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

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

Okay, lets see if the following responses to your comments help.

You say - "Obviously I agree that we have to mange our resources properly, I just happen to think that setting up alternative institutions when resources permit is a good use of them and adds strength through experience to our ideological arguments."

That is exactly what I am arguing for ... so we agree on that, I think. Where we might disagree is on whether there should be a primary focus on establishing political chapters / councils and not economic ones. Ive already said why I think we should prioritise political chapters / councils but if you want to explore it further that is fine by me.

You say - "The point I am trying to get at is they only serve to promote vision I would not expect them to gain much support, especially amongst busy and overworked people."

But the chapters / councils don't just serve to promote vision (take another look) they also engage in solidarity work, reform campaigns etc. Such campaign work could involve fighting for reforms that address the issue of people being overworked (Michael Albert sketches out a proposes for a "Parcon Program" in his Moving forward that could be incorporated into the proposal -  http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/movingforward.htm)

The promotion and development of vision is something that runs through the whole program, but it is not all that the proposal involves.

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

Members of political chapters / councils could exercise their power in a number of ways depending on the level of development of the overall organisation. For example, they could engage in solidarity work with the broader left (2:5). Or they could initiate reform campaigns of their own (2:3 / 6:2). Ultimately members would withdraw they support for the old political system and establish a new constitution (5:1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael -

You write - "All I am trying to get across is that - not least from my experience with offering vision - when we speculate, suggest, propose, and even assert our strong impressions, it can come off as being far more assertive than we actually feel, or as if it means to be complete when it doesn't, and so on."

Let me just say the following and then hopefully we can put this aspect of our exchange aside.

I appreciate the advice. My mistake, perhaps, has been to take as given that when people propose vision and strategy we all assume that it is a statement of my / their views on the subject and presented for participants of the ReSoc project to explore together. So when I, or someone else, says "should" or "must" I understand it as an expression of my / their strongly held opinion and nothing more. However, if you are right in what you say about the danger that some could understand these statements as closing the debate down then I should try to keep this in mind when I communicate.

Okay, that aside, you go on to present the two following scenarios as an illustration of the contextual nature of strategy -

"Suppose I thought after long assessment, say, five years from now, that a revolution in the U.S. will most likely involve creation of mass movements, which I expect to take, say, another decade or two, and will also involve networks of federated councils or assemblies taking even a bit longer, all of them together then winning a growing mosaic of non reformist..."

"However, suppose, that in fact, contrary to my expectations, two years later, while I have been working in light of the above expectations and hopes, there is some set of events so that instead of all that unfolding broadly as I anticipated - there is instead a sudden victory by a leftist candidate for president, galvanizing huge public participation and support, and suppose the new president moves steadily further left while in office generating growing popular support"

Then you pose the follow series of questions -

"What do I do? Do I decry what is actually happening as rubbish because it isn't what I anticipated would happen? Am I instead ecstatic that things are moving much faster, and with much less conflict, so I adapt to work in that new context while entirely jettisoning my worries about it being more top down than I anticipated and sought as a path forward? Or do I welcome the unexpected possibilities and work with the unfolding process, acting to try to have what is occurring lead where we all hope to wind up?"

You also, I think, correctly state that "The outlined strategies mentioned above [...] couldn't be more different" (which also, incidentally, suggests a limited scope of options for strategy).

Now - and this is the important bit - you seem to believe (or assume?) that the program I propose is only applicable to one of these scenarios - and I'm guessing it is the first of the two. I suspect that this is why you think I say more than you think I should say.

Okay, maybe you are right - but in the spirit of the ReSoc project please take another look and consider how my proposal fits into your two very different scenarios and say why it works in one and not the other.

Personally, with some tweaking, I think it could work rather well in both.

* Note: I'm assuming that the vision in both scenarios is the same*

Mark E

Apologies this is a bit long,

At the beginning of your article state your intention is to "describe a complete transition of society from beginning to end". I think this is very ambitious if not unrealistic. Such a transition will be affected by a number of factors that it would be difficult to predict, such as how those opposed to our proposed transition react which would in turn require us to change our path. As such I am not convinced that such a detailed description is as helpful as vision, although I do agree on the need to consider how we achieve change and on the need to develop strategy.

Did you intend this article as a strategy? Some of what is written seem to be specific proposals as opposed to a strategy which should leave a more options available.

Michael Albert & Tom Wetzel have already picked up on your comment about Anarchism so will try not to repeat what they have already said. A couple of points I would like to make though, I have always Considered Parecon a vision similar to the goals of Anarcho-Syndicalism. Whilst I agree in the importance of developing vision I feel some caution is required, I feel it could serve to divide as much as we hope it will unite, as such it is debatable whether an organisation defending people or fighting for change today should advocate a particular vision that may divide or limit its members. How we use vision is something that I feel requires some consideration.

I agree with you that the first stage in a strategy should be knowledge of how society works and that we should have some idea of where we intend to end up. The rest of the strategy should be firmly rooted in this knowledge. At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, It does not sound as if you have based the rest of the strategy on any understanding of how the world (as this appears to be for an international organisation) or for the UK where you and I reside. If you have you have not explained it.

Others have already made comments about the the councils you refer to in stage 1.

You move on to propose setting up chapters of which the 'primary function is the popularisation of our vision and strategy' I have serious doubts that this alone will achieve much unless the only intention was the popularisation of ideas, but the article goes on to suggest that we assume power so that cannot be the intention. I feel that we need create organisations that people would gravitate to because of what they provide, not just because of the values and vision that inspired them or the way they are run. Promotion, discussion and development of vision should be a part of these organisations. They would also need to shift the balance of power, or at least contribute towards shifting the balance of power.

I don't understand why you think it is necessary to wait till stage 6 after we have apparently taken power to establish organisations that fulfill roles required in the economic, kinship and community spheres, I think we should be trying to create them now or at least when we have the resources to do so.

I agree with Micheal Alberts comments regarding the Media Group, I would also query if it was specifically the role of the media group to target police and military forces, there may be better placed organisations.

If I understand you correctly from stages 2 to 4 you are trying to describe the growth of a political organisation based on the Nested Councils described by Stephen Shalom, if that is the case I do not feel that you have given sufficient consideration to where the power of this organisation will reside or the role that it will fulfill. As such, I don't understand how you expect it to assume power - by which I assume you mean that the existing political institutions will be replaced by the system of nested councils.

I get the impression from reading this article that you feel that primarily, by spreading ideas about how society could be organised, this in itself would main force achieving social transformation and that other efforts would be secondary. I agree that advocating vision and values is important, I just don't think this alone would be enough to create the type of change we desire.

Hi Mark C - good to see you here and thanks for the comments.

You write - "At the beginning of your article state your intention is to "describe a complete transition of society from beginning to end". I think this is very ambitious if not unrealistic."

I agree that it is ambitious. But you say that it might be unrealistic because "Such a transition will be affected by a number of factors that it would be difficult to predict, such as how those opposed to our proposed transition react which would in turn require us to change our path."

I know what you mean about the unpredictability (or to use Albert's words "contextual") of history which is why any such proposal needs to be open to adaptation. However, don't you think that there are also generalisations (or to use Albert's word "typically") we can confidently make about how things will unfold? My proposal is based on informed guesses - which, it seems to me, are all we have to work with.

You ask "Did you intend this article as a strategy?"

My intention is to present a program which I see as an attempt to bring together vision and strategy. I think a good program would be one in which there is consistency between these two component parts. In fact a good program would remove the distinction between vision and strategy. So, for example the development of long-term vision becomes part of our strategy, and our strategy is informed by our vision.

You say "I have always Considered Parecon a vision similar to the goals of Anarcho-Syndicalism." I also see them as belonging to the same left-libertarian tradition. Importantly, however, I find it very hard to imagine the transition from capitalism to parecon without the assistance of a sympathetic governing body - which is why my program has, as its primary focus, the establishment of a system of nested political chapters/councils informed by Shalom's vision.

You say "How we use vision is something that I feel requires some consideration" and I, of course, agree. This is why I think 2:5 and 2:6 of my proposal are so important.

You write "It does not sound as if you have based the rest of the strategy on any understanding of how the world (as this appears to be for an international organisation) or for the UK where you and I reside. If you have you have not explained it."

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

You say "I feel that we need create organisations that people would gravitate to because of what they provide, not just because of the values and vision that inspired them or the way they are run."

I think that is a valid point. But I do think that the chapters / councils would or should provide people with something that is very important to them - namely control over their own lives. But I do know what you mean, I think ... maybe you are referring to more immediate needs? Well that could be incorporated into the program. Any ideas are more than welcome.

You say "I don't understand why you think it is necessary to wait till stage 6 after we have apparently taken power to establish organisations that fulfill roles required in the economic, kinship and community spheres, I think we should be trying to create them now or at least when we have the resources to do so."

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

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

You write - "If I understand you correctly from stages 2 to 4 you are trying to describe the growth of a political organisation based on the Nested Councils described by Stephen Shalom". That is correct.

You continue - "if that is the case I do not feel that you have given sufficient consideration to where the power of this organisation will reside or the role that it will fulfill." The power will come from the people who support the program. If there are few people there will be little power, if there are many people there will be lots of power. The role of the organisation will be to take power back from the elites and use it to create "another world".

You add - "As such, I don't understand how you expect it to assume power - by which I assume you mean that the existing political institutions will be replaced by the system of nested councils." You assume correctly! As the power of the new system of government grows the old system becomes redundant - that's the basic idea.

Mark

Hi, again...

You note that in response to you I wrote "Typically such a thing would be in place after winning governing power, so to speak - which is usually way far along in the process." And then you reply, "It is interesting that you say `typically'. This seems to suggest a general or universal truth - or something close. It is also interesting that you say that the transition would occur `after winning governing power'. I find this interesting because, unless I completely misunderstand you, this is exactly what I propose in my program."

I don't really remember the context - but I suspect I was saying typically in some particular situation or just about transition - and, indeed, some things are of course typical, or occur most often, while others occur only in some few cases. Transition, however, in particular, which takes years to fully achieve - in fact likely decades - and is the name not for fighting for reforms from a position of opposition, but for collectively implementing new relations from a position of defining the new soceity, by its very nature occurs after a revolution is largely in power. This is true by definition of the terms. So struggle against entrenched power is one thing - transition after entrenched power is no longer in place, and movements are defining outcomes, is another thing, so to speak. And the latter is occuring when those who are seeking the new society are transforming outcomes and becoming acclimated to new relations, not as an opposition, but as the "rulers" of the new society - hopefully, masses self managing, rather than a narrow elite centrally imposing. But, in any event, we always try to have a strategy, or program - long or even short term - that fits conditions and situations, and that aims where we seek to go. And yes, from place to place and time to time, some characteristics of a movement that is seeking, say, a participatory society, will be quite  common, for example, building a movement based on the needs and desires of workers, women, and minorities, embodying the seeds of the future in the present, establishing structures that will melt into self management and other sought relations in the new society rather than evolving into elite rule, and so on. Some characteristics will, however, likely differ in different countries, etc. - for example, the level of conflict, the role of strikes, the role of unions and assemblies, the role of elections, and so on.

Suppose I thought after long assessment, say, five years from now, that a revolution in the U.S. will most likely involve creation of mass movements, which I expect to take, say, another decade or two, and will also involve networks of federated councils or assemblies taking even a bit longer, all of them together then winning a growing mosaic of non reformist reforms bettering people's lives and enlarging and strengthening the movements, including building new institutions and relations of massive size and scope that become, eventually, the structures of the new society, and so on - perhaps also including a modest but a very secondary electoral component such that the whole project will mostly unfold as a fight against the state as the movemen gets larger and larger, and finally essentially, dominates the definition of outcomes all over society. Okay, that is what I strongly anticipate, and am working for - say.

However, suppose, that in fact, contrary to my expectations, two years later, while I have been working in light of the above expectations and hopes, there is some set of events so that instead of all that unfolding broadly as I anticipated - there is instead a sudden victory by a leftist candidate for president, galvanizing huge public participation and support, and suppose the new president moves steadily further left while in office generating growing popular support, so that, in essence, instead of the federal government being the enemy of emerging movements, it is trying to arouse and nurture and advance them, even against local government, again old habits, against capitalist owners, and so on - with the new president and in turn large parts of the federal government having a more radical position than the movements for a considerable time.

What do I do? Do I decry what is actually happening as rubbish because it isn't what I anticipated would happen? Am I instead ecstatic that things are moving much faster, and with much less conflict, so I adapt to work in that new context while entirely jettisoning my worries about it being more top down than I anticipated and sought as a path forward? Or do I welcome the unexpected possibilities and work with the unfolding process, acting to try to have what is occuring lead where we all hope to wind up?

Well of course I do the latter. As would you, I have no doubt. In other words, my strategic situation, and thus my strategy, change, dramatically. But this way of reacting that I think you and I would agree is desirable is not what everyone does. Many people, including many who talk about strategy being contextual and flexible and open to discussion, instead very aggressively reject what diverges from their expectations or hopes, clinging to false pictures, while reality moves on, ironically, without their input. This happens repeatedly.

What always ought to be the case is that even confidently held strategy is always a proposal...and one that everyone hopes will in fact lead to a better proposal - unlike, say, the heart of a shared vision, which is at least in its core features eventually a matter of shared principle and commitment. The outlined strategies mentioned above, for example, couldn't be more different - yet I would relish either one unfolding...though either could fail, each could also succeed.

You next quote me saying: "But urging now, or probably for a long time to come, that there is one such path, and we can know it now, and those who deviate thinking some other route more likely are deviating in principle - is worse than a bad idea - it is a slippery slope to sectarianism."

And you reply: "I agree, which is why I don't do that. Instead my proposal is open to criticism from ReSoc participants and in the event of establishing a new international organisation would be open to refinements and change from chapter members who, of course, could also submit their program proposals for review from their fellow members. It is also offered as an example of a National program and not a blue print for all such programs. As I have already said, it is an open contribution to the ReSoc project and not some rigid doctrine. But if you insist on interpreting it that way then there is nothing I can do about that."

Mark - I know your intentions. I have no worry about them. If you read what comments I have offered, they are about, or were meant to be about, how what we say and write is perceived, regardless of our intentions. My comments are not about how someone who agrees already, with you, in whole or in large part - and who even knows you - will hear your words, but about how someone who hasn't heard any of this before and doesn't know you, hears your words. Saying that we intend so and so - for example, to be flexible, etc., doesn't count for much if their impression or suspicion or own prior habits or experiences causes them to HEAR from us, contrary to our intentions, contrary to what we think our words mean, something quite different. That is what I was emphasizing...

With less emphasis, I was also trying to express that I think it is one thing for you or I or any individual to put forward a broad conception of a vision, say, as a proposal which, however, we hope will become a shared aim. It is another thing for you or I or anyone else to do the same for a broad strategy for one country or even place in a country, at one time, hoping it will guide practice, but welcoming change to anything that makes more sense. And finally, it is another thing to put forth a broad strategy for all countries, and all times. The last will by its nature every time set off alarms that this is sliding toward something inflexible and that overreaches, I suspect.

At any rate, whichever we may be trying to offer - we can express it in a way that feels more or less open, flexible, etc., whatever our intent may be. This observation applies to me, just as to you, and I have no doubt violated it repeatedly, at least for many who hear or read me, in my efforts to promote parecon and parsoc - and based on that - emerges my bit of advice, for you and me!

Then you quote me: You add - "the program of a participatory organization will have to emerge from its members - not a few people at a very early stage - save for the program bearing on their work at that early stage...and so on."

And you reply: "Here I kind of agree and disagree. Yes the official program will have to be open to development by all members but I also see no reason why we can't speculate about the topic at this early stage - isn't that what the ReSoc project was set-up for? Isn't it the case that such speculation could actually generate more interest in vision and strategy?"

We can also speculate about second or third order aspects of vision - but if we do that with an assertive tone, as if we are saying that what we envision in all its details must be the future - then the vision we are offering will appear to be way over specified, a rigid and extensive blueprint, even though we meant our speculations to be no more than indicative, and the same goes for strategy, except even more so, I think.

So, yes, the resoc project is to talk about vision and strategy, hopefully moving toward shared ideas about each, and so on. All I am trying to get across is that - not least from my experience with offering vision - when we speculate, suggest, propose, and even assert our strong impressions, it can come off as being far more assertive than we actually feel, or as if it means to be complete when it doesn't, and so on. So it pays for anyone offering vision or strategy to be quite cautious.

One type caution is to say, as you do, rightly, that we mean this as a proposal, etc. Of course we should do that. But even people who have no notion of flexibility and openness, would say that - so it alone doesn't prove much. Another type caution is to be sure that we say, and mean, things like - a movement could do such and such, or a movement might do so and so, instead of a movement must do this or that, or a movement will do this or that - for all but the narrow band of activity or commitment that we really do believe to be essential - and so this is true, I think, for all but the most basic core features of vision, and for very nearly all aspects of strategy. 

Michael -

In response to my comments on the difficulty of the transition from capitalism to parecon you say - "Typically such a thing would be in place after winning governing power, so to speak - which is usually way far along in the process"

It is interesting that you say "typically". This seems to suggest a general or universal truth - or something close. It is also interesting that you say that the transition would occur "after winning governing power". I find this interesting because, unless I completely misunderstand you, this is exactly what I propose in my program.

You say - "But urging now, or probably for a long time to come, that there is one such path, and we can know it now, and those who deviate thinking some other route more likely are deviating in principle - is worse than a bad idea - it is a slippery slope to sectarianism."

I agree, which is why I don't do that. Instead my proposal is open to criticism from ReSoc participants and in the event of establishing a new international organisation would be open to refinements and change from chapter members who, of course, could also submit their program proposals for review from their fellow members. It is also offered as an example of a National program and not a blue print for all such programs. As I have already said, it is an open contribution to the ReSoc project and not some rigid doctrine. But if you insist on interpreting it that way then there is nothing I can do about that.

You add - "the program of a participatory organization will have to emerge from its members - not a few people at a very early stage - save for the program bearing on their work at that early stage...and so on."

Here I kind of agree and disagree. Yes the official program will have to be open to development by all members but I also see no reason why we can't speculate about the topic at this early stage - isn't that what the ReSoc project was set-up for? Isn't it the case that such speculation could actually generate more interest in vision and strategy?

Carl - a couple of quick points -

There is no political party in my proposal - although it does accommodate for close working ties with parties.

My proposal is not opposed to reforms (see 2:3).

I should point out that the development of vision (at stage 1) is crucial in my proposal. If this vision does not have mass appealing then the program will fail. I should also point out that this vision is, in some important ways, quite different to that of DeLeon and the SLP.

Tom -

When I said "it's the same thing" as what Shalom is talking about I'm referring to the institutions. The idea is that the chapters we establish for organising today should be run as close as possible to our vision of political councils. In time, as the chapters grow, they reach such a level of popular support that they can start to function as a nested council structure as described in Parpolity.

You are right to say "He [Shalom] doesn't say anything about how this is to come about."  But the purpose of a program is to break bown the false distinction between vision and strategy.  They are in the end the same subject.  That is what I'm trying to do. 

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

First of all nothing is "fully worked out". We just use the best ideas we know of and try to improve on them all the time. (see 0:2, and 1:2)

Second, the size of the organisation will be determine by the level of support at any given time - which is an unknown quantity. It could start small but end up really big. These are such obvious points I'm blushing as I type, so I assume I'm missing something ...?

You write - "If you mean that this is a governing body for some region, then you're talking about a government. Where does the power to govern come from? How is it acquired?"

That's right - what I am proposing is the establishment of a new governing body. However, unlike existing authoritarian, manipulative governments, this new government is participatory. The power to govern comes from the people who participate in the new system (and not in the old one).

You write "The sort of base "council" that Shalom talks about is a neighborhood assembly, and then delegate bodies made up of delegates from various neighborhood assemblies. This does not seem to be what you're talking about."

No. That is exactly what I am talking about.

You ask - "And why isn' t this a proposal for a one-party dictatorship?"

One reason is because there is no political party and another is because there is no democratic centralism. Instead the political organisation is made up of a nested chapter / council structure as describes by Shalom in his Parpolity vision.

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

Well, that depends. But with the right ideas and serious commitment small numbers of people can have a big impact. And anyway, such organising efforts can grow exponentially which means that they are not small for long! So I would substitute "extremely implausible" for "extremely ambitious - but possible". 

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

Tom - if the chapter / council structure I propose (as the main focus for organising) is a political party then so is Steve Shalom's vision - because it is the same thing.

You say I "don't explain how the "councils" you propose are to come into existence".

In fact I do (see 2:1). However, I'm saying that this requires no more work.

I think the proposal would be sectarian if I argued that members of the councils should not organise with people who disagree with our vision - but I don't (see 2:5).

You ask "Where does this "popular support" for the "councils " come from? How does it emerge? These are the difficult questions which you don't even begin to address."

Once again I do, at least try to begin to answer these questions (see 2:2, 2:3, 2:4, 2:5 and 2:6).

You are right when you say, "If workers take over the management of industry generally through the development of "councils" this is a general strike on the job, in fact, no matter what you choose to call it." However this is not what I propose.

Rather, in the proposal I put forward economic councils are only established at stage 6 of the program - after the implementation of a new constitution - at which point general strikes become redundant as a strategy for economic transformation. This is because the new political structure shares the same social vision for the economy - hence, there is no resistance for economic transformation from these new political institutions.

In fact, quite the opposite. Given the shared vision the new political structure would help facilitate in the economic transition from competitive markets to participatory planning etc.

This is why developing and popularising vision at stage 1 is so important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> One of the reasons I say more than you think I should say regarding specific strategic proposals is because I find it very hard to see how we get from capitalism to parecon without first establishing a new constitution that facilitates for such a transition.

Steve -

In his "Marxism at the Millennium" Tony Cliff states that "if you are not symmetrical to your enemy you can never win". He continues adding, "We have to be symmetrical to our enemy. That is why I cannot understand the anarchists when they come and say they don't need a state."

I think there is something in that.

But I also think that the Marxist-Leninist solution to this problem, which Cliff advocates, is flawed because democratic centralism has a strong tendency away from socialist values.

My proposal is an attempt to suggest a means of achieving a "symmetry" with our ideological opponents whilst also avoiding the dangers inherent to Marxism-Leninism and the said weaknesses in anarcho-syndicalism.

The symmetry of power in my proposal occurs as a result of the very existence of the nested council structure which we might think of as the establishment of a new participatory state / government replacing the old authoritarian state / government.

Michael -

Yes, I had noticed that you write on vision and strategy from time to time.

I think we should put some of your criticisms down to my lack of talent / time for writing. I will try to keep them in mind in future.

One of the reasons I say more than you think I should say regarding specific strategic proposals is because I find it very hard to see how we get from capitalism to parecon without first establishing a new constitution that facilitates for such a transition. Furthermore I suspect that this is true for all countries all the time. Take for example the transition from competitive markets to participatory planning. Is it realistic to believe that such a transition could occur during a general strike? Even if it is possible, is this the most desirable / sensible option?

Unless we have quite specific answers to these questions I don't think that people will take our programs serious. In which case I don't think we will be able to generate and sustain the level of hope and commitment we need in our organisations. Please note however that such answers should always remain open to refinement and change.

Of course - but what is the point?

We are both, as is is everyone, in society with people of all sorts, some we like, some not so much. We are both in struggle, as allies, with people of many sorts, some we are closer with, some less so. But the point here is that we might also then be in other organizations with people - again people of far more than one sort - but not of all sorts.

If we are talking about having an organization, whether very local, or on a campus, or for a country, or even internationally, we can certainly have many kinds - single issue, multi issue but not particularly revolutionary, etc. It one kind, however, is a revolutionary movement in which there is a lot of agreement about many things - that movement will have people with diversity, yes, but they will also have considerable important unity - including, I would think, being anti capitalist... among other shared views. I tried to pose views that make sense to me to undergird such an organization, as did Mark...

I don't see how saying we also work with people who wouldn't be, yet, actually in such an organization, bears on the matter. 

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

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

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

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

Tom -

There are no political parties in the program I describe.  However, it does accommodate for close working ties between chapter members and parties if that is seen as strategically useful at any particular time (see 2:3, 2:5).  Therefore much of what you write doesn't really apply to my propsal. 

My notion of councils is based on Steve Shalom vision, and chapters should be understood as councils in embryonic form. 

You say that the "Workers Solidarity Alliance is a group in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition and we have a fairly worked out conception".  I would say that you are the exception and not the rule to that tradition.  Ask the IWW or the IWA how they intend to allocate goods after the general strike and I doubt you will get a very convincing answer.  They may say that they intend to work it out durring the transition but for me that is too risky. 

You also say "When you talk about the councils "taking power" you're talking about a transformative general strike in fact."  No I'm not - take another look. 

The assumption of power is based on the popular support for the new political institutions which makes the old political institutions redundant.  This allows for the implimentation of a new constitution (written by the National council) which in turn allows for radical changes in all areas of society including the economy. 

I hope that clarifies some of the issues you raise. 

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

Mark -

You note, to my saying strategy is very contextual: "But we have to start somewhere - right?  That is all I am trying to do.  I am trying to make a contribution to the debate - not end it!" 

I know. And that is fine, and a priority, I agree. Your piece was responding to one I wrote - and I was doing the same thing as you, and always am, about both vision and strategy. The point is just that it is much easier for the former than the latter and it is difficult but important to avoid expressing ourselves in ways that seem to close the door to further exploration, diverse options, etc. etc. - save where we really really do believe that answers are sound and overwhelmingly applicable. I am guilty of failing on this far more than the next person...

Given that your intention seems, however, from this comment, to have been mainly to ask, okay, how do people feel about building organization and chapters and so on like Michael suggested in his essay, as one part of our task, pretty much in all countries, pretty much starting soon - I am not sure why you didn't simply ask that. 

> I knew when I wrote it that my comment regarding anarchism is "part fair, but part not fair".  The trouble is that I don't really know how to comment on such issues without making partly unfair statements.  Maybe it is a reflection of my limited understanding and skills as a writer or maybe it is just impossible to avoid.  In the end I justify what I wrote on the grounds that I think it is more a fair than an unfair comment - do you think this is acceptable?  

Honestly, I can't remember what you wrote. Or what I replied. But, in general, of course most things are nuanced. There are exceptions to most generalities. If I say capitalists are generally self seeking in their behavior to the exclusion of even noticing much less attending to the needs of their workers, it is broadly true - but there are no doubt plenty of exceptions, especially to the noticing part of the formulation. The thing is, in this case, the exceptions are relatively minor in number and probably won't mind the formulation, if they are really exceptions. When a progressive or left school of thought or ideology is criticized, however, things can get much more dicey - because the exceptions can be very major, and they can and are even quite likely to misunderstand and take offense and even be polarized away from hearing what is intended.

So, for example, I am very very critical of marxism leninism, the ideology, for a host of reasons. But I actually also believe that most people who operate in that broad camp, in the past and now, are not personally subject to many of my criticisms. Still, I have to make them. So it is hard to do, without losing communication with very large numbers who I think might well even agree - if the communication can occur optimally. The same goes for criticisms of something called, anarchism.

> But my point was different. If it's OK to organize among the armed wing of the state, then it should be OK to organize in the legislative and electoral arenas as well.

I am not sure who this is directed at...but...for me the issue is very rarely who to organize - but, instead, how to organize - toward what, and in what manner, and with what priority.

So, who is almost always a function of where one is. Most people in a growing movement for change will interact with legislators or other elected officials via trying to pressure them - raise costs for them - to get them to do things (like pass a law or end a war, and so on). But, some people, in those movements, might actually be in a different position - they could be elected, say, or working in DC or wherever, and come into contact with other elected officials, etc. Of course they would then try to reach those folks, organize them. Why not?

However, and this is the key point - movements can gravitate toward having a style and language and manner and making demands with an eye to changing the minds - as compared to pressuring elites - or vice versa. The former elevated to a priority would be both a dead end and destructive of having a style, language, manner, and demands that speak to the broad population of working people, etc. 

> Obviously, I'm one who thinks this has to be part of strategy. But support for it is often rather scarce in these forms.

Actually, I don't think that that is the case. Quite the contrary, in fact. Movements nowadays are typically structured and conceived with too much - not too little - orientation toward rational discourse with elites, as compared to pushing them. Saying that doesn't mean one never makes a rational case to a representative official or even owner, etc. etc. But it does mean one should not bend the movement to try to appeal to the tastes and style of such folks. Our audience must be the vast bulk of the population...not just in word, or claim, but in the actual methods we employ, our apportionment of time, and so on.

I suspect we agree.

> Finally, I agree my other points were indirect, but they were not meant to be disparaging. They were meant to be critical of making one's starting point the adoption of a 'holistic' world view, which starts you off in a quasi-religious or intentional community direction.  It doesn't go very far.

By holistic people have in mind merely that movements should address not just class, or just political power, or just race, or just gender/sex, or just age, or just the ecology, or just international relations - but, instead, all of them in the entwined connections as well as individually. I suspect you agree. If so, I cannot for the life of me see why you would label this quasi religious - and worse as you did - other than to try to tar the PARTICULAR perspective Mark was offering even though, in fact, the parts of it you were tarring, you actually agree with. Am I missing something here?

> Better to start with a practical platform solving current problems, but informed by a wider vision that produces deeper structural reform with working hypotheses that are open. Once you have an approach that requires the same 'holistic' view for all, you get into trouble, at least in my book.

Unless you are saying you are fine with being in a movement that is open to slave owners, or people who are in favor of capitalism, racism, imperialism, etc., you too have principles and beliefs that a movement you would relate to would need to embody. That "wider vision" you mention, is the point. That it is open ended - no one remotely questions. 

The problem may be the word holistic. I don't like it either. 

What contextual means is precisely that we don't know in advance - we only have intuitions because conditions could go one way, or another. So, yes, it may be that transforming a society - let's say the U.S. - happens overwhelmingly via nested councils and mass movements, with only modest and derivative electoral activity, or it may be that there is, instead, much more electoral activity, perhaps even the electoral prodding the grassroots rather than vice versa - and it may be that violence is minimized by the magnitude of movements, on the one hand, and by the dissolution of police and army, on the other - OR that it is warded off (I personally think this is incredibly far fetched) by movements that are themselves fighting back - violently - so to speak, as their main way of dealing with armed repression. Since we agree on the need for the massive and militant highly informed movements, and for the nested grass roots organization, we can pursue that, already, vigorously. As to how the rest unfolds, we will see, and do what we must/can, in due time. 

Those who think that fighting the military is done via military means might well turn to learning to fight - as did many of my friends forty years ago. I think such a choice would be both ignorant and suicidal to the sought aims, and I don't see any other  more wise of viable implication of such beliefs.

As to actual current personal beliefs, in other words, at this early point, I think the idea that the armed power of police and military will be overcome - as compared to undermined - by an armed left that fights them militarily is a pipe dream - or perhaps I should say pipe nightmare - in an industrialized society. I can see no evidence it is either possible, or that it would be desirable even if it could occur. On the other hand, for myself, I can see every reason to think that mass organizing undermining the forces of violence alongside massive militant movements that make the cost to elites of employing violence enormous - and counter productive - is both possible and incredibly desirable, assuming one wants to win a truly participatory society. 

For me, that is, and I have to be honest here, this issue is so obvious, so apparent, that I don't like to spend much time on it because doing so legitimates the idea that orienting toward war makes sense - and it just doesn't. What isn't contextual is the simple and obvious reality that in an industrialized country the armed might of the state - if not defused - can easily crush any armed opposition, on the one hand, and, on the other, the act of forming an armed opposition sufficiently violent, vicious, and regimented, to fight a developed army would be horribly destructive of and probably catastrophic for creating really self managing and participatory change. I wrote quite a bit about this, however, if I remember right, in the book Remembering Tomorrow - and in some essays, and I guess I would like to let that stand, unless someone wants to raise issues about the points offered.

But, please note, the above doesn't mean that the movements are somehow passive, or the nested councils - far from it. They are militant, aggressive, etc. etc. Strikes, disobedience, and so on. So the issue is, does one combat the power of the military by creating a fighting force that goes toe to toe with the military? Okay, yes, there have been places - Cuba is a archtype instance - where this was possible. But not, not even remotely, in an industrialized society...

Paul - Im glad you like my proposal. 

Michael is right, of course, when he warns "caution is in order" and that writing on strategy is "more difficult" than writing on vision for the reasons he explains. 

But if we are to generate the level of hope necessary to build a popular movement we need to develop this kind of program.  People need to know where we are heading and how we might get there. 

If you agree how do you think the program would work in Australia - just as a starting point for organising open to refinement as things develop?  What changes / improvements would you suggest? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve - You write "The fate of the Venezuelan revolution is still up in the air. A lot can go wrong in a relatively 'statist' strategy like that. We know that both from history and from common sense. It isn't, in my opinion, the best-case scenario (relying as it does on support 'from above').  However, I do have to admit that it seems to be working better than anything being tried anywhere else."

I share both your concerns and your hopes for Venezuela.  The question is what would improve the scenario over there?  Would the program I propose help?  Or is it completely incompatible? 

Steve - Ive copied the following section from my reply to Michael's comments because it also touches on the issue you and Justin are discussing.  Maybe it will help -

Strikes: 

You say "I don't understand your comments about organizing toward a general strike. To have not seeking a general strike be some kind of general principle or priority makes no more sense to me than the reverse."  Again I agree, which is why I reject anarcho-syndicalism which states we must organise for a general strike regardless of circumstances.  Like you, I'm not opposed to strikes when they seem like a good idea - and in fact my program accommodates for this (see 2:4).  Perhaps my program is more flexible / less sectarian than you think?  However, such activities are proposed as parallel activities to the core activities of building chapters that in time grow into councils.  That is the main focus of the program.  What I am hoping for is feedback from people in different parts of the world stating whether they think this main focus would work where they are.  This process may help us identify a common program as a starting point for international organisation - which of course would be open to change as things unfold.  Or maybe it will identify important differences for certain countries.  Either way I think this would constitute an important development - don't you agree? 

Michael -

Rigid Doctrine V's Open contribution:

I agree that "a path isn't a matter of dealing with a fixed broadly knowable background. Rather, a path is a dance with present also evolving forces - who have a will, as well, and so it is overwhelmingly contextual varying over time due to the accumulating history, and also from place to place, due to different conditions, etc." But we have to start somewhere - right?  That is all I am trying to do.  I am trying to make a contribution to the debate - not end it!   

Strikes: 

You say "I don't understand your comments about organizing toward a general strike. To have not seeking a general strike be some kind of general principle or priority makes no more sense to me than the reverse."  Again I agree, which is why I reject anarcho-syndicalism which states we must organise for a general strike regardless of circumstances.  Like you, I'm not opposed to strikes when they seem like a good idea - and in fact my program accommodates for this (see 2:4).  Perhaps my program is more flexible / less sectarian than you think?  However, such activities are proposed as parallel activities to the core activities of building chapters that in time grow into councils.  That is the main focus of the program.  What I am hoping for is feedback from people in different parts of the world stating whether they think this main focus would work where they are.  This process may help us identify a common program as a starting point for international organisation - which of course would be open to change as things unfold.  Or maybe it will identify important differences for certain countries.  Either way I think this would constitute an important development - don't you agree? 

Anarchism:

I knew when I wrote it that my comment regarding anarchism is "part fair, but part not fair".  The trouble is that I don't really know how to comment on such issues without making partly unfair statements.  Maybe it is a reflection of my limited understanding and skills as a writer or maybe it is just impossible to avoid.  In the end I justify what I wrote on the grounds that I think it is more a fair than an unfair comment - do you think this is acceptable?  

I agree that we must organize in the military, especially among regular soldiers. And as we know from the Vietnam era, there will be a number of officers we can work with as well. That's why the IVAW work is exceedingly important. It's also very difficult, and needs to be done with a great deal of discipline and nuanced political skill. I can even see a faction of Pentagon generals opposing a particular war, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a Parecon faction at that level, or even one for Economic Democracy.

Local police are a different problem. We've had experience with African-American police groups playing a positive role vs discrimination and brutality, and from time to time, you can get a police captain to take a neutral role in a labor dispute, helping striking workers. Even a few police chiefs to side with progressive Democrats. But that's a long way from what's being suggested here.

But my point was different. If it's OK to organize among the armed wing of the state, then it should be OK to organize in the legislative and electoral arenas as well.

Obviously, I'm one who thinks this has to be part of strategy. But support for it is often rather scarce in these forms.

Finally, I agree my other points were indirect, but they were not meant to be disparaging. They were meant to be critical of making one's starting point the adoption of a 'holistic' world view, which starts you off in a quasi-religious or intentional community direction.  It doesn't go very far. Better to start with a practical platform solving current problems, but informed by a wider vision that produces deeper structural reform with working hypotheses that are open. Once you have an approach that requires the same 'holistic' view for all, you get into trouble, at least in my book.

Hi Justin,

You're right, I didn't address your points directly enough. Let me try to be more explicit on this point.

I think that neutralizing the repressive forces of the state, by cultivating or encouraging divisions and 'divided loyalties' among them, is a perfectly sound thing to try to do, and yes, I think that -- in the context of a wider social movement and sustained civil unrest and social polarization -- such a project might bear fruit.

But, no, I don't think that's enough. Let's look at the case of the recent revolution (or whatever one wants to call it) in Iran. They had a militant mass movement, demanding democratic reform (albeit without a clearly articulated program of specific changes being sought, probably because the forces behind it were divided between a public leadership that was part of the Iranian establishment and a grassroots mass base that was estranged from or hostile to that establishment). They may or may not have had success in cultivating divisions within the repressive forces (police and military), although the fact that the repression mostly came from sections of the (para-)military that were most loyal to Ahmadinejad suggest that there may have been fears of divided loyalty elsewhere in the police/armed forces. Nevertheless, I am one of those who thinks that what was missing most of all was a campaign of sustained general strikes. That was one of the differences between Iran in 1979 and Iran in 2009: in 1979, general strikes played a key role in toppling the Shah's regime. General strikes (and mass protest and other forms of mass action) have an important feature, which wasn't (I don't think) referenced in Mark's article: they build up formidable concentrations of social power that can, in a crisis, rival the economic power of big business and the coercive power of the state. This is why the classical Left (marxists, syndicalists, guild socialists, and others) has always put so much emphasis on the working class as a key agent of revolutionary change and general strikes as a key tactic in revolutionary struggles. I think that Mark's scenario seems to remove that part of the picture, without replacing it with something else that could build up that kind of concentrated social power. The fact that there are forms of popular self-organization in Mark's scenario, such as systems of councils, and in that sense some kind of dual power, hints at elements of an answer. However, where do they get their effective power, their capacity to resist repression, to intimidate the authorities, and so on? Realistically, the military will not be reluctant to suppress such councils unless they percieve them as genuinely powerful institutions, backed by some kind of credible social power. (Remember Venezuela, after the coup: it wasn't just 'loyalists' in the military that stopped the coup; it was loyalists in the military responding to a mass mobilization and credible threats of general strikes, etc. -- and that's real social power). I don't believe the Bolivarian revolutionary process only survives today because of the military; there is a key connection between divisions in the military and the credible threat of mass strikes and militant protests spinning out of control. This is a crucial factor: the intimidation factor that limits what even reactionary parts of the military think they can get away with.

I hope this clarifies my point about a missing link: I have in mind the "Old Left" idea that the capacity of the workers' movement to shut the system down is what gives the revolutionary project "real teeth" and allows us to build up the kind of social power that could rival the economic power of capitalists and the coercive power of the state. If we drop this idea, it seems to me that we have to replace it with something else that is at least as plausible.

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

So, first, Mark...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me that is the main problem.

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

Steve writes: "I think the Venezuela example is interestingly different than what Mark has sketched here. The Bolivarian movement, clearly, added a step that isn't mentioned here: electing socialist representatives to the Venezuelan National Assembly and Presidency."

Well, yes, but the point is, every example - let's imagine we are fifty years in the future and there are a whole lot to look at - is going to be different in some respects, often in very important respects. Strategy and program are simply not one size fits all times and places. This was my problem with the essay, inadvertently, I think, written to imply otherwise.

You add, "I think that capitalism (and its repressive police and military forces) are far, far more likely to put up a relentless and brutal fight than simply to give up their privileges once they realize that their system is unpopular. ... Therefore we need a strategy for defeating them, for breaking their resistance. Isn't that right?"

Sure. But it will not be universal. In Venezuela they have won the presidency, neutralized the military, and are about to address the police, I suspect, while trying to build new institutions, and so on. Elsewhere it may be similar, or quite different. What beats repression is committed numbers and dividing the repressive forces. That much, however, is pretty constant. 

Carl,

After some disparaging comments that had no bearing I could perceive, you ask..

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

The first point is, they must be appealed to, because to have them unified against change is to consign change to failure. Sadly, many failed to understand that rather obvious point in the sixties, but I thought by now everyone with serious left intentions would find it obvious.

However, that said, in fact, there is every reason to think police and military can in fact be far more easily reached than, say, owners of capital or elite politicians, etc. Police and military are often of working class background not only in their past, but currently, in their communities, friends, social life, etc. etc. They are asked to risk their lives to prop up structures that oppress them and their families and friends, rather than being beneficiaries of it all. Often, they joined the military and/or police not because they are sadist, say, or seeking authority, but to do public good. And so on. 

The real point is often whether we try or not, and Mark, I think, is on target about that. Take Venezuela, now. There has been very intense effort, for a long time, in the military - and by and large it has been very successful, not only in the rank and file, but even among officers. There has been little to no effort, I am aware of, so far, however, to reform and organize police - and there the situation is abysmal. Trying doesn't guarantee complete success. But not trying is disastrous.

Justin, you write, "My question for Mark is related to his description of 4 councils for each sphere of society- economic, kinship, community, political." I agree that this is a strange sentence. I read it as meaning Mark supports the very fledgling parpolity, par kinship, and par culture views - realizing that they are far from settled. What we need, for vision, for each key domain of life, is a picture of sought basic institutions central to attaining liberation and removing oppression, sufficient to ensure future people are in command of their own lives, so to speak, but not a blueprint that overextends beyond that. For the three mentioned domains we have some intimations - but more work is needed. I don't know what he has in mind re kinship councils or cultural councils, I suspect it was a shorthand sentence and doesn't really mean anything of that sort...maybe he will answer. 

Paul,

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

I think caution is in order. Writing a book on strategy/program is far far far more difficult to do sensibly, with positive results, than doing a book, say, on vision, or even the most broad strategic ideas. The same goes for a pamphlet. The reason is strategy and program are overwhelmingly contextual. What may make sense in one place and time, will be silly in another, typically...and spelling things out even loosely, for one context, can feel like marching orders on the one hand, or vague but empty noises, on the other - for a different context. 

i get why mark mentioned the relationship with the military and venezuela was a good example. if chavez and his supporters didnt have a good relationship then the coup wouldve been succesful

Thanks for the reply Steve, I understand that you're not rejecting Mark's essay, but contributing feedback, that's my purpose too. I agree with your points, but I'm not sure if you actually responded to my points.

I used the example of Venezuela not as a strategic example, but as a limited/convenient example of how without military power, economic power has been limited in its ability to resist popular change. I agree that Mark isn't advocating a strategy similar to that underway in Venezuela.

Mark's strategy is quite clear, my point and example was that perhaps the broad strategic concern about elite reactions would be addressed by undermining their ability to use/employ force. I agree however that more elaboration is needed (though Mark is just making broad notes), and most likely a variety of responses & protections against counter-revolutionary efforts will be needed.

My question then is do you feel that by undermining/radicalizing military/police power via a mass based dual power system as Mark writes (including the creation of chapters and then councils taking over political decision making) would largely address your strategic concerns? Do you agree with this but feel that elements are still missing? What might some of these missing links be in a broad sense?

Hope that clarifies

Cheers

good points, steve.

the way ive seen it, the revolution hasnt come yet in venezuela or bolivia, or hasnt advanced to a stage warranting a declaration that a revolution has occured. what i see is the building towards - like Bolivia's MAS, its a movement towards socialism.

in anarcho-syndicalism, rocker argues that many anarchists while opposing the state for such-and-such reasons also recognizes it provides protections worth expanding and defending until such time as they can take care of themselves. chomsky makes similar comments when quoting brazilian workers who talk about expanding the floor of their cage (ie the state).

what i took away from mark's essay, and maybe he can clarify, is something related. the building of social organizations that per 2.3 expand the floor of the cage as the "chapters" grow untill such time as they can assume power in the form of "councils." my thoughts on why he doesnt say how power is assumed is presumably because we cant know. that he is sharing his ideas on how the basics could or even maybe should occur: establish vision and strategy, build from below, tie into reform campaigns, grow into broader social organizations that assume power.

i dont think the links are missing, but that theyre impregnated in the post. maybe im wrong and think i understand his point of view too well.

Replying to Justin:

I think the Venezuela example is interestingly different than what Mark has sketched here. The Bolivarian movement, clearly, added a step that isn't mentioned here: electing socialist representatives to the Venezuelan National Assembly and Presidency.

By contrast, Mark's proposal seems to go straight to setting up a parallel political process (based on councils), which then "assumes power" based on its popular support and the neutralization of the capitalist state's 'repressive apparatus' (as they say).

The Venezuelan case has proceeded differently: first getting people elected within the conventional (capitalist-state) political process, and then (from that position of relative strength) trying to set up community councils and building up the 'social economy,' and things like that. So, that's a different path.

The fate of the Venezuelan revolution is still up in the air. A lot can go wrong in a relatively 'statist' strategy like that. We know that both from history and from common sense. It isn't, in my opinion, the best-case scenario (relying as it does on support 'from above'). However, I do have to admit that it seems to be working better than anything being tried anywhere else. In any case, though, Mark doesn't seem to be proposing a path like that, which takes a crucial detour through the electoral process of the capitalist state, and only then sets up community councils and co-operatives (the Bolivarian strategy). Rather, he wants to start with a sort of popular education process, and then set up a parallel political and economic system, which then (in a manner that isn't made clear, I think) displaces the old system, due to its popularity and the neutralization of the repressive apparatus of the old state.

But I think that capitalism (and its repressive police and military forces) are far, far more likely to put up a relentless and brutal fight than simply to give up their privileges once they realize that their system is unpopular. Again, I would reference Chile, but also Germany between the World Wars, the rise of fascism in Spain, and countless other historical examples that tell us how capitalism responds when it is threatened with the prospect of its own displacement by a democratic and egalitarian post-capitalist alternative. They always put up a very big fight, often with horrific consequences. Therefore we need a strategy for defeating them, for breaking their resistance. Isn't that right?

I'm not rejecting what Mark has written here. I agree with most of it. But I'm suggesting that there are some 'missing links,' which in fact seem like some of the most crucial ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Mark,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In solidarity,

Steve.

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

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