found that readers wanted a smaller package  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). Albert writes, “We were busting ass to publish lesser-known writers, new people, activists, and to deliver more, and readers said, we want less;” he goes on to say, “the most frequent criticism of us was that we were doing too good a job”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 278). Then, as ZNet emerged, they were gaining “as many as 300,000 users a week”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007,  300). Until that point, ZComm relied only on “readers’ direct payments, as our source of income” and rejected ads  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). However, they eventually started a sustainer program to help with funding, which from year to year had been (and still is) volatile. In exchange, “Donors are e-mailed a commentary each night for being part of the [sustainer] program. The nightly essays run from about 1,400 to 2,200 words. About seventy writers provide content […] For the Sustainer Program they generate about 360 essays a year. For the broader ZNet site, we put up about 3,000 essays a year”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 440-1). So, readers have a large influence at ZMag and ZNet, and writers and staff members try to respond accordingly.

Allocation

“My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall have the same opportunities as the strongest…no country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak…Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism…true democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below, by the people of every village.” – Gandhi

 

In our current economic system, allocation is based upon markets, which operates under the simple guise of supply and demand. However, markets tend to be aligned with exploitation and neglect for the social opportunity cost. In parecon, allocation is determined by participatory planning, in which the previously mentioned worker and consumer councils interact to determine the price of goods. In this form of allocation, pricing is determined by efficiency (social opportunity cost), transparency, measures of work and qualitative activity. Cronan writes, “efficiency merely means attaining desirable outcomes without wasting things that we value”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). For example, in a parecon, “the price of cigarettes […] should reflect not only the usual matters of the labor and other ingredients that go into cigarette production, but also their impact on those smoking them and on the health system that cares for those who become ill,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 144). In another example, the publishing industry would change radically in a parecon: “Writing, editing, and design occur largely as before parecon but we can imagine that to save trees and other resources and to reduced onerous tasks, most books might be electrically conveyed to portable book-size hand-held computers”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 175). Basically, to prevent wasted paper, there would be more of an emphasis on paperless readers such as Kindle. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be no paper books; instead, the price of hard copy (paper) books would reflect its social costs, such as the amount of trees required to make it.

As far as the process goes, in the planning, consumer councils would compile a list of what they wish to consume every so often. Essentially, this can best be thought of as compiling a grocery list of what one’s family will need. In order to prevent from consuming in excess, “one cannot request more than their effort rating warrants”  (Cronan, Participatory Economics as an Alternative, 2008). Each consumer council may be organized on a neighborhood basis, which then would fall under a city or regional council; it’s important to note that how the council will fit into larger society can be kept loose and malleable. Additionally, workers’ councils evaluate and respond to the demand of production from consumers and an iteration process begins until an agreement on social production is met.

Schweickart notes that “there is no market competition in Parecon, no ‘invisible hand’ determining the allocation of goods, services and resources. Instead consumers indicate each year what they would like to consume and in what quantities”  (Schweickart, 2006). He cautions that such a process can be lengthy and convoluted, thereby creating a bureaucracy.

ZMag: Allocation

As mentioned earlier, participatory planning didn’t truly translate at ZMag due in large part because they were working within a capitalist model, thereby inhibiting parecon’s desired allocation method. As a result, ZMag’s allocation would seem one-sided; however, as said earlier, readers do contribute a substantial critique of what’s produced at ZMag, prompting them to change based on reader suggestions. However, ZMag suffers in large part due to their funding model, which at times can be volatile.

Z’s startup costs were $60,000 in 1987  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 276). As the other branches of Z began to emerge, it became apparent that funding was a problem. Initially, ZNet took in $200 “in [their] best months”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 300). As a result, Albert “had the fortuitous thought that perhaps we could develop a sustainer program in which people would pledge to donate […] to receive access to an online forum where some writers – and, in particular, Chomsky and I, would be accessible for queries and discussion, and also a commentary emailed each night”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301). The Sustainer Program worked for a while but Z would routinely run into funding problems even after the program. Albert writes:

In 2004, our overall Z operations got into trouble. Our accounts were dwindling fast and we were losing an average of $7,000 a month. We were facing a catastrophe in just six months. We met and decided we could cut about $2,000 a month in Z Magazine costs and maybe another $1,500 a month in ZNet costs […] we needed to shift the cash flow in our favor by $12,000 a month to ensure that even if we were underestimating our current shortfalls, or if some of our costs got worse in the next couple of years, we would have at least a modest net surplus each month to help us get back into acceptable shape  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301).

 

In response, Z began looking into various resources to increase revenue. Albert writes, “We easily agreed to make a broad and desperate appeal… over a few weeks it brought in roughly $90,000;” additionally, they gained 700 new sustainers “which was good for about $5,000 a month” (IBIT). It was a surprising response but at the time, they weren’t sure if the “desperate appeal” would work. So, they looked into acquiring money in other ways. Albert writes:

I controversially suggested that we simply raise the amount that current donors were giving by raising their pledges in our database by 20 percent for most of them and by 30 percent for those at the high end. Someone donating a total of $50 a year would jump to $60 a year. Someone donating $120 a year would jump to $156 a year  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 302)

 

He believed that “few people would mind” and “felt that if we didn’t do this and the other approaches didn’t work, we were risking complete collapse” (IBIT). Additionally, he felt that if people did mind, they could always refund the money at a later date. Fellow staff member didn’t agree with Alber idea, “Lydia, Andy, Daniel, and Eric were dubious”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303) but eventually they went along with it.

            To Z’s merit, their organization is truly transparent. On their site, they break down financial projections by basic expenses, production expense, sales revenues, sustainer revenues, and current projections. Additionally, they also list their surplus and what they intend to do with it.

Z’s 2008 basic expenses (staff, rent, equipment, legal, accounting, misc) accounts for $450,000. “Rent and utilities and associated housing and diverse other upkeep related costs are about $60,000;” additionally, “In this box we also include computer maintenance and purchase – which is way more than it ought to be – at about $10,000;” office supply “costs are $15,000.” As noted earlier, each staff member receives a salary of $2,800 a month; so, salary costs for all five staff members amounts to $168,000 without healthcare  (Z Communications, 2009).

            Production Expenses for 2008 amounted to an approximate total of $305,000. Essentially, the production expenses encompasses operations, print, video, delivery, online and ZMI work.  In addition to production expenses, “another set of costs correlates largely to product output”  (Z Communications, 2009). The site says, “There is paying creators (writers and artists), costs of printing and video manufacturing, costs of delivery and all kinds of mail and promotion. This sums to roughly $200,000”  (Z Communications, 2009). However, since cutting pay to their writers, this figure has undoubtedly changed. Unfortunately, Z has not updated their financial section since 2008.

The rest of their production expenses are as follows: “There are ZMI deficits and ancillary trips and events we relate to $30,000. There are costs of the online operations including bandwidth, servers, and programming as well as online fees for materials, etc.: $100,000. A rough total figure is: $330,000”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            As for Sales Revenues, surprisingly, Z only accrues an approximate $265,000. Z subscriptions account for a vast majority of sale revenues ($230,000), and video “and other sales” accounts for $35,000. A much larger portion of Z revenues comes from the sustainer program, which provides an estimated $540,000 yearly. Unfortunately, “Sustainer revenues are from the online sustainer program. They are always a guess as they grow and decline due to people’s choices and credit card situations… as well as continuing gains from the upgrade…”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            In total, they project to have $805,000 in total revenues for 2008 with total costs amounting to $780,000, meaning they will have a projected $25,000 surplus. They list under their desires and plans to “Initiate ZSchool on a large scale, ZBooks, much enlarged use of online video and audio, improved social networking features, improvements in print ZMag and online ZMag, staff expansion…”  (Z Communications, 2009).

            Obviously, Z excels insofar as transparency goes. However, they do need to update their financial section, given that we are headed into 2010.

Balanced Job Complex

Perhaps the most confusing part of parecon is the idea of balanced job complexes. A balanced job complex holds two major functions: 1. Dissolving divisions of labor, and 2. Creating an informed workplace. In order to understand balanced job complexes we must first realize that every job consists of tasks and:

Not all tasks are equally desirable, and even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do engaging and empowering tasks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality (103).

 

A Youtube video by JasonMitchell easily illustrates this by comparing a doctor and a custodian. Both a doctor and a custodian have jobs, which are comprised of sets of tasks. However, by in large, doctors tend to have tasks that are more desirable, while custodians have tasks that are displeasing and sometimes onerous. In a capitalist system, there would simply be this divide between doctor and custodian, desirable tasks and non. In an ideal society, it would only seem logical that people should share in empowering and onerous, or otherwise displeasing, activities. This is where the balanced job complex derives from, the idea that pleasurable and onerous activities should be shared, not concentrated amongst a few.

So, in a parecon, the workplace of a hospital would be radically different. While doctors would still be able to perform their routine empowering tasks, they would also have to balance themselves by doing rote work such as picking up bedpans. In order to make the best possible decisions within a workplace “something more is needed to equalize daily work assignments vis-a-vis- the impact people’s work experience has on their capacity to participate and render informed judgments”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 103). According to Albert, “In balancing job complexes within each workplace for equal empowerment, the goal was to prevent the organization and assignment of tasks from preparing some workers better than others to participate in decision-making at that workplace”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107). Basically, it’s like the idea that an informed citizenry creates a well-functioning democracy.

Now, “balancing job complexes within workplaces does not guarantee that work life will be equally empowering across workplaces. One workplace could average out at 7, another at 14,”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107). To reiterate, while the average enjoyment level at a hospital maybe a 14, at a coal factory it can be a 4. This would seem to create a broader societal problem, if balanced job complexes only applied to each workplace; however, balanced job complexes would also seek to be balanced across society.  By doing this, individuals won’t be tempted to flock only towards highly empowering workplaces. So, a coal miner with a low average could have a chance at a higher average. Albert explains, “The new balance need not and could not be perfect, just as the old one wasn’t nor would the adjustments be instantaneous, nor would everyone be likely to agree completely with every result of a democratic determination of combinations”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 110). So, ultimately the goal would be to give people stuck doing rote work a chance at empowering work; it doesn’t have to be precise, so long as an attempt at a balance is made.

An often-cited confusion about balanced job complexes is the idea that under a balanced job complex, custodians would be able to perform surgery; however, this isn’t true. Instead, people would only perform tasks they are trained for. Additionally, Albert writes:

Balancing empowerment across jobs is not the same as balancing the amount or type of intellect required for that job. That is, if you do some highly abstract theoretical physics that only two other people on Earth can understand, your activity is not necessarily immensely more empowering than my helping decide how we can best build automobiles or when the chef at a restaurant decides how to best cook a meal  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 107).

ZMag: Balanced Job Complexes

Simply put, ZMag employs a balanced job complex, not always successfully. In order to counteract corporate divisions of labor: “instead of doing only rote or only fulfilling and empowering work, we would each do a mix of tasks – some rote and boring, some fulfilling and empowering – that, on balance, empowered everyone equally”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 359). On average, “Work on Z entailed fielding submissions, choosing among them, doing modest editing, laying out the pages, designing the cover, and sending the package to the printer … there was also dealing with the phone and mail, and handling the finances, bills, and sundry other issues that would arise”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 277). As mentioned, achieving a fair distribution of tasks wasn’t always easy. Albert writes:

It is hard to have a fair distribution of tasks with people located in distant cities, giving very different amounts of time, having varying long-term relations to the project, and having different other responsibilities they have to meet beyond ZNet. But we try to get a good balance, not without disagreement and even dispute, so as to apportion decision-making power proportionate to the degree people are affected by the choices made. Actually, truth be told, other than choosing articles to post, there aren’t a lot of decisions in ZNet  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303).

 

             One example of an unfair equal division of labor came in the form of writer Alex Cockburn. During his time writing for Z, Cockburn refused to use a computer and instead relied on a typewriter; afterwards, he would fax over the document to Albert, and they would go over the article meticulously. Albert writes, “During the time Alex was writing for Z, Lydia worked with all other authors in the magazine and I worked largely with Alex, and this was actually an unequal division of labor, with me the loser in terms of time and hassle”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 283). Despite this, by in large, staff members purportedly share tasks in the workplace.

Analysis

            Evidently, this paper is divided into two major sections: one on the participatory economic model and the other on ZMag. So, in this section, parecon and ZMag will be analyzed individually. Furthermore, as mentioned, parecon purportedly aims to promote the values of solidarity, diversity, self-management, and equity but does it? Additionally, what are the limitations and faults of parecon? As for ZMag, what are the constraints of enacting the participatory economic model within a society structured in capitalistic means? Moreover, does parecon function well in the real world?

Parecon

            Solidarity in parecon is the notion that people should work together, rather than against each other. Albert writes, “We endorse solidarity. It is better if people get along with one another than if they violate one another […] To care about one another’s well-being as fellow humans is surely good. To view one another as objects to exploit or with other hostile intentions is surely bad”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 41). Essentially, parecon falls under the broad network of the solidarity economy. Ethan Miller, founding member of U.S. Solidarity Economy Network, defines the solidarity economy as promoting diversity, autonomy, cooperation, communication, and shared-power  (Miller, 2006, 7). In a solidarity economy, “the initiatives they generated all shared a common set of operative value: cooperation, autonomy from centralized authorities, and participatory self-management by their members”  (Miller, 2006). In this sense, parecon surely excels.

In terms solidarity as shared power and burden, the theoretical framework is constructed in a way that certainly does seem to promote solidarity. The workplace is organized in a horizontal fashion, meaning that no one person seems to have domination over another. Additionally, in the workplace, every actor has a say in proportion to how they are affected. The balanced job complex creates a workplace that essentially shares empowerment and rote tasks, all the while creating an environment that is more informed and conscientious, thereby aiding in decision-making.

As for diversity, in parecon diversity can be thought of as diversity of jobs, life conditions, and so forth. Albert says, “Homogenization of tastes, jobs, life conditions, material outcomes, and thought patterns is not a vitue”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 41). So, the balanced job complex contributes to diversity. Self-management, as discussed, is promoted by workers’ councils and giving actors a proportionate say in decisions.

Now, the only value that is truly up for debate is equity. In parecon, equity is completely different from capitalistic forms of equity. Albert writes, “Regarding equity, parecon argues that we should each receive for our socially useful contributions a share of outputs in proportion to how long and hard we work at useful production and the onerous of our work, and for no other reason”  (Albert, Parecon: Future & Present, 2009). Essentially, equity translates into remuneration for effort and sacrifice. Albert and Hahnel base remuneration in these terms because the alternative forms of remuneration (based on property and luck in the genetic lottery) are simply unjust. So, naturally, compensation for effort and sacrifice seems great.

Some critics argue that remuneration for effort and sacrifice is a vague concept; additionally, who determines effort and sacrifice? Albert wrote, “By ‘effort’ we simply mean personal sacrifice or inconvenience incurred in performing one’s economic duties. Of course effort can be longer hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work”  (Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2003, 37). As for who determines effort, fellow co-workers, in a type of peer evaluation, rate each actor’s effort level. So, if someone is clearly putting in more effort than others then (s)he will be remunerated a bit more; however, if an actor is putting in little or no effort, then (s)he will be compensated less. Additionally, in a workplace that puts in the same effort level, workers will be paid approximately the same.

            Despite these benefits, parecon does have some potential drawbacks. Even in theory, it may seem unappealing for numerous reasons. Take for example the idea of what happens if it turns out that the average balanced job complexes (across the nation) is actually a low empowerment average; suddenly, parecon doesn’t seem like such an appealing economic model. However, even in this case, does it diminish parecon’s worth? No, it merely mitigates desirability. Unfortunately, sometimes what’s just isn’t what is necessarily desirable. Additionally, many criticize the motivating factor of innovation in parecon. Shalom writes, “how [does] the model provide the right incentives to promote efficiency and innovation and sufficient incentives to induce people to work and to educate or train themselves”  (Shalom, 2006). According to critics, financial incentives tend to be the greatest motivating factor for innovation. In parecon, people aren’t led by drives for material wealth; instead, they should be driven by passion. For example, a typical custodian (in the capitalist world) would now have the ability to pursue his/her passion of becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or whatever passion drives them. Other criticisms of parecon stem from its institutions

            Participatory planning, for example, has been critique by some as a long process that essentially breeds a bureaucracy. Shalom writes in defense, “Hahnel first notes that the time for these activities under capitalism is far longer than usually realized”  (Shalom, 2006). So, while the iteration process of planning can take a long time, so can capitalist operations. Critic Loxley points out:

Relations between different layers of democratic decision-taking, both in workplaces and in the planning system, would also likely be more complex than suggested. There would be inevitable trade-offs between allowing sufficient time for decision to be arrived at satisfactorily and meeting output deadlines, balancing supply and deadlines for millions of different products  (Loxley, 1998)

            In some cases, this may very well be the case. However, as the site points out “it seems that however many times advocates of parecon go over it, folks take things differently. Parecon, particiaptory planning and all the other aspects, is a description of a social system based on some central values and incorporating some key institutions;” he goes on to say, “there is no one right answer to most questions about parecon. Think capitalism for a minute. Would it make any sense to say there was only one way to do everything in capitalism? Of course not. It is a social system and as such has all kinds of adaptations in varient piled on varient”  (Z Communications, 2009). Basically, while there may be some difficulties in decision-making and the complexities of supply and demand, there can be adaptations; parecon’s operational procedures don’t have to be set in stone.

Another criticism of participatory planning is that since the price of items is determined by social cost, isn’t it possible that we would be manufacturing goods that are beyond our means? For example, in a JasonMitchell Youtube video, in discussing gasoline prices, given the fact that gasoline has numerous social costs, its price would go up to $15/gal  (Mitchell, 2007). Now, this isn’t the real price gasoline would be; however, this example brings up an excellent point: if an item has a high social cost but is vitally needed, what happens then? Most likely, what would happen is if an item has a high social cost but is needed, then alternatives to that item would be explored. Still, it remains a murky situation.

As for Balanced Job Complexes, some critics argue that balanced job complexes would be, “difficult to envisage in complex industrial or commercial establishments”  (Loxley, 1998). The argument here is that creating complexes for large workplaces would be difficult. As Schweickart points out:

It is possible to imagine such a process at South End Press, which has five employees. But let’s think about it at my place of work, a medium-sized university with about a thousand faculty members and an equal number of staff.  Faculty Council (an elected body currently existing at Loyola) together with Staff Council (also an existing body) will be charged with drawing up a list of all the tasks the two thousand of us perform over the course of a year, then ranking them in order of ‘empowerment’  (Schweickart, 2006).

While this may seem burdensome and even impossible, at first, it is achievable. Essentially, what can be done is create a website (which should help facilitate the process), each actor can then list their average tasks and rate them by number. As before, a peer-to-peer evaluation can be done to check on each others’ estimates. Following that, the tasks can be compiled into a pooled area.

Another area of concern is over the idea of specialization. Mike Moffatt writes:

In a hospital there are many different job tasks, from surgeons who have spent decades studying their trade, to secreataries, to janitors. The philosophy of Parecon would require that experienced surgeons use their value time to mop the floor and clean toilets. It would also require that janitors be allowed to perform open heart surgery! That seems like a very high price to pay to end workplace ‘inequality’. Would society really have been better off if Thomas Edison were allowed to only spend a small fraction of his time working on inventions and the rest shoveling the sidewalk or driving a stagecoach?  (Moffatt)

Activist Rai initially felt the same. He wrote:

I’m a writer, an editor, a speaker, a facilitator. I have specialized skills. It seemed irrational, if not bizarre, to expect me to do a lot of other forms of (disempowering, rote) work as part of my radical ‘job complex,’ when this would reduce the amount of time I spent doing the things which I am good at, and which are badly needed  (Rai, 2009)

However, Rai eventually came to the conclusion that he was resistant to the idea of a job complex because he had a “class interest as an intellectual expecting other people (less educated, confident, articulate, work-skilled people) to do the boring work” (Rai, 2009). He went on to say that “it sharply confronts the class interest of intellectuals working in progressive movements. Such as myself” (Rai, 2009). Even if it was based on a class interest, the point would still be legitimate to make, if it were true; however, if we recall the section on diversity, in parecon, there are essentially more opportunities for people to be far more engaged in work that they couldn’t be before, such as the custodian wishing to become a doctor.

ZMag

ZMagazine is an alternative publication that has a horizontal structure, and are sustained by readership and a sustainer program. In analyzing ZMag and its employment of parecon, we find that many aspects, such as the balanced job complex, have translated well while others, such as participatory planning, have not due in large part because of the inhibitory effect of capitalism. In his memoirs, Albert wrote:

media institutions should be labeled alternative only if they agree that reducing income differentials, disentangling authority from money, developing jobs balanced for empowerment so that all can partake of decision making intelligently, incorporating truly democratic and participatory decision-making structures, steadily diminishing gender and race biases in employment and in on-the-job culture and product…  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 309)

 

For the most part, it seems that Z has lived up to this in all but one area: disentangling authority from money. As mentioned earlier, former writer Alex Cockburn was receiving twice that of any other writer at Z. Essentially, this created an inequality, in which Cockburn was remunerated unfairly (based on parecon equity) due to his talent in articulating deep and thought-provoking articles. In an interview, Albert agreed. He said, “Yes on both counts – but not talent, actually, rather bargaining power. But we didn’t in fact pay Alex any differently. Rather, I think I wrote in the memoir, Noam simply donated his payments to Alex keeping Alex happy. And that was quite a long time ago.” Albert said that Chomsky donated his check, however, the money was still coming from Z; so, basically, however someone would like to frame it, Cockburn was getting double what any other writer was. One can argue that given the excellence of Cockburn’s work, for an emerging publication like Z, it was justified for them to pay him more – if only to try and expose themselves; however, at the time, they also had Noam Chomsky (who is inarguably popular) contributing work, so it seems sad and even needless for them to have compromised their values for Cockburn’s work. Fortunately, since then, all writers are paid the same – now, however, the same means not at all.

As for ZMag’s values, it seems that for the most part they go hand-in-hand with those of parecon, with only some minor exceptions. For example, Albert having to put up with Cockburn, which was not an equal division of work because often he (Albert) had to do more work than others at Z.

Additionally, a key difference between Z and mainstream media institutions is that “a mainstream media institution most often aims to maximize profit or surpluses” while Z just aims to survive  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 307). In trying to survive, Z has committed some questionable acts, most notably increasing sustainer fees without consent. However, in their defense, they did offer to refund the money of anyone who requested it  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 303). It seems that volatile income has plagued Z since its beginning. During one particularly bad time, they “replaced the ZNet top page for nearly ten days with a call for help, including providing information about our situation, descriptions of how we would use incoming money, instructions for donating, and testimonials from lots of prominent leftists”  (Albert, Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir, 2007, 301). Their call to help also featured a written statement from popular social critic Noam Chomsky. He wrote: “[ZMag] is an invaluable resource for me personally, in all of these respects, and also in my case for providing a forum for intense and very constructive discussion, the only one I regularly participate in;” he went on to say, “it is of inestimable importance, in my judgment, that Z and ZNet continue to flourish and expand” (Chomsky).

For the most part, it seems that Chomsky’s wish seems to be coming true. John Pilger once wrote of Z:

I hesitate to call ZCom the leading samizdat of our age, because it is also one of the great newspapers of the internet, print, and video. You get more in one visit than hours of thumbing through voluminous newspaper voices of rapacious power. The range of good journalism, writing and scholarship on ZCom is astonishing: from the pen of the well-known to eyewitness reporting of ‘citizen journalists’.  (Z Communications, 2009)

 

Evidently, volatile financial security is a recurring theme at ZMag, but by-and-large it is not indicative of the failure of parecon but rather the stresses and limitations of working under a capitalist economy.

Conclusion

“We are all butterflies walking. We may wear gold shoes. We may wear no shoes at all. In either case, it doesn’t have to be this way … We can escape the institutions that clip our wings,” Michael Albert from Remembering Tomorrow

 

            In evaluating economic systems we should always consider whether, even with its faults, it trumps the current system in place. According to Erik Olin Wright, there are three ways to evaluate alternative systems. He writes: “Evaluate alternatives in terms of three criteria: desirability, viability, achievability”  (Wright, 2007). Additionally, we have to “identify normative trade-offs in institutional designs and the transition costs in their creation” (Wright, 2007).

In the case of Parecon, it certainly does trump our current economic system; it is desirable, viable, but is it achievable? In the light of a centuries old overarching capitalist system, the future of parecon does seem bleak. However, achievable comes from action and experimentation. Essentially, step-by-step we will find that we are trying to “build a new world in the shell of the old.” In building a new world, who’s to say what’s impossible?

While participatory economics does seem to have its faults, due mainly in-part to ambiguities in its text, the fact that it values solidarity, self-management, equity, diversity, and efficiency is certainly a positive. However, whether these values translate into reality is what truly matters. In the case of Z, we find that these values are promoted, despite the many inhibiting factors of working within a capitalist society. Still, Z is just one amongst many possibilities, and, so, participatory economics should be employed and experimented with at other, larger, workplaces and institutions. As Noam Chomsky once said of parecon, “it merits close attention, debate and action.”

Works Cited

Albert, M. (2009, 12 2). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Albert, M. (2009, April 28). Parecon: Future & Present. Retrieved 11 20, 2009, from ZNet:

www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21283

Albert, M. (2003). Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Verso.

Albert, M. (2007). Remembering Tomorrow: A Memoir. Seven Stories Press.

Chomsky, N. (n.d.). Is Capitalism Making Life Better?

Cronan, J. (2009, 11 20). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Cronan, J. (2008, January 30). Participatory Economics as an Alternative. Retrieved October 2,

2009, from ZNet: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16357

Grubacic, A. (2009, December 1). (R. Angel, Interviewer)

Krugman, P. (2003, December 18). Death of Horatio Alger. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from

The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/krugman

Loxley, J. (. (1998, January 1). Thinking Forward: learning to conceptualize economic vision.

Canadian Dimension .

Miller, E. (2006, July 1). Other Economies Are Possible! Grassroots Economic Organizing

Newsletter .

Mitchell, J. (2007, May 13). Intro to Participatory Economics.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd60nYW577U . Youtube: Broadcast Yourself.

Moffatt, M. (n.d.). The Insanity of Parecon and the Importance of Efficiency of Specialization.

Retrieved 11 25, 2009, from About.com: economics.about.com/od/governmentregulation/a/parecon.htm

ParEcon Questions & Answers. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 25, 2009, from Z Parecon:

www.zmag.org/zparecon/qapp.htm

Rai, M. (2009, February 2). The New Class Struggle. New Politics .

Schweickart, D. (2006, January 16). Nonsense on Stilts: Michael Albert’s Parecon. Retrieved

November 12, 2009, from Loyola University of Chicago:

http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/parecon.htm

 

Shalom, S. (2006). In Search of Economic Justice. New Politics .

Wright, E. O. (2007). Guidelines for Envisioning Real Utopias. Soundings .

Z Communications. (2009, 11). Retrieved 10 2009, from http://www.zcommunications.org/

 

---

[1] I really don’t know what he means by “meetings are roughly once every other work, for everyone.”

by John Cronan Jr.

(This was my response to The Nation’s forum on “Reimagining Socialism

www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/ehrenreich_fletcher)

We have seen how the Obama campaign and his eventual victory rekindled engagement in the political realm for millions of people, some for the very first time and many of them youth. His message of “hope” and “change” resonated with a broad spectrum of the population. And what was once called an apathetic generation—my generation, the largest ever—came out in droves to the poll and the streets, knocking on doors and engaging with strangers about politics. What this political moment reveals is that we were not and are not apathetic. Rather, youth, and society as a whole, has been acting out on a rational assumption, “there is no alternative, so why expect one.” We shape our expectations based on what we think is realistically attainable; otherwise, we set ourselves up to be let down every waking hour. If nothing else is concretely put forth to be attained, people are not going to desire to get rid of what they have now, however little, for more uncertainty.

This is where the Left has failed. We have been experts at telling people what is wrong with the system. Now that the system is showing its true colors on a mass scale, and our criticisms and analyses are vindicated, where does that leave us? The market as an institution is being scorned outright by everyday people. The profit driven economy has threatened life on earth as we know it. What do we have to say? “We told you so!”? That’s not going to work this time. No longer can we call out the American Dream as a myth for the majority of Americans. We need to create a new dream—one based on equitable cooperation and sustainability and is also tangible and can stand up to critical review. Luckily our political moment offers us a second chance (or our third, fourth, or fifth!).

More opportunities exist now not merely because of present economic and ecological crises; for most of us we are constantly in crisis already. Yes, this backdrop has created a sense of urgency but there is also a sense of hope and the feeling that we can have a better world; whether it was fueled by the Obama campaign or not, it is present, and thousands, if not millions, of people are ready to heed the call and are already taking action. However, this rejuvenation will not last if the new wave of enthusiasm does not join teams with a vision for the future and plan on how to get there. If we want people to start building a bridge to a new future, we need to have a clear picture of what’s going to be on the other side of the bridge, and we need to know what kind of bridge to build; otherwise, we can’t expect people to pick up the tools in the first place. In other words, what institutions will 21^st Century Socialism, or whatever you want to call a desirable post-capitalist economy, actually have, and what mechanisms do we propose to build the power to realize them? There is still time for us to step up to the plate and call our shot and make it the economy the people built.

This require us to go beyond vague values and notions of equality and workers democracy, though these should guide our vision. Unlike some who have replied to the lead article by Ehrenreich and Fletcher, I do not think it is utopian to offer actual alternatives. In fact, it is utopian to believe that masses of people in our society will fight for something they do not yet know, or that old institutions. like markets, can be salvaged and deliver desirable outcomes. People have been struggling against systems of domination and exploitation for hundreds of years; they have experimented with different forms of movement organization and economic arrangement. Can we not learn from the past? Do we always have to start from scratch?

With that said, our future post-capitalist economy has no place for private ownership of productive property, markets, hierarchal division of labor, or income based on ownership, bargaining power or output. All are go against building an economy based on equitable cooperation and sustainability.Therefore, our vision should be to replace these undemocratic economic and environmentally destructive institutions with ones complementary to our aims. Markets need to be replaced with a form of federated (meaning decisions are made at the appropriate level—i.e. district, city, state, federal—with each level accountable to the one below it) and democratic planning between workers and consumer councils; productive property should be controlled by all of society; and hierarchal division of labor should be replaced by balanced jobs—where empowering tasks and rote work are shared by everyone. All of these factors are necessary for a classless, equitable, and green economy. These institutions together are usually called Participatory Economics.

This is not a blueprint, per se, but a set of guiding institutions. Just like capitalism is different in every country depending on a host of factors, so will a participatory economy.

We also need a vision for a new political system, cultural and community relations, kinship relations, and how we relate to the environment; all are just as important as the economy. Our vision for society should be holistic. Armed with our new vision, we are able to inspire and provide a real end goal for people, as well as inform our here and now work and strategy. Furthermore, our strategy needs to be rooted in material reality, not letting our vision relegate us to refusing to engage with or within institutions which we despise. Rather, our vision should be a tool to guide and judge the efficacy of our strategy on the road to building power.

Today, that means building the broadest based progressive alliance possible, with a focus on strengthening the power of the most oppressed sectors of society within that alliance—workers, people of color, women, LGBTQ, youth and all of the intersections. This “historic bloc,” if you will, must neutralize the most reactionary elements of society and those in power, while building up the revolutionary wing of the mass democratic movement by winning over more and more people. We must push for reforms like a Green New Deal and stave off climate catastrophe, lifting people out of poverty and creating solid infrastructure that benefits the most oppressed. Workers rights need to be strengthened by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, and there needs to be health care for all through a single-payer system. At the same time, new institutions and ways of organizing our lives need to be built: workers councils, peoples’ assemblies, free schools, and more.

So, yes, this means we need organization. It must be like be like no other this country has seen. A revolutionary organization means millions of people. It must be democratic, flexible, and diverse, but disciplined and unified. It needs to engage in communities, unions, households, elections, and every other sphere of social life. Most of all, it needs to be mostly comprised of and take leadership from those people take the brunt of our society’s systems of dominance, of which capitalism is only one.

Readers may have noticed that I used the words “must” and “need” repeatedly. This is because there are no other words to describe the task at hand. Again, we are presented with an opportunity to really shape the future course of our society and the earth. As a young person his mid 20s, however, I realize that we need to get rid of old dogmas and practices and be more visionary and strategic than any social movement before us, if we are to win. I have faith that we can do it, and I know that millions of other young people do to. The question becomes: are we ready to win?