Social Structures of Direct Democracy: On the Political Economy of Equality (Studies in Critical Social Sciences, 68) [Lam ed.] 9789004262720, 9789004262751, 9004262725

Citation preview

Social Structures of Direct Democracy

Studies in Critical Social Sciences Series Editor David Fasenfest Wayne State University Editorial Board Chris Chase-Dunn (University of California-Riverside) G. William Domhoff (University of California-Santa Cruz) Colette Fagan (Manchester University) Matha Gimenez (University of Colorado, Boulder) Heidi Gottfried (Wayne State University) Karin Gottschall (University of Bremen) Bob Jessop (Lancaster University) Rhonda Levine (Colgate University) Jacqueline O’Reilly (University of Brighton) Mary Romero (Arizona State University) Chizuko Ueno (University of Tokyo)

VOLUME 68

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/scss

Social Structures of Direct Democracy On the Political Economy of Equality By

John Asimakopoulos

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: The Parthenon during a multiyear restoration project. Photo taken by John Asimakopoulos on 7/13/11, Acropolis, Athens, Greece. Copyright the author’s. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Asimakopoulos, John.  Social structures of direct democracy : on the political economy of equality / by John Asimakopoulos.   pages cm. -- (Studies in critical social sciences, ISSN 1573-4234 ; volume 68)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-26272-0 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-26275-1 (e-book) 1. Direct democracy. 2. Equality. 3. Social structure. I. Title.  JC423.A775 2014  321.8--dc23               2014013620

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1573-4234 isbn 978-90-04-26272-0 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-26275-1 (e-book) Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

For my wife, colleague, and fellow educator Karen, our dog Amir, and the oppressed of the earth.

∵

Contents Foreword ix Mark Zepezauer Acknowledgments xv Introduction 1 1 Theory, Praxis, and Change 4 The Ragged Edge of Anarchy: Direct Democracy 4 Mutualism 11 Collectivism 12 Communist Anarchism 13 Conflict Theory 15 Why Capitalism Must Always Collapse 18 The Relationship between Change and Radicalism 22 Structural Limitations to Change 26 Insurrection versus Revolution 27 A Case Study in Political Revolution: Egypt 35 Does Direct Democracy Require Small-scale Societies? 40 McDonald’s Iron Cage 43 2 Relations of Authority 45 The Fraud of Representative Democracy 45 The Best Democracy Money Can Buy 50 Stealing Democracy Old School 54 Political Parties 55 A Path to Direct Democracy 60 Economic Authority 70 Political Authority 77 Constitution 81 3 Material Relations 85 Economic Utilities of Direct Democracy 85 Markets and Prices 87 Currency, Income, Banking, and Credit 89 Profit and Worker-owned Firms 91 Authority over Productive Property 93 Innovation and Small Business 94

viii

contents

Relations of Consumption 96 Income Distribution 105 Regulated Labor Markets: Hiring Halls 108 Distribution of Productive Property 112 Resource Use 119 What to Produce 119 How to Produce 122 Can the System Adapt? 128 4 Social Structure 131 Culture and Social Integration 131 Organizing Principles of Social Structure 135 Social Statuses 137 Social Roles 138 Virtual Worlds 139 Institutions and Socialization 142 Religion 142 Family and Sexuality 145 Education 148 The Means of  Violence 157 Compulsion and Discipline 163 Journalism 166 The Social Network: The Future that Can be Now 169 Conclusion: No Islands of Egalitarianism in a Sea of Inequality 174 Afterword: What Can Grow in the Graveyard for Orthodoxies? 184 Richard Gilman-Opalsky Bibliography 189 Index 201

Foreword The absurdities of our present political moment would tax the capacities of the most fervent satirists. The body politic bleeds from a series of self-inflicted wounds. We lurch from crisis to crisis like a hyperactive adolescent, seemingly unable to come to reasonable agreement on matters from the vital to the trivial. The wealthiest nation on earth appears increasingly ungovernable: we have one political party unable to say no to its base, and another unable to say yes. The forces of oligarchy and reaction exert ever-wider control over our political, commercial and communications systems, yet are unable to buy themselves any kind of stability. We have gone well beyond ignoring the lessons of history; at present the lessons of history are being beaten with a truncheon in a back alley. Meanwhile (and not coincidentally), the usa’s mentor and patron saint, the Global Capitalist Empire, is having trouble putting the finishing touches on its 500-year project to unify the planet under its ethos. After five centuries of conquest, colonization, co-optation, coups, countercoups, and free trade agreements, the Empire was tantalizingly close to ultimate success, seemingly just a few years away from kfcs in Havana and Pyongyang. And yet no sooner do they tack down one corner of the carpet when another becomes undone, necessitating further efforts to bring recalcitrant populations in line. This global game of whack-a-mole continues with storm clouds looming on the horizon, in the form of a permanent alteration of the weather patterns that made human civilization possible in the first place. This, to say the least, could affect the bottom line. What these two conundrums have in common is that they are the result of a massively unequal distribution of resources—indeed, of systems which virtually guarantee a massively unequal distribution of resources. The systems invite conflict, and sustain their own unsustainability. Stein’s Law tells us that “if something is unsustainable, it will stop.”1 But perhaps a corollary to this law is that it will not stop until its unsustainability is as obvious as being hit over the head with a two-by-four. Our body politic, however, continues to whack itself with the metaphorical lumber, and though it staggers, it does not stop—yet.

1 Herbert Stein was an economist and former chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers under the Nixon and Ford regimes.

x

foreword

Or rather, it did stop, for a few weeks in October of 2013. Ongoing services to the Empire continued uninterrupted, of course, but programs benefiting ordinary citizens ground to a halt while their elected representatives engaged in a game of chicken, through gritted teeth, over how much austerity to impose on a struggling economy. Eventually the differences were papered over and the lawmakers settled back to prepare for the next crisis. The United States of America has been papering over its differences for so long that it has become our default mode. We started out that way, after all, with an unworkable kludge that created the undemocratic Senate and Electoral College, and a friendly compromise that African-American chattel slaves should be considered three-fifths of a person—strictly for the drawing of political districts, of course. We papered over the differences between the “loyalists” and the “royalists,” and kicked the can down the road on the issue of slavery for the better part of a century. And, incredibly, even after those differences erupted into a fratricidal civil war, they were papered over once again. The stolen election of 1876 paved the way for a backroom deal to end Reconstruction, withdraw federal troops from the south, and—concerning the rights of the emancipated slaves—kick the can down the road for yet another century. And when Dr. King and the civil rights movement finally forced the issue to be dealt with, lbj famously remarked, as he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965, “We have lost the South for a generation.” lbj underestimated the force of that moment. For the next several generations, the nation’s electorate re-sorted itself, virtually eliminating Democrats from elected office in the South, while rendering nearly as extinct the Republican Party in the Northeast. lbj’s successor, the machiavellian Richard Nixon, implemented a “Southern Strategy,” designed to appeal to the racial resentments of working-class whites. This worked like a charm, until it didn’t. Over the half-century since lbj’s prediction, the two parties, once overlapping fuzzily in ideology, became more and more polarized. African-American voters switched their loyalties away from the party of Lincoln (eventually voting Democratic by more than a 9 to 1 margin in presidential elections), while many working-class whites switched from Roosevelt Democrats to Reagan Republicans. Eventually, though, the gop backed itself into a demographic corner, appealing to an ever-shrinking, anachronistically reactionary segment of the electorate—while simultaneously alienating the fastest-growing ethnic constituencies. Rather than adapt to the new electorate, the gop has instead doubled down, and then quadrupled down on the Southern Strategy. Party leaders keep trying to appeal to their steadily crankier constituency, herding them into

foreword

xi

computer-drawn gerrymanders to maximize their waning geographic strengths and resorting to ever more arcane campaign financing schemes to continue stoking resentment at non-white “takers.” Their incumbents fear primary challenges from the right far more than they do general-election voters, resulting in an ongoing lurch rightward with every election cycle, and an increasing isolation, as more and more voters are alienated from the tarnished gop brand. As one outflanked gop senator put it, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” This made the nihilistic showdown of autumn 2013 virtually inevitable, as placating the ever-more-resentful base of the gop required ever more brinksmanship. What we have evolved today is a parliament without a parliamentary system. The two parties are more ideologically distinct than ever, and subject to increasingly rigid party control over voting blocs in the legislative branch. But our political institutions are made to function within the deal-making, ideologically diffuse coalition politics of the 20th century. And in contrast to a parliamentary system, we have no prime minister; the president is not in control of Congress, which is often dominated by the opposition party. In short, we’ve outgrown our political infrastructure. This is just as apparent in the pressures faced by the demographically advantaged Democrats as in the rump Republican Party. The ostensible “party of the people” is perplexingly unable to deliver a better life to its constituents, preferring instead to idle the economy in neutral for the first half of what promises to be a lost decade of low growth and high unemployment. How did it come to this? Like the Republicans, the Democratic Party relies on a coalition of donor blocs to fund their media campaigns during election cycles. The gop’s ascendency in the 1966–2008 political era coincided with the erosion of u.s. labor unions, and their position as a counterweight to corporate influence over the Democrats. So the Democrats have become more beholden than ever to their corporate patrons. Unlike other countries (which provide public financing and access to the public airwaves), u.s. elections are staggeringly expensive. u.s. politicians spend the majority of their waking hours in fund-raising activities, and precious few in legislating. They instead go hat in hand to one set of corporate donors in order to buy media access from another set. Democrats were handed a huge electoral gift in 2008 when the global economy melted down on the Republicans’ watch, mere weeks before the presidential election. It turned out to be the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression—which should have been relatively straightforward to address, given the example of how we recovered from the Crash of ’29, the deepest in a series of financial “panics” that had beset the u.s. economy over the years.

xii

foreword 

Keynesian economics, as yet unformulated in 1929, was available in 2009 to inform us of the optimal policy response: an ongoing stimulus, anchored by government spending, to put people back to work, with multiplier effects leading to a swift recovery. History teaches us that austerity and budget-cutting only exacerbated the effects of the crash, and that historically high levels of income inequality had led to a collapse of aggregate demand. With businesses failing to hire, the government could be the employer of last resort. Moreover, a steeply progressive tax on the fortunes of the super-rich would flatten out inequality and finance the stimulus. Despite some backsliding into austerity during 1937, it had worked well under fdr, and had led to a broad-based prosperity and flattening inequality during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. But flattening inequality, broad-based prosperity and steeply progressive taxes were exactly what u.s. elites did not want. They had seen that movie before and did not want it repeated. Not only would they fight like a cornered mongoose to (successfully) retain their positions of privilege, but they also feared the political empowerment of the masses that would arise from decades of rising living standards. The last time that happened, it had led to increased demands for civil rights and an organized opposition to u.s. military adventures. In the parlance of 1970s think tanks, this was a “crisis of democracy”— meaning entirely too much democratic participation—and u.s. elites have worked, with considerable success, to reverse it ever since. Ever since the 1970s, and the high-water mark of the middle class, the u.s. political system has struggled with the contradictions of trying to formulate policy that enriches elites while crafting campaigns to appeal to the mass of voters whose interests are being sold out. New Deal restrictions on financial chicanery were steadily undone, and workers’ incomes stagnated for decades, and the gains from increased productivity were hoarded at the top of the heap. After a series of baroque financial bubbles, scandals and crises during the 80s, 90s and 00s, the Crash of ’08 devastated the working people of America, and while their recovery was slow and halting, elite fortunes—both personal and corporate—returned to all-time highs. Even if the Democrats could have agreed on an economic path to prosperity within their own governing coalition, the “loyal opposition” retained enough veto points over the process to stymie any such effort. The Republicans have even less regard for Keynes than for Darwin, and so have dragged their feet, insisting on further austerity during every budget negotiation. So the Democrats have instead focused their energies on a Byzantine healthcare plan, designed to move somewhat closer to the ideal of universal coverage enjoyed by all other industrial democracies, without incurring opposition from

foreword

xiii

entrenched stakeholders. The result pleases neither its supporters nor its opponents, and will be the subject of endless wrangling for years to come. Again, we’ve outgrown our political infrastructure. This Rube Goldberg system—with its ostentatious financial shenanigans, bloated tax code, corporate welfare, ineffectual representatives, stymied voters, and brobdingnagian inequality—would be laughable (or rather, more laughable) if it were not sputtering into engine lock at such a portentous historical moment. Just as our political institutions become less and less responsive, the ecological bill is coming due for the Industrial Revolution. The science behind greenhouse gasses has been known for over a century. And scientists have been warning of the planetary danger of increased carbon in the atmosphere for over a quarter century, with increasing evidence and certainty of the calamity that awaits us. But in the face of warming polar regions, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, and increasingly catastrophic weather patterns, our political system continues to hit the snooze button on any attempts to ameliorate the situation. Worse, the forces of oligarchy and reaction are actively organizing to prevent any such attempts. Fossil fuel barons and the politicians they sponsor are on the warpath against fuel economy standards and gas taxes, let alone any efforts to transition to renewable energy sources. This recalcitrance has cost us too much time; we have only a decade or two, if that, to halt and reverse the dumping of carbon into our atmosphere. It would require a coordinated international effort equivalent to executing a hairpin turn on a one-lane mountain road, while driving a twenty-story-high ocean liner. So, there you have it. If our political or economic systems don’t collapse first, our ecological system certainly will. This is as much a problem for the Global Capitalist Empire as it is for the majority of humanity who happen to live under its auspices. Already shifting agricultural patterns are leading to food and water shortages, and restless populations have forced political crises and toppled governments across the globe. But this is only the beginning. The insurance payouts alone for the demise of coastal communities worldwide will be staggering. And the necessity of adapting and re-adapting to changing weather patterns will play havoc with agricultural interests. But the massive refugee flows, spreading tropical diseases, and, inevitably, the rising tide of warfare, will massively disrupt business as usual. All this is staring us in the face, and yet our political institutions simply stare back. And as with our economic problems, solutions to the crisis of climate change are available; it’s only political will that is lacking. Moreover, converting our economy to renewable energy would ignite a new round of job

xiv

foreword 

creation—at a time when the supply of labor far outstrips demand. Still, as with our economic crisis, obvious solutions are not just ignored, but actively opposed. This is all so glaringly, head-whackingly unsustainable that something has to give. In the face of this uncertainty, we can only be certain that change is needed. And luckily, the book you hold in your hands represents a good deal of thinking about what kinds of change we require. Our institutions are failing us; we need new, more responsive institutions. Herein is a considered outline of how a more representative system might arise. The discussion in this book about direct democracy contributes to the important conversations we need to be having about what will replace the political and economic systems that are so obviously failing us. Not only do we have the lessons of history to inform us about what not to do, we have generations of thought to guide us in formulating a blueprint for a better world. We don’t have a crisis of democracy, as our elites complain; we have a shortage. But at this point we have the technological tools to enable greater voter empowerment in plebiscites and referenda, as well as the experience of proportional representation systems, fusion voting and instant runoffs to guide us. We can even use a lottery system, as with our jury pools, to select representatives; could we do worse than we do now? And as much as capitalists like to claim that “there is no alternative” to their exploitive system, we have the experience of countless worker-owned alternatives across the globe, from Mondagron to Gaviotas to Kerala. Worker-owned cooperatives, democratically elected corporate boards and other arrangements have worked across the globe, and their failures and successes strengthen our ability to plan a more responsive economy. If we’re going to save ourselves from ourselves, we all need to be part of the solution. We can, in fact, do more than survive. We can thrive—if we have the will to create more egalitarian institutions. We know more than enough about the mess we’re in, but we have far too little discussion about the ways ahead. Let that discussion begin on the next page. Mark Zepezauer Tucson, Arizona October 2013

Acknowledgments I thank my colleagues Dr. Richard Gilman-Opalsky and Elsa Karen MárquezAponte whose work has helped improve this book. Parts of chapter 1 are based on the introduction to The Accumulation of Freedom by ak Press that owes special gratitude to my co-author Dr. Deric Shannon. Some ideas and passages have been presented in Anarchist Studies (21: 2). I am also grateful to the Situationist International online Guy Debord archives. As a working-class child I would never have been able to accomplish what I have without the love and guidance of my poor uneducated parents who are always in my heart: George and Georgia.

Introduction The elite own everything. They perpetrate crimes against all, which they then hide from public discourse through their ownership of the mass media. We learn in disbelief of corporations taking out secret life insurance policies on their workers calling it “dead peasants” insurance;1 privatizing jails and then having their operators give kickbacks to judges to funnel convicts to them, often for ridiculous charges2—no different from arresting blacks for “loitering” to supply the chain gangs that built the American South;3 breaking unions and forcing people into working poverty (for example, airline pilots earning so little as to qualify them for food stamps);4 Citigroup sending a confidential memo to its premium clients labeling America a “Plutonomy” whose only fear is a revolt, citing the “problem” of “one person, one vote” in a democracy.5 We also learn of health insurers whose policy was to automatically reject claims upon initial submission, knowing some would give up pursuing legitimate claims.6 Insurers also fought established life-saving treatments, labeling them experimental, resulting in unnecessary deaths.7 Just as disturbing were the amounts and extent of political bribery from the president down to congressional representatives by pharmaceuticals promoting their interests at everyone else’s expense in one of the world’s most perverse healthcare systems.8 The media reported in recent times Walmart instructing workers to apply for Medicaid given their low pay, effectively using the government program as the de facto company insurance plan!9 Predatory lenders earned incredible profits issuing sub-prime ninja (No Income No Job or Asset) loans typically to minorities and the poor eventually foreclosing on their homes. Knowing the extent of the problem they created, they turned around and purchased rights to function as tax collectors for these properties, just like medieval tax farmers.10 The rich and financial corporations that created the global economic collapse of 2008 were saved 1 Moore, 2009. 2 Ibid. 3 Blackmon, 2008. 4 Moore, 2009. 5 Ibid. 6 Moore, 2007. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Walmart Watch, nd. 10 Schulte and Protess, 2010.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_002

2

Introduction

perversely by trillions of tax dollars handed to them by their former executives who were functioning as government officials at the time thereby effectively creating socialized losses (capitalism for the poor) and privatized gains (socialism for the rich).11 The conflicts of interest have become so brazen that government and corporations have effectively morphed into one.12 Sadly, this is the definition of fascism. It is no wonder then how or why the United States has the greatest gap between rich and poor, now reaching historic highs, among advanced nations with the richest 1 percent owning 33.8 percent of all wealth versus 2.5 percent for the bottom half of society.13 Unfortunately, much blame for the malaise of our times can be apportioned to the bankruptcy of Left ideologies. On the pragmatic side, many spend time developing public policies that could barely be considered reformist. On the theoretical side, the few remaining critical theorists often prefer to expend their energies in sectarian debates instead of developing workable models for change. Similarly, utopian theorists pour over things that are alien to average people. Who, in the general population, has even heard of ‘Really, Really Free Markets’? The final problem is the Left’s ideological rigidity, often exhibiting a naïveté about socioeconomic systems and how they change. Some Left groups even think epochal transformation happens like the big bang: instantaneously through a ‘great strike’ or ‘revolutionary moment’! Did feudalism appear in this way from antiquity? Did capitalism appear in its fully developed form in a fortnight? No. Any historian can tell us that all this is a result of historical processes, often historically contingent. The changes we should be considering today are the intelligent moves that will unfold historically in the direction of social equality. As Gilman-Opalsky explains however, “if we work toward optimal fairness it is only a matter of time before we run up against the logic of capitalism directly. Endless accumulation follows a different logic (growth and private wealth) than the logic of fairness (equality and the common good).”14 When a society is founded on possession its relationships will be between possessors and possessed. The possessed will not dream of ‘freedom’ but of becoming possessors. Ideologies based on inequality will result in division and scarcity whereas those based on equality in solidarity and lack of need. But, what does, or should, equality mean? A short answer is either we are all free and equal or none of us are. Equality is an absolute. 11 12 13 14

Roubini, 2008. See, for example, Asimakopoulos, 2011; Domhoff, 2010; and Stiglitz, 2012. Kennickell, 2009–13. Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 30.

Introduction

3

We should also note economic systems can be objectively superior to others as measured by efficiency and output as in, for example, industrial versus agrarian economies. Likewise, social systems can be objectively superior to others based on measures of living standards, such as life expectancy, or what Max Weber referred to as one’s overall “life chances.”15 To this end, it will be shown that a system of universal social and material equality will result in greater productive efficiencies, innovation, and sustainable growth beyond the capacity of any system of inequality even by neoclassical (capitalist) economics. In fact, systems based on high levels of inequality, as in the United States, lead to reduced economic efficiency and productivity according to Joseph Stiglitz.16 Our economy is capable of far greater output and technological innovation but is restrained by outdated property relations or, relations of production, a classic Marxian concept. For example, it is possible for society to increase efficiencies and automation now to an extent that is considered science fiction leading to the often pejorative use of the term utopian. It would also maximize social dividends such as general health, life expectancy, and quality of life beyond those of market economies based on individualism, competition, and inequality. 15

16

According to Max Weber one’s social class determines their “opportunities to provide themselves with material goods, positive living conditions, and favorable life experiences” (Schaefer, 2013: 195). Stiglitz, 2012.

Chapter 1

Theory, Praxis, and Change

The Ragged Edge of Anarchy: Direct Democracy

Representative democracy has resulted in a system where those who own the means of production effectively control the political process.1,2 Consequently most public policy tends to privilege moneyed interests over those of the community or the environment. Under a political system of direct representation such elite dominance would be significantly reduced if not eliminated. What then is direct democracy and can it work in modern large-scale societies? Systems of direct democracy survive to this day and would be best illustrated by the twenty-six cantons (districts) that constitute the Swiss State. Cantons are sovereign although federal law supersedes them similar to states’ rights in the United States. Each canton has its own constitution, legislature (mostly unicameral meaning one House), government, and courts. Historically, legislatures were based on general assemblies (Landsgemeinden) which have survived in the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden, and Glarus. Traditionally, citizens of the canton meet in an open field and vote through a show of hands on matters such as healthcare, social services, education, law enforcement, and taxes. However, Athenian democracy in classical Greece is considered the epitome of a political structure where the demos actually ruled. Of course, there was the caveat of who qualified as a citizen. Many contemporary utopians vigorously reject the Athenian political system as an example of direct democracy because it practiced slavery, refused citizenship to foreigners or immigrants, and women were excluded from public life altogether. However, to do so is intellectually misleading. They are applying modern norms to an ancient culture from a different epoch, which is anachronistic and thus methodologically flawed. Let us not forget that to this day immigrants do not receive citizenship 1 The means of production in Marxist terms refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production such as factories, machines, and tools including natural resources and raw materials. Similarly, in neoclassical economics the factors of production include land, capital, but also labor and entrepreneurial ability. Marxists do not count labor as part of the means of production and consider entrepreneurial contribution to have no value in and of itself toward production. 2 Asimakopoulos, 2011; Domhoff, 1975, 2010; Mills, 2000 [1956]; Palast, 2004, 2012; Stiglitz, 2012.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_003

Theory, Praxis, And Change

5

rights, women’s suffrage did not take place until the 1900s with ongoing battles, for equal pay, and slavery was practiced in the United States until 1864 and other parts of the world such as Brazil well into the 20th century (the focus of Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy for adult Afro-Brazilian agricultural slaves). The fundamental tenet of direct democracy is that every citizen comprising the demos or community ‘represents’ themselves as sovereigns in decisionmaking, meaning in Greek that they are autonomos (self-legislating), autodikos (self-judging), and autoteles (self-governing). They did not vote for someone to vote for them. The political unit, therefore, for Greeks was not the ‘State’ (a word that did not exist), but the polis (city, meaning the citizens or demos), “The idea of a ‘State’ as an institution distinct and separated from the body of citizens would not have been understandable to a Greek.”3 The ancient Greeks developed a system of continuous autonomy.4 This means citizens voted constantly in their general assembly of the city-state on various government matters and legislation. Therefore, Athenian democracy included the idea of political (mandatory) participation as a structural process and inscribed in culture compared to passive forms of participation found in representative democracies today. The idea of democracy as process is in fact central for many contemporary theorists including Jürgen Habermas, Gar Alperovitz, Benjamin Barber, James Fishkin, Arend Lijphart, David Schweickart, Richard Wolff, and most anarchists.5 The elected rulers (Archons) were primarily responsible for implementing the decisions of the demos. As Castoriadis explains: Participation materializes in the ecclesia, the Assembly of the people, which is the acting sovereign body. All citizens have the right to speak (isegoria), their votes carry the same weight (isophephia), and they are under moral obligation to speak their minds (parrhesia). Participation also materializes in the courts. There are no professional judges, virtually all courts are juries with their jurors chosen by lot. The ecclesia, assisted by the boule (Council), legislates and governs.6 3 Castoriadis, 1991: 110. 4 Castoriadis (1991) defined autonomous (from the Greek auto meaning by itself and nomos meaning law) societies as those in which people are aware that institutions (including laws, traditions and behaviors) are created by individuals or society and engage in self-rule (αυτονομούνται). In contrast, heteronomous societies (from the Greek hetero meaning other) base the origins and thus legitimacy of their institutions (including laws, traditions and behaviors) on extra-social authority such as God, ancestors, or historical necessity. 5 Alperovitz, 2012; Barber, 1984; Fishkin, 1991; Habermas, 1997; Lijphart, 1984; Schweickart, 2011; Wolff, 2012. 6 Castoriadis, 1991: 107.

6

Chapter 1

A basic political definition of direct democracy is that citizens represent themselves by voting directly on all issues confronting the community, including legislation, and passing legal judgment in courts as citizen jurors. This is in stark contrast to all forms of representative democracy where we vote for the Congressperson or senator who will vote in our best interest without having to consult each of us first. Interestingly, due to u.s. government and business propaganda, direct democracy is today popularly referred to as Communism or anarchism. Therefore, anarchy is not what most people on the Right or Left may think. On the Right, anarchy is often assumed to mean chaos. Rather, it comes from the ancient Greek αναρχία from αν meaning without and αρχoς (ruler) meaning absence of a leader or lack of central authority (not to be confused with the professional administrative bureaucracy) because power and authority are decentralized, disbursed among the demos. Another characteristic of direct democracy is that it is an economic as much as a political system. For this reason, most classical theorists, including Marx and Proudhon, develop models of political economy. Sadly, on the Left, contemporary utopians reject most established political economy as belonging exclusively to capitalism. For example, in an online discussion titled ‘Anarchist Economics’ one poster commented, ‘Anarchist economics?! Now, that’s an oxymoron!’ After further discussion, it became clear that the contributor, a longtime anarchist, assumed that ‘economics’ is capitalism. While that may be true for the typical university economics course, there is a long history of economic analyses, models, and practices that are based on anti-capitalist principles. Furthermore, many from the Right and Left accept the historical narrative that modern economics began with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and was then developed further by political economists like Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill. These classical economists are perhaps best known for advocating private ownership of the means of production and theorizing that ­markets tend toward stabilization, as exemplified in Smith’s famous phrase the invisible hand which carries with it the assumption that markets are the most efficient method for the allocation of resources. As the narrative goes, then along came Karl Marx to challenge the assumptions of political economy and critique capitalist property relations, theories of value, and markets. Accordingly, now the field is generally divided between different capitalist versus Marxian models and analyses of society. There is, however, a problem with this historical narrative. It effectively reduces perspectives critical of capitalism (and inequality generally) to Marxism, suggesting a limited framework for anti-capitalist perspectives. This might reflect larger relations of power in society, as these histories tend to be written by Western scholars. Marxism or, perhaps more accurately stated, Marxism as it was interpreted and practiced by

Theory, Praxis, And Change

7

Lenin and his successors, was the ideology that won out in the anti-capitalist revolutions of the 20th century in Russia and China. This common narrative effectively erases anarchist contributions to economic thought. More so, it implies that there are only two alternatives, possibly three if one includes anarchism, in organizing society. In reality, there can be infinite alternatives and variations. Yet anarchism is one of the most diverse theoretical perspectives which, together with Marxism, are commonly referred to as libertarian socialism. Daniel Guérin, Rudolf Rocker, and Colin Ward provide an excellent review of anarchism’s fundamental principles as described by its classical theorists including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin.7 A key goal of anarchists is the elimination of the State in favor of direct political democracy (self-rule), arguing in contrast to socialists and Marxists that any form of State government by definition results in the suppression of the many by the few. This is argued to be true of representative democracies as well (including socialist democracies such as France) in that they too are dominated by elites and will, therefore, not benefit the majority. Such democracies, however, do provide basic civil rights as a result of working-class participation (and often agitation) compared to overt dictatorships. However, these rights are seen as minimal and perpetually under attack by elite interests.8 This has been demonstrated by the sweeping austerity policies and dismantling of social programs in the wake of the Great Recession of 2008 that has not abated as we enter 2014. A concurrent goal of anarchy in addition to abolishing the State is the collectivization of productive property to achieve direct economic democracy. Anarchism is not limited to its critique of capitalism but puts forward an understanding “that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression.”9 For anarchists, then, economics abstracted from the rest of social life presents a ­problem in terms of analysis. Indeed, economic life intersects with all other aspects of social life, including other forms of social domination. As the libertarian wing of the socialist movement, anarchism played a key role in the development of economic analyses, practices, and visions of a  future society that were anti-capitalist and non-Marxist. Proudhon’s 7 Bakunin, nd; Guérin, 1970; Kropotkin, 2005 [1892]; Proudhon, 1994 [1840]; Rocker, 2004 [1938]; Ward, 1982. 8 Guérin, 1970; Rocker, 2004 [1938]. 9 Rocker, 2004 [1938]: 11.

8

Chapter 1

c­ ontributions in this regard are particularly salient, as he was a contemporary of Marx who influenced his thinking and anticipated many arguments before Marx supposedly ‘discovered’ them.10 Proudhon advocated an anticapitalist vision called mutualism, a market form of socialism, both as a strategy out of capitalism and a broad sketch of what a postcapitalist society might look like. Likewise, Bakunin, Marx’s bitter opponent in the First International, contributed greatly to socialist criticisms and analyses of capitalism.11,12 These forays into economics were not limited to this time period, but continued through Kropotkin before the Russian revolution, De Santillán after the Spanish Civil War and so on into the contemporary period.13 These principles, analyses, and forays into vision were not limited to Great Men of History, but represented collective theorizing by a libertarian socialist milieu—the anti-authoritarian and anti-state wing of the socialist movement. Thus, comparing anarchism to Marxism is a bit of a misnomer, as Marxism reduces many different ideas, ­collectively produced, to the leadership of a single Great Man of History— Karl Marx. As a result of this history, anarchism has an interesting (and sometimes contentious) relationship with Marxism. Some anarchists reject any association with Marxism. Others have argued for a historical continuity within anarchism and the anti-authoritarian, anti-state variants of Marxism constituting a libertarian socialism—or, in some contexts, a libertarian communism. However, while some have suggested that engagements between the traditions could be fruitful, this has not been done without anarchist critics.14 Yet one can see various authors using these terms—libertarian socialism or communism—to describe their position, often as a nod to the similar trajectories between anarchism and some variants of Marxian thought. In some cases, this might also indicate being influenced by anarchist ideas, but not necessarily identifying as such for one reason or another. The differences between anarchist and Marxist thought might also (partially) explain a lack of anarchism within the field of economics. Of course, there has been a total lack of inclusion of either Marxist or anarchist analyses 10 11

12 13 14

Proudhon, 1994 [1840]. Founded in 1864 in a London meeting at Saint Martin’s Hall, the First International was the common name for the International Workingmen’s Association (iwa). Its first Congress was held in Geneva, 1866. It was an international organization aimed at uniting various left-wing socialist, communist, and anarchist political groups including trade unions in class struggle. See especially Bakunin, The Capitalist System (nd). See especially Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (2005 [1892]) and De Santillán (1937). For a good contemporary example, see Lynd and Grubacic (2008).

Theory, Praxis, And Change

9

in university economics courses. In the rare instances where it is included, it is typically reserved to a paragraph or chapter in a ‘history of economic thought’ course. By and large, foundational courses equate economics with neoclassical analyses, thereby implying that neoclassical economics is the only functional and legitimate system of analysis currently available to us. Needless to say, neoclassical economics, or capitalism, is not the only present alternative nor should it be considered functional or legitimate. Marxism is also centrally focused on economics and so too are contemporary political economists who consider the economy as the foundation and basis of other social relations. Schweickart, for example, explicitly states political structures are irrelevant relative to economic structures.15 Anarchism, on the other hand, is a critique of domination that typically is not reducible to economics—or even economics and political life. Indeed, Errico Malatesta and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon focused on social revolution instead of political revolution. Malatesta argued that revolution works ‘to change social conditions in such a way as to produce a change of will in the desired direction.’ Malatesta argued that if we could radically transform society from within itself, there would be no need to wield the power of the state.16 Thus, when anarchists theorize about other relations of domination (such as patriarchy, racism, and so on), they are usually not “subsumed under an analysis that is limited to a critique of the state-capitalist apparatus [but rather are seen as] social dynamics which are generated, reproduced and enacted within and outside this apparatus.”17 Anarchists tend to see forms of domination as presenting themselves in society without the need to root them in the economy. Although some anarchists would suggest that class is primary,18 most avoid the ranking implied in such statements including the Marxist theory of an economic base serving as the foundation for all existing social relations.19 Generally, there are three main anarchist strands within the tradition of political economy in addition to Marxist analyses: mutualism, collectivism, and  communism. Most contemporary anarchists reject mutualism outright. While it played a historic role in laying the foundations of anarchist political 15 16 17 18 19

Schweickart, 2011. Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 28. Gordon (nd). See, for example, Van Der Walt and Schmidt (2009). It should be noted that many Marxists reject this deterministic view as well.

10

Chapter 1

economy it has had little impact on contemporary anarchist thinkers beyond those foundations although it seems to be gaining ground as more people lose faith in capitalism. Beyond that, many anarchists are suspicious of visionary arguments and blueprints for the future, seeing anarchism as a conscious creation of the dispossessed and not a future that can be written within the context of the present. As Emma Goldman put it: Anarchism is not, as some may suppose, a theory of the future to be realized through divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions. The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual.20 Following this, some anarchists would eschew labels and hyphenations like anarchist-communism, referring to it simply as anarchy or, at times, indicating no preference at all. There is also a strong tradition of revolutionary pluralism in anarchism. In the past, some anarchists would advocate for an anarchism without-adjectives, perhaps most famously advanced by thinkers such as Voltairine de Cleyre, to indicate a tolerance for many visionary and strategic differences. Similarly, there have been and still are anarchists who advocate for specific models but see a need for pluralism in terms of vision. One of the best examples of this can be found in Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, who advocated for anarchist-communism, yet stated: One may, therefore, prefer communism, or individualism, or collectivism, or any other system, and work by example and propaganda for the achievement of one’s personal preferences, but one must beware, at the risk of certain disaster, of supposing that one’s system is the only, and infallible, one, good for all men, everywhere and for all times, and that its success must be assured at all costs, by means other than those which depend on persuasion, which spring from the evidence of facts.21 Finally, it should be noted that the borders drawn around these different visionary proposals are points of contention and debate. What is called collectivism here might be called a transitional phase for anarchist-communism. 20 Goldman, Anarchism: What it Really Stands For (nd). 21 Malatesta, 1984.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

11

Still others argue for a minimalist definition of libertarian communism that would include things like some form of remuneration for labor time, onerousness of tasks, and the like—which contemporary anarchist-communists ­typically reject (but past anarchist-communists have, at times, advocated for). Yet, today these categories have crystallized to have certain meanings among anarchists. Any attempt at defining them, then, is itself a heavily politicized project. Mutualism Proudhon advocated a form of market socialism called mutualism.22 Mutualism was an anti-capitalist model that saw workers’ mutual banks and credit associations as a way to socialize productive property, particularly through the use of low-interest loans, charging only the necessary interest to pay for administration. Thus, Proudhon argued for mutualism not only as a post-capitalist vision, but also as a strategic orientation stressing the need to build alternative economic relationships in the here-and-now that would eventually replace capitalism. While mutualism is typically no longer advocated by anarchists, they do owe much of their development of economics to Proudhon as do, ­ironically, Marxists. As Proudhon sketched it out, wage labor and landlordism would be abolished in a mutualist society. Rather, ownership would be based on occupancy and use. Therefore, all workers would have access to their own means of ­production—most organizing into cooperative, non-hierarchical firms. These self-managed firms would compete in a free market, regulated by a grand agroindustrial federation. Many mutualists have argued that these firms would function in ways similar to current worker cooperatives but without the pressures of operating in the context of a capitalist and statist society. Further, rather than capitalists expropriating surplus value from workers, workers would keep or trade those products that they produce. This means that distribution in a mutualist society would be “by work done, by deed rather than need. Workers would receive the full product of their labour, after paying for inputs from other co-operatives.”23 This is an important distinction, particularly as anarchists who advocate for communism argue for forms of distribution by need and parts of the debates over anarchist visionary arguments are centered on the distribution of production. This also means that in a mutualist 22 See Proudhon (1994 [1840]). 23 Anarcho, The Economics of Anarchy (nd).

12

Chapter 1

society, exchange relations would continue to exist, with self-managed firms exchanging goods and services in a market. For this reason, some anarchists, particularly communists, argue that mutualism would actually be a self-­ managed form of capitalism, as it retains so many capitalist elements including, for example, exchange relations, markets, and so on. Collectivism Collectivism is most often associated with Bakunin, who referred to himself as a collectivist to distinguish his theory from state-communists. While mutualism was a reformist and gradualist model that would try to overgrow capitalism over a long period of time, Bakunin saw a need for a revolutionary break with capitalism. Therefore, he argued for a revolutionary movement that would expropriate property and socialize it. Collectivism is based on the assumption of social ownership of productive property, like mutualism. The product of labor, however, would be gathered into a communal market. Bakunin’s friend, Guillaume, when outlining Bakunin’s vision, called for a society where items…produced by collective labor will belong to the community. And each member will receive remuneration for his labor either in the form of commodities…or in currency. In some communities remuneration will be in proportion to hours worked; in others payment will be measured by both the hours of work and the kind of work performed; still other systems will be experimented with to see how they work out.24 Where communities used currency, it would be used to purchase items from the collective market. And yet Dolgoff said of Guillaume that he “saw no difference in principle between collectivism and anti-state communism. The collectivists understood that full communism would not be immediately realizable. They were convinced that the workers themselves would gradually introduce communism as they overcame the obstacles, both psychological and economic.”25 Thus, in this way, the idea of remuneration was not seen as an end in Bakunin’s collectivism, but rather a transitional phase toward a system of full communism, ­presumably where norms of remuneration would be done away with. But it is 24 25

Guillaume, 1971: 361. Dolgoff, 1971: 159.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

13

not clear that Bakunin saw himself as anything other than a communist anarchist, which makes definitions and categorization difficult. Guillaume writes that “the term ‘collectivists’ designated the partisans of collective property [in the First International and that] (t)hose who advocated ownership of collective property by the state were called ‘state’ or ‘authoritarian communists.’… To distinguish themselves from the authoritarians and avoid confusion, the anti-authoritarians called themselves ‘collectivists.’”26 Nevertheless, the term collectivism is still widely in use among anarchists, who often distinguish between collectivism and communist anarchism on the basis of debates over remuneration and distribution. Currently, like mutualism, there are few anarchists who advocate for collectivism, as such. But echoes of some of these concerns over remuneration can be seen as some anarchists advocate for participatory economics (or parecon), a non-market libertarian socialism developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.27 Indeed, Albert writes “citizens should have a claim on society’s ­economic product that increases if they do socially valued work longer, more intensely, or under worse conditions.”28 This is where we might see the descendants of collectivism in some ways. However, for advocates of parecon, it is typically not seen as a transitional phase into full communism of free consumption, but an end unto itself, which differentiates it from Bakunin’s theory.

Communist Anarchism

Communist forms of anarchism are the dominant tendency among contemporary anarchists, at least for those who identify with a particular economic ­tendency. Strategically, communist anarchists (sometimes referred to as anarchocommunists, anarchist-communists, or libertarian communists, with each of those terms connoting some strategic and theoretical differences) typically see a need for a revolutionary break with capitalism. Some, like Bakunin, envision this break as occurring through a series of grand revolutionary events enacted by an organized working class. Others, however, see anarchism and communism more as processes than end goals, and often advocate for insurrectionary moments that would, perhaps, coalesce into revolutions. Libertarian communists advocate for the social ownership of productive property and distribution on the basis of need or, perhaps better stated, an 26 27 28

Ibid., 1971: 158. See, for example, Albert and Hahnel (1991). Shannon et al., 2012: 330.

14

Chapter 1

end  to ownership and property relations altogether (i.e. the abolition of property). This anarchist communism argues for economic visions organized around the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need,” though the details of how to realize this objective are certainly debatable. Added to this, ‘communism’ is also a contested term with a variety of meanings, both historically and currently. This makes for a category that is ­difficult to pin down with simple definitions, but much of the early communist anarchist theory was written in reaction to the collectivist wage system. Communist anarchists will typically argue against any form of currency or remuneration. For Kropotkin, currency and remuneration were sterile ideas that could possibly lead to the re-development of capitalism: Of course, in a society like ours, in which the more a man works the less he is remunerated, this principle, at first sight, may appear to be a yearning for justice. But in reality it is only the perpetuation of injustice. It was by proclaiming this principle that wagedom began, to end in the glaring inequalities and all the abominations of present society; because, from the moment work done began to be appraised in currency, or in any other form of wage, the day it was agreed upon that man would only receive the wage he should be able to secure to himself, the whole history of a stateaided capitalist society was as good as written; it was contained in germ in this principle.29 Kropotkin’s view presented one way forward for a post-revolutionary society. He believed that people “having taken possession of all social wealth, having boldly proclaimed the right of all to this wealth—whatever share they may have taken in producing it—will be compelled to abandon any system of wages, whether in currency or labour-notes.”30 This is important not only in terms of vision, but also inasmuch as it refers to the political content produced by anarchists during insurrectionary or revolutionary mo(ve)ments. That is, communist anarchists tended to be processoriented. So instead of advocating for a revolutionary break, followed by a new organization of society along communist anarchist lines, Kropotkin suggested that workers, in the context of a revolution, would “demand what they have always demanded in such cases—communization of supplies.”31 Emma 29 30 31

Kropotkin, 2005 [1892]: 152. Ibid: 152. Ibid: 59.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

15

Goldman also suggested a process of creating communism that precluded commercial processes: To make this a reality will, I believe, be possible only in a society based on voluntary co-operation of productive groups, communities and societies loosely federated together, eventually developing into a free communism, actuated by a solidarity of interests. There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word, no harmonious development, so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an important part in the determination of personal conduct.32 Kropotkin was particularly adamant about this: “The Revolution, we maintain, must be communist; if not, it will be drowned in blood, and have to be begun over again.”33 These descriptions of vision and process do nothing to talk about many of the other tensions and disagreements among communist anarchists. There are those who believe that formal anarchist organizations are crucial to social struggle and those who think those kinds of organizations become ends unto themselves and get in the way of struggle. Some communist anarchists argue for an egoist anarchism rooted in personal desire while others argue for a more social and collective oriented approach to theory. There are communist anarchists who identify with the Left and others who reject it, some who argue for self-managed workplaces and others who advocate for the abolition of work. Also, there are many who find themselves in some middle place in these disputes.

Conflict Theory

There are three major theoretical approaches in Western sociology, functionalism typified by classical sociologists such as Émile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons in modern times; conflict theory usually referring but not limited to Marxist analyses as explained above; and interactionism exemplified by Erving Goffman. Conflict theory, in turn, has two main branches. One is critical theory by and large based on Marxist analyses, the other is the analytical school founded on Weberian thought. Conflict theory in general makes three assumptions. One is that there are no common social goals. Rather, people have their own self-interests separated from those of others and will compete to promote 32 33

Goldman, 1908. Kropotkin, 2005 [1892]: 152.

16

Chapter 1

their own group interests. Second, power shapes all social relationships. Third, ideology is used as a weapon to advance the interests of different groups rather than that of society at large. Karl Marx is the primary figure that informs critical conflict theorists. They are referred to as such because they use social science to critique existing social structures of stratification based on unequal distribution of wealth, status, and power. Their emphasis is on productive property relations which in turn shape relations throughout society. A major tenet of critical theory is that facts cannot be separated from values, thus there is no such thing as value-free analysis. Instead, critical theorists see their role as using social science to establish egalitarian societies void of domination and oppression. This, however, assumes that it is possible to achieve utopian societies that are conflict free. Change would come through praxis informed by science and revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. Critical theory, as such, was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology which also included Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Friedrich Pollock, Leo Lowenthal, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has been influenced by C. Wright Mills in the United States and the second generation Frankfurt School writers including Jürgen Habermas. Analytical conflict theory is by and large based on the writings of Max Weber. In general, analytical conflict theorists hold that there are objective social ‘facts’ (in the sense of the natural sciences) that can be separated from one’s subjective values. These facts can be discovered, observed, and measured. Another important difference with critical theory relates to how they identify the dimensions of stratification. For critical theorists, stratification tends to be reduced to one dimension based on ownership of productive resources leading to a two-class model of society. Analytical theorists see stratification as more nuanced arguing that there are multiple factors determining stratification. These are not necessarily congruent in that there are multiple and sometimes contradictory sources of power within societies. For example, Weber famously discussed stratification along class (meaning wealth), status (such as the less affluent aristocracy of his times) and party (referring to political power).34 Interestingly, analytical theorists share in this regard with anarchists who also identify multiple cleavage points of power and domination permeating the entire social structure, not based on property alone. In contrast to critical theorists, analytical theorists hold conflict to be a cultural universal and, therefore, a permanent aspect of social life, unlike most anarchists who share with Marxists the belief that utopian societies are possible. Modern analytical 34

Weber, 1946.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

17

conflict theorists include Ralf Dahrendorf (who continued the Weberian tradition combining it with Robert Merton’s structural functionalism and Marxist analysis), Lewis Coser, and Randall Collins. Which theory should guide us in building a better future? Our goal should not be implementing either classical economic models versus Marxist, Mutualist, Collectivist, or communist anarchist models. Nor should the choice be between a capitalist market, command economy, or utopian communities. In addition, Marxists point out that societies do have a social structure which under capitalism is based on inequality, thus necessitating the imperative for structural change. Anarchists tend to reduce social structure to dominance or associate structure generally speaking with the economic structure. For these reasons contemporary anarchists reject existing social structures in favor of fundamentally new ones, typically utopian non-hierarchical communities. However, what is at hand is the real-world implementation of egalitarian principles in modern large-scale societies versus theoretical ideal type models. In addition, if we accept that modernity and large-scale societies are here to stay, then we must consider what would constitute a corresponding egalitarian social structure. It is proposed that this is both possible and implementable through direct democracy. But, if we apply anarchist principles to existing social structures then what we are talking about is something new altogether, being neither representative capitalist democracy nor utopian communitarian societies. Rather, what we will have is structural anarchism or more generally social structures of direct democracy derived from the economic concept of social structures of accumulation as envisaged by economists like David Kotz, Terrence McDonough, and Michael Reich.35 These authors have argued that class conflict shapes the economic, political, cultural, and other institutional arrangements constituting social structures of accumulation that may or may not be conducive to capitalist investment. In this sense, there must be an overall social structure conducive to the accumulation of freedom rather than of capital. Equality can be achieved by transplanting egalitarian principles into existing structures and institutions to develop a counter-hegemonic model of society. This is possible by imbedding direct democracy throughout the social structure, one which would permeate all social institutions, rather than one or the other social systems such as the political or economic. Democracy in one but not the others is an illusion of democratic substance, as in the case of ­representative democracy. However, equality is an absolute, it is not relative nor does it range on a spectrum. Therefore in a democratic system equality is 35

Kotz et al., 1994.

18

Chapter 1

universal, imbedded within the fabric of society otherwise it is a democracy in name only. We can accomplish the task by developing models based on the experiences of daily life including, for example, modifying the selection process for governing bodies of existing institutions of authority. Based on the argument that all systems of representative democracy are inherently undemocratic and that direct democracy alone can provide substantive equality, it is proposed that legislative and judicial bodies be filled through statistically random selection, while leaving the demos as the executive through various mechanisms such as internet voting modeled on the principle of state propositions. The economic counterpart to direct democracy is also attainable by modifying the selection process for existing institutions of authority within the sphere of production. It is proposed that the top corporations (and private equity) have half their boards of directors filled through statistically random selection from the demos, the other half from workers of the enterprise using the same process as for legislative bodies. Citizens and workers would set corporate policy which affects society at large while leaving ownership of the means of production private combined with modified free markets. The second, or stage two, economic proposal is distribution based exclusively on equal income through a single standard National Wage, leading to increased economic efficiency and development. These proposals are not ends in themselves. Rather, these are intended to evolve from the proposed vision of private property with societal governance into societal ownership with communal use. In a society where remuneration, authority, and workloads are equalized, citizens will be equals. Equality will result in individuals relating to each other through their functions or social roles to be performed for the upkeep of society. I will no longer be John the professor with more income, authority, and pleasant work life while you are Yianni the janitor with low income, authority and an unpleasant work life. Instead, I will be John who teaches for three hours and you are Yianni who cleans for three hours. The importance here is that teaching and cleaning will be seen as having equal social value when compensation, authority, and work life are equated on the basis of citizenship. Then we can start relating to each other not through narrow social roles attached to work statuses but as unique individuals with all our differences being seen as qualitative without inherent hierarchical rankings.

Why Capitalism Must Always Collapse

For people to demand new social models, one would have to demonstrate to them their superiority relative to the status quo. To this point, capitalist market

Theory, Praxis, And Change

19

economies have exhausted their productive potential resulting in perpetual crises at worst and stagnant depressed economies at best. Specifically, ideology shapes conflict and in turn relations throughout the social structure. Once established, these social relations determine the shape of economic, political, cultural, and other institutional structures that in turn determine the distribution of wealth, power, and status. However, these structures will be conducive to future expansion and accumulation depending on the capitalists’ willingness to invest.36 This structural approach to capitalist expansion underscores the classic Marxist critique of overproduction-underconsumption and capitalism’s inherent contradictions and imbalances.37 Namely, stagnation results when either capital or labor dominates the other.38 In free market periods capital dominates labor, leading to contraction caused by underconsumption; but when labor dominates capital, it leads to contraction due to a profit squeeze.39 Accordingly, periods of expansion are based on institutional arrangements that regulate class conflict, leading to a balance of power between capital and labor. This can be expressed roughly as profit and wage considerations being balanced thereby leading to a level of purchasing power, consumption, and aggregate demand capable of clearing production.40 However, historical contingencies would make it difficult to sustain such a balance of power between 36 Ibid. 37 Underconsumption is the deficiency of consumption relative to production. In Volume III, Part III of Capital, Marx presents a theory of crisis grounded in the contradictions of capitalist production, namely the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. As capitalists compete with each other, they strive to replace workers with machines increasing what Marx called ‘the organic composition of capital’. However, capitalist profit is based upon living, not ‘dead’ (i.e., machine) labor. As the organic composition of capital rises, the rate of profit tends to fall as workers have less income with which to purchase output. Eventually, this will cause a fall in profit, giving way to decline and crisis. Overproduction is the excess of production over consumption. The tendency for an overproduction of commodities to lead to economic collapse is specific to the capitalist economy. In previous economic systems, an abundance of production created general prosperity. The overproduction of commodities forces businesses to reduce production and therefore employment in order to clear inventories. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. For capitalism’s inherent contradictions and imbalances see Marx, 1978a [1862–63]; 1977 [1867]. 38 Harvey, 2010; Schweickart, 2011; Wolfson, 2003. 39 A profit squeeze occurs when wages rise too high reducing the rate of profit therefore causing a recession. 40 Aggregate demand is the total demand for final goods and services in the economy at a given time and price level.

20

Chapter 1

capital and labor, which would lead to long periods of expansion under stable institutional arrangements and contraction when they decay. Ultimately, all structures will be destabilized regardless of the power arrangements because these are based on a capitalist mode of production. As such, capital inevitably obtains the upper hand relative to labor because it controls all resources which are used to capture the State. This triggers a reaction from labor, leading to the ongoing dialectical succession of expansion and contraction, depending on which class dominates at a given historical moment. The argument of a profit squeeze underscores another important fact. Even if labor obtained an upper-hand through revitalized movements and pro-labor public policies, it still would not provide a lasting solution. As long as property relations (relations of production) remain capitalist, including under socialism or welfare States, there can only be an illusion of prosperity and ephemeral gains for the working class.41 A period of dominant labor would inevitably result in a profit squeeze which would trigger a recession and a realignment of class power anew. This is true because under capitalism wages are at the same time a cost of production and primary source of aggregate demand through workers’ purchasing power.42 As Harvey explains: “Workers spending their wages is one source of effective demand…But the total wage bill is always less than the total capital in circulation (otherwise there would be no profit), so the purchase of wage goods that sustain daily life (even with a suburban lifestyle) is never sufficient for the profitable sale of the total output.”43 Alternatively, under capitalism most of the population can only survive by working for those who own society’s resources—the means of production. If someone else signs one’s paycheck that person will, in the classic Marxian sense, receive less than their labor’s full worth. The difference between the full value and actual payment of labor is kept by the owners of the enterprise and is the definition of exploitation. Here it becomes apparent why any type of labor organizing such 41

42 43

Relations of production (produktionsverhältnisse) is a concept used by Marx referring to the socioeconomic relationships of a specific epoch. For example, a capitalist’s exclusive relationship to capital, and a wage worker’s consequent relation to the capitalist; a feudal lord’s relationship to a fief, and the serf’s consequent relation to the lord; a slave master’s relationship to their slave; etc. “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” (Marx 1978b [1859]: 4) Schweickart, 2011. Harvey, 2010: 107.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

21

as unions, which are typically advocated by socialists and Marxists alike, have been rejected by anarchists as futile reformism. The capitalist stays in business only if she earns profits. Unfortunately, profits are surplus labor extracted from the workers.44 If the workers of an enterprise unionized and fought to obtain their labor’s full value the contradiction would become immediately apparent. Giving labor its full payment eliminates profits. As a result the company would close and the workers would become unemployed. This would happen every time workers of a company managed to obtain full payment for their labor.45 Cyclical downturns caused by either insufficient purchasing power (underconsumption) or a profit squeeze are integral to the capitalist system and the true cause of business cycles. Think of class conflict as a seesaw between overproduction and underconsumption. When ownership of the means of production is private, an increase in the public portion of total societal wealth reduces profits, as a result of which capitalists limit production. An increase in the ­private proportion results in reduced overall purchasing power. Thus we are left with the conundrum of how one can obtain one’s full labor value without becoming unemployed in the process. Societal organization on the principles of direct democracy resolves the problems of overproduction-underconsumption and a profit squeeze because worker-citizens collectively own and operate all enterprises thus eliminating exploitation.46 Therefore the real problem is private productive property relations which are reflected throughout the entire social structure: At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or— what is but a legal expression of the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution.47 If, for example, private ownership of the means of production is replaced by societal ownership, profit considerations are eliminated from production 44

Surplus labor is labor performed in excess of the labor necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker (necessary labor). According to Marxian economics, surplus labor is unpaid and the ultimate source of capitalist profits. Exploitation occurs when those appropriating surplus labor do not compensate those performing the labor. 45 Schweickart, 2011. 46 Ibid. 47 Marx, 1978b [1859]: 4–5.

22

Chapter 1

decisions. Thus, W = C = Q = market clearing, where W is wages, C is consumption, and Q is output. Since all workers would also be owners, it is reasonable to argue that all net profits (or the majority of them) would be paid out to workers either as wages or profits which would become synonymous. This creates a far broader distribution of wealth, purchasing power, and aggregate demand leading to market clearing by eliminating the conflict between profits and wages or capital and labor. In contrast, under capitalism profits derived at the expense of wages are concentrated in the hands of a few whose demand is insufficient to clear markets and who are likely to invest in either low-wage or non-job generating sectors such as finance.48 Another way of looking at it is through savings. Wealthy people tend to save proportionally more than the poor. But if those savings are not reinvested they reduce overall aggregate demand leading to downturns because the nation’s total wage bill is insufficient to purchase its output. As society becomes more unequal, with the top 1 percent controlling 33.8 percent of all wealth compared to 2.5 percent for the bottom 50 percent,49 an increasing saving rate by the wealthiest increasingly reduces aggregate demand due to reduced purchasing power by everyone else. As Joseph Stiglitz explains “Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher-income individuals consume a smaller proportion of their income than do lower-income individuals (those at the top save 15 to 25 percent of their income, those at the bottom spend all of their income).”50

The Relationship between Change and Radicalism

A society consists of a population and its corresponding set of social relations. There, I argue, is where one finds material and non-material culture dialectically intertwined upon which sits a superstructure reflecting dominant social relations and their corresponding ideology as an organizing principle. According to most theorists, including Dahrendorf, the distribution of power is the crucial determinant of social structure. Dahrendorf uses Max Weber’s definition of power: “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.”51 Society’s superstructure is composed of substructures each with its own institutions governed by administrative 48 49 50 51

Mishel et al., 2003–2013. Kennickell, 2009–13. Stiglitz, 2012: 85. Dahrendorf, 1959: 166.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

23

bodies. These administrative bodies include professional bureaucratic staff and decision making personnel based on any number of criteria including ownership, elections, qualifications, egalitarianism, and appointment. The main substructures are the economic, political, and cultural. In a stable system, these substructures are interdependent and reinforcing although incongruences and cleavage points appear in all social structures. These cleavage points—the nature of conflict—shape social structures and institutions. Much of how conflict is resolved depends on the relations of authority. Dahrendorf defines authority in Weberian terms as “the probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons.”52 The difference between power and authority is that the latter is power that is legitimized, typically through institutionalization. Yet Robert Merton, who influenced Dahrendorf, points out that: To speak of ‘legitimate power’ or authority is often to use an elliptical and misleading phrase. Power may be legitimized for some without being legitimate for all groups in a society. It may, therefore, be misleading to describe non-conformity with particular social institutions merely as deviant behavior; it may represent the beginning of a new alternative pattern, with its own distinctive claims to moral validity.53 The essence of power and authority is control over sanctions which allow one to give orders. However, those receiving them will resist if they reject this claim to legitimacy resulting in conflict. These authority cleavage points are not limited to class. Rather, they permeate the entire social structure along the fault-lines of gender, race, and values like pro-choice or antiabortion. For example, a social structure based on inequality and domination will shape not only class but all social relations more broadly including the rich dominating the poor, men dominating women, and one race dominating another. If a social structure is based on equality then that will be the overall organizing principle. For example, producers will be equals through equal material distribution and contribution, men will be equals with women, and so on. It is here where social relations can either contain or not contain conflict. When they can, change is suppressed. When they cannot, change becomes possible. One of the functions of equality is to facilitate change. If we are all equals in authority and material resources, chances are we will have similar capabilities to block or obtain that which each of us 52 53

Ibid., 1959: 166. Merton, 1968: 176.

24

Chapter 1

desires. But equality imbedded in culture means we would be prone to accept people’s right to have different views and act on them within socially accepted parameters. In turn, I argue change originates at the level of population when ideology structurally alters relations of authority broadly speaking, not just in production. To clarify, a society’s knowledge base develops both ideology and the material world, as discussed in the chapter 3, Material Relations. When technological knowledge surpasses the limits of existing social relations, pressure builds for change as Marxism posits. But, technological change will not occur so long as it is suppressed by existing relations of authority. In more limited Marxist terms the relations of production become fetters to the forces of production. Marx himself on the other hand was conscious of social relations in general, not just at the point of production as exemplified by his involvement in the u.s. Civil War advocating for emancipation.54 However, in contrast to Marx and Marxism, it is ideology which can deliver the forces of production from the womb of the past for it will challenge the legitimacy of existing social relations upon which all else is founded. This results in historically contingent synthesis or a new epoch in Marxist terms. For example, historians date the steam engine to the Greek Hero, or Heron, of ancient Alexandria 2000 years ago. Why did the same invention that sparked the industrial revolution in 18th century Britain not do so in ancient Alexandria? In antiquity the superstructure was based on slave relations. This normalized the ruling elite’s reliance on abundant slave labor rendering labor-saving machines a more expensive (and unnecessary) alternative. Here then we have the forces of production ready to spark an industrial revolution that never came. Why? Because social relations were able to restrain the productive forces for thousands of years. Over centuries knowledge produced both technical innovations and tomes of egalitarian ideology that spread geometrically with increases in telecommunications from the Gutenberg press to the internet. This and other changes led to new authority relations that made possible the ‘free man’ who became more expensive to employ relative to machines compared to when he was a slave, but also capitalism which increased the valuation or utility of the steam engine relative to free people. This is where one finds the seeds of capitalism’s contradictions identified by Marxists. There are qualitatively different types of change: those that keep a system intact, typically referred to as reformism, and those that transform it. I argue transformative change (therefore distinct epochs) only occurs when authority relations are structurally altered through changes in the overall organizing 54

Heartfield, 2012.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

25

principle of the entire social structure. Such change varies positively with the extent of both a society’s knowledge base and the level of technology for the transmission of information. Knowledge develops the means of transmitting information and vice versa creating a virtuous dialectical cycle of mutual development between knowledge and technology. It follows that there have been only two historically distinct social structures (or epochs) rather than the multiple epochs subsequently identified by Marx and others. One was based on equality (for example, prehistoric hunting-and-gathering societies) and the other based on inequality ever since. Marx identified epochs based on the mode of production. In actuality, these are not distinct epochs. Rather, these are distinct technological periods of material development. Alternatively, these are points in the technological evolution of a singular structure framed by inequality. This brings us to the core issue of what we mean by radical change. For one, the pace of change is not central to the consideration of its radicalism. Also, change can be both sudden and evolutionary (as in a process) measured by the extent to which personnel in positions of authority are exchanged creating a continuum from total to no change of personnel.55 The pace of change is positively correlated with the level of violence which is: a matter of the weapons that are chosen by conflict groups to express their hostilities. Again, a continuum can be constructed ranging from peaceful discussions to militant struggles such as strikes and civil wars. … The scale of degree of violence, including discussion and debate, contest and competition, struggle and war, displays its own patterns and regularities. Violent class struggles, or class wars, are but one point on this scale.56 The level of violence, in turn, depends on the degree of successfully institutionalizing conflict. For example, parliaments are intended to function as institutional tools for resolving group conflicts. Radical change in turn also exhibits a continuum from low to high levels and is positively correlated with the intensity of class conflict measured by “the energy expenditure and degree of involvement of conflicting parties. A particular conflict may be said to be of high intensity if the cost of victory or defeat is high for the parties concerned.”57 The intensity of conflict shows precisely where pedagogy becomes indispensable as a means to build class consciousness.58 55 56 57 58

Dahrendorf, 1959. Ibid., 1959: 212. Ibid., 1959: 212. See, for example, Freire (2000) and McLaren (2006) on critical pedagogy.

26

Chapter 1

The work of Antonio Gramsci on the importance of developing a counter hegemony and the role of organic intellectuals is also relevant here.59 Therefore, although sudden and radical change can occur together, as with high levels of violence and intensity, these concepts can be disentangled. Thus ‘revolutionary change’ is often used in the literature to describe change that is both sudden and radical, even though change can be evolutionary (process oriented) and equally radical in its effects.

Structural Limitations to Change

Class interests and economic antagonisms would still exist under the proposed model. The only fundamental means through which to eliminate these is a radical revolution that would uproot all existing social relations and structures. Such a revolution though is not possible for the foreseeable future for a myriad of reasons. Nor should we be wishing for a radical revolution because there is no clear blueprint of where it would take us. For one, as Merton suggested, every social structure is based on the congruence and interdependence of its parts: The range of variation in the items which can fulfill designated functions in a social structure is not unlimited…The interdependence of the elements of a social structure limits the effective possibilities of change or functional alternatives. …Failure to recognize the relevance of interdependence and attendant structural restraints leads to utopian thought in which it is tacitly assumed that certain elements of a social system can be eliminated without affecting the rest of the system.60

59

60

Organic intellectuals are: “the thinking and organizing element of a particular fundamental social class. …distinguished less by their profession, which may be any job characteristic of their class, than by their function in directing the ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong. The implications of this…bear on all aspects of Gramsci’s thought. Philosophically they connect with the proposition (p. 323) that ‘all men are philosophers’ and with Gramsci’s whole discussion of the dissemination of philosophical ideas and of ideology within a given culture. They relate to Gramsci’s ideas on Education (p. 323) in their stress on the democratic character of the intellectual function, but also on the class character of the formation of intellectuals through school.” (Gramsci, 1971: 1) This corresponds to the ideas of critical pedagogy by Paulo Freire (2000) and later McLaren (2006). Merton, 1968: 106–107.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

27

This creates structural constraints as to the realistic extent of possible change. What these proposals would do is severely limit the power of capital. When anyone in the population, the majority of whom are workers, can govern it would no longer be possible for the elite to control the political process explaining why they are afraid of direct democracy. If society’s rules are made by political institutions then those who control those institutions make the rules. Currently, that means the wealthy. But, if average citizens rule, then the power of private productive property can be subdued. Theoretically, citizen legislators and judges could even pass fundamental redistribution laws, including the outright expropriation of productive property.

Insurrection versus Revolution

Peaceful resistance and nonviolent civil disobedience alone are as effective as prayer to spirits. History teaches us that substantive change requires direct action including sabotage, occupations, destruction of business and elite property, mass demonstrations, violent resistance against police intervention, even insurrection.61 It was through such direct action spanning generations that the labor and civil rights movements across industrial nations wrested most if not all substantive victories from the elite including the eight-hour workday, the right to collective bargaining, and civil rights just to name a few.62 Although revolution and insurrection manifest through direct action, there is a fundamental distinction between the two. Historically, a revolution has involved armed militant factions fighting the State often from the margins of society such as mountains and jungles or abandoned urban warehouses. This is a challenge to the status quo from the outside of society which in and of itself can be manipulated by the elite to imply an ‘illegitimate’ claim. But, why not rise from within society assuming the enforcement of basic civil liberties to obtain specific transformative demands? This is an insurrection in the 15th century meaning of the word, a ‘rising up’. A major benefit includes the implied legitimacy of the claims and actions having derived by citizens through mass action. More so: Insurrection may contain elements of riot and rebellion, but it is not synonymous with either of these. Insurrection delivers a message, even if that message is deemed irrational by opponents. Thus, riots may be more 61

See, for example, the work by Adamic (2008), Asimakopoulos (2011, 2000), Brecher (1997 [1972]), and Peniel (2006). 62 Ibid.

28

Chapter 1

or less insurrectionary, depending on what they have to say about the existing state of affairs. Rebellion can be an insurrectionary form too, but not if it is essentially reformist in terms of its content. Rebellion typically lies in between reform and revolution in the following way: Rebellion is a mode of action that emerges from the realization of the failure of conventional measures. Thus, one becomes a rebel only after realizing the impasses of reform. But, it is critical to grasp that insurrection is closely related to revolution because it is a revolutionary effort, attempt, expression, a moment of revolt. Whereas, riots or rebellions may not have any revolutionary content, for they can occur in response to contested election results, court decisions, or electrical blackouts. This is not to diminish the insurrectionary potentialities of riot and rebellion, but rather, to emphasize the revolutionary character of insurrection.63 In contrast to Dahrendorf, it thus becomes possible to conceptualize revolution as more than simply replacing personnel in decision making structures since that leaves the system’s structure intact.64 Rather, revolution refers to structural or epochal transformations from what is into what can or should be. This, according to Freire, involves a process in that “the taking of power is only one moment—no matter how decisive—in the revolutionary process. …In a dynamic, rather than static, view of revolution, there is no absolute ‘before’ or ‘after’, with the taking of power as the dividing line.”65 Insurrections attempt such transformations even when they do not turn into ‘revolutions’. Therefore, the democratization of political and economic institutions would have to be forced upon the State through a process of sustained agitation, insurrections, and cultural transformation. As Rudolf Rocker suggested: Political rights do not originate in parliaments, they are…forced upon parliaments from without…The peoples owe all the political rights and privileges…not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength. Governments have employed every means that lay in their power to prevent the attainment of these rights or to render them illusory. Great mass movements among the people and whole revolutions have been necessary to wrest these rights from the ruling classes, who would never have consented to them voluntarily. …Only after the workers had by direct action confronted parliament with accomplished facts, did 63 64 65

Gilman-Opalsky, 2013: 21. Dahrendorf, 1959. Freire, 2000: 136–137.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

29

the government see itself obliged to take the new situation into account and give legal sanction….66 In contrast to Gramsci, I hold that the working class has no allies in this conflict nor should it seek them outside of its own ranks.67 Gramsci understood the importance of working-class self-emancipation demonstrated by the emphasis he placed on organic intellectuals. Being politically pragmatic he was, after all, a parliamentarian in Italy for a time; his theory of hegemony considers class alliances part of a historical process when challenging an existing power structure. Perhaps it is here that we see the ghost of Machiavelli. Freire did not preclude class alliances, but he was clearly weary of anyone outside the workers’ ranks including ‘leaders’.68 He clearly sides in favor of selfemancipation, viewing the role of educators to assist workers’ in their self-realization. A problem with Gramsci’s pragmatism is that alliances are hard to make with groups that do not share fundamental values or objectives. If workers espouse a system based on egalitarianism it would be difficult to recruit a middle class that, as Freire points out, is imbued with the ideology of inequality in all their social relations and mode of thinking. To them equality means something profoundly different. It is having larger portions of the pie to emulate the lifestyles of their admired social superiors in the upper stratum of society. Freire was also wary of leaders who did not function as midwives of the peoples’ wishes but as their leaders in the traditional sense of hierarchy: we say you do. I believe as most anarchists that any individual or group other than the workers, intellectuals included if we recall Bakunin’s warnings, will ultimately attempt to promote their own self-interest at the expense of everyone else’s. The bourgeoisie, or middle class, have betrayed alliances with the working class at first opportunity in almost every revolution. It is the people themselves who should take the leading role in the fight, demonstrating the importance of critical pedagogy for egalitarian change.69 If workers’ groups become successful and overcame the State’s resistance, why not simply demand outright expropriation of productive property? Historically, successful revolutions against the State are dependent on multiple factors coming together. These include an articulated counter-ideology espoused by an upcoming class that is confident and willing to act for itself.70 66 67 68 69 70

Rocker, 2004 [1938]: 111–112. For a more nuanced discussion see Asimakopoulos (2011). Freire, 2000. Freire, 2000; McLaren, 2006. Gramsci, 1971.

30

Chapter 1

Organization, a level of education about the new economic arrangements, access to resources including financing and weapons, coopting security forces, and demoralized ruling elites are some additional factors and preconditions. Dahrendorf, in his theory of conflict group formation, specifies the conditions for the mobilization of a class to act for itself.71 First, there are structural conditions including technical, political, and social. Technical conditions refer to a group having a charter, particular norms, personnel, material requisites, and an ideology. Political conditions matter in the sense of operating within a totalitarian versus Western democratic State. Social conditions include the ability and ease with which members can communicate with each other. A second requirement is psychological which involves, for example, a willingness to deviate from established norms. For all these reasons even the most promising revolutions by the bottom rungs of society have failed in just about every case. The few instances of success were either bourgeois revolutions that swiftly betrayed workers (for example, the French Revolution), or spearheaded by alternative elites that had no intentions of allowing governance from below (for example, the Bolsheviks).72 But, let’s assume that people did engage in a political revolution to overthrow the State. For whatever reasons, ranging from media concentration to lack of class consciousness—which ultimately gets back to the lack of critical pedagogy and working models of counter hegemony—there is simply not enough support from the working-class population for such a revolution to be successful.73 Instead, the majority of u.s. workers regularly vote against their class interests. The question then becomes the following: Do we wait until we develop sufficient support for that ideal revolution in the by-and-by or do we do something attainable in the here and now? Demanding social control over capital is not the same as expropriating it. Although the elite and the State (which is but the same) would battle against these changes they would be invested less than they would in an all-or-nothing fight to the end if confronted by outright expropriation, not to mention the real possibility of death. More so, assuming we revolted successfully, would the system stay the same and, if so, what would have been the point of revolting? If the system is changed, would people know how to function in a radically new society—remember 71 72 73

Dahrendorf, 1959. Rabinowitch, 2008; Smith, 2011. Class consciousness is a subjective awareness of common vested interests and the need for collective political action to bring about social change. In contrast, false class consciousness occurs when a member of a social class does not objectively understand their actual class position as, for example, when a worker identifies as a member of the middle class.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

31

there are far more Republicans and conservatives than Marxists and anarchists who have no clue (this includes many Democrats) what direct democracy is or how it is supposed to work. What would new social institutions look like if all existing ones were abolished? If we are talking about creating fundamentally new modes of life, who gets to design the system? Altering society immediately from its roots would in effect be someone’s grand thought experiment. What safeguards will there be to avoid another hierarchical system or worse? How do average people learn to function in this new brave world constructed by others for them? In addition, the utopian’s use of the revolutions of 1848, the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39, and other instances as examples to argue for the feasibility of immediate workers’ self-rule has major problems. For one, all of these failed for various reasons most of which can ultimately be traced back to a lack of experience or education of the populace with the new forms of societal organization but also to their violent suppression by reactionary forces. For example, Proudhon believed that the revolution of 1848 could not result in full anarchism because it occurred prematurely relative to the level of development in the relations of production: Proudhon, in the midst of the 1848 Revolution, wisely thought that it would be asking too much of his artisans to go, immediately, all the way to “anarchy.” In default of this maximum program, he sketched out a minimum libertarian program: progressive reduction in the power of the State, parallel development of the power of the people from below, through what he called clubs, and which the man of the twentieth century would call councils.74 Thus, the paradox for anarchists that Proudhon and later Gramsci realized was this: to obtain a communal society and/or eliminate the State, one must tolerate the State until there is a sufficient base developed among the population that can understand and function within an alternative socioeconomic framework (and one of the reasons the elite control the education of the oppressed). Ironically, this is also why Marxists believe the State must be captured by a workers’ revolution spearheaded by intellectual elites and party leaders. Having captured the State, the workers’ party would lead toward a communal stateless society. In addition, an overnight abolition of government, existing institutions, and life processes would result in chaos without necessarily delivering the desired 74

Guérin 1970: 152–53.

32

Chapter 1

outcomes. Rather, societal dislocations of catastrophic proportions have been the outcome of sudden change destroying established ways of life. In addition, a revolution with leadership or based on revolutionary parties is doomed to fail if the goal is the emancipation of the oppressed. According to anarchist theory any elite group ultimately will impose its own agenda at the expense of everyone else. This led Bakunin to predict the rise of Bolshevik totalitarianism. Referring to Marx and his supporters, Bakunin declared that the intellectual elites will seek to assume the reins of state power…exploiting popular struggles for their own ends, and in the name of “science” and their alleged superior understanding will drive the “ignorant masses” to a form of “socialism” that will “serve to conceal the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite.”75 The Russian revolution of 1917, and many like it, seemed to usher in radical change because it happened suddenly. Ultimately change was sudden but not radical since it did nothing other than substitute one class of overlords for another and one set of dominating State institutions for another. This was observed by Cornelius Castoriadis as early as the 1940s. He argued that the ussr was in fact based on capitalist production.76 He considered the ussr to be a form of State capitalism (or bureaucratic capitalism) compared to Western free market capitalism.77 Later, the process repeated itself with the sudden collapse of the ussr in the 1990s, this time shifting toward free markets. Once again, it devastated an entire generation giving birth to yet a new dominant class, the oligarchs, thereby changing the form of the old State capitalist regime to State kleptocracy market capitalism. In other words, every form of government other than direct democracy establishes rule by the few over the many. As such, any true and meaningful change to obtain an egalitarian society must be led by the masses themselves. But, for the masses to engage in a revolution without elite leadership, requires societal education to obtain a level of class-consciousness and understanding that would not require the reproduction of a hierarchical social structure. According to Engler: When economic democracy—a world of human equality, democracy and cooperation—is the alternative, capitalism will no longer be seen as 75 76 77

Chomsky and Pateman, 2005: 151. Castoriadis, 1988: 76–106. A similar sentiment is shared by Guy Debord (1994 [1967]: theses 100 and 107).

Theory, Praxis, And Change

33

a lesser evil. When the working class, not a revolutionary party, is the agency of social transformation, change will be based on workplace organization, community mobilizations and democratic political action. The goal will be to transform capitalism into economic democracy through gains and reforms that improve living conditions while methodically replacing wealth-holders’ entitlement with human entitlement, capitalist ownership with community ownership and master-servant relations with workplace democracy.78 Another problem with past examples of (anarchist) worker’s self-rule is that they were almost always local, or regional at most, thus forcing the question as to whether this could also work on a national scale with hundreds of millions of workers. In addition, these examples of self-rule were short-lived and tended to arise only under extreme conditions thereby raising the question of how sustainable they would be over the long-term. Given all these obstacles, it is imprudent to goad people into revolution only to be smashed by existing or new elites. What then would be a pragmatic way to achieve direct democracy? The answer today, contrary to Marxists, is capturing corporations, not the State. Why not the State? Unlike Marx’s time, the corporation has surpassed the State’s power. Up to the 1800s private enterprise relied heavily on the State to protect its domestic and international interests and erect capitalist structures within society which at the time was organized by pre-capitalist traditions, values, and institutions. The bourgeoisie had to contend with the remnants of feudalism within the social structure (for example, the State was the embodiment of feudal class relations). Furthermore, capital was still in its infancy with the first cohort of industrial Robber Barons dominating the scene, compared to financial capital later on. And, capitalism was hardly global by today’s standards. Since then, corporations have effectively concluded the total takeover of the social structure rendering the State a mere legitimating apparatus void of meaningful democratic regulation. In reality, the West has become the textbook definition of a (benign) fascist State, namely free market economies coupled with authoritarian political systems: insofar as they can be called democratic, they are democracies only in process but not in substance. Think for example of the violations committed under the Patriot Act or its forefather cointelpro.79 Therefore, true power within modern society rests not with the State but with capital.

78 79

Engler, 2010: 8. Churchill and Wall, 2002.

34

Chapter 1

Yet, those espousing capture of the State (especially when the positions of authority are restricted to an inner group, for instance a revolutionary party) forget that it is by definition an oppressive hierarchical structure of power. As such it is difficult to conceive how such a structure could function otherwise. Is it in the nature of a machine gun to be used for anything other than killing? Accordingly: Georg Lukács understood this well in 1920 and warned against fetishistic obsession with the state that was prominent among communists he called “pseudo-Marxist opportunists.” Lukács argued that “by viewing the state as the object of the struggle rather than as the enemy they have mentally gone over to bourgeois territory and thereby lost half the battle even before taking arms.”80 Past experience has also demonstrated that the State is harder to defeat through frontal attacks, a point made by Gramscians advocating a war of position. It has a monopoly over the legitimate means of violence and usually a preponderance of weapons relative to other groups, not to mention standing armies of professionally trained security forces. Populations also tend to be psychologically dispositional to defend the State against attacks from external or domestic ‘enemies’. Workers who lack the weaponry, finances, mass communication outlets, and brutality of States would be joining a suicide mission. It is also far harder to motivate people into action based on lofty ideological principles making a direct assault on political institutions a high stakes proposition with poor odds of success. Furthermore, in the event of a successful revolt, eliminating existing social structures would create instability that can easily degenerate into chaos. This raises the fear of replacing old structures of domination with new ones under different elites. Specifically, revolutions to replace existing structures, especially the political, require personnel. Who will staff the various positions once the old guard is defeated? This and other operational questions make it clear that such a movement would require high levels of centralized disciplined organization, a critical mass, and so on raising the questions of who exactly are these people and what are their intentions? Obviously, there was no general election to select these rebel leaders. Who checks them once they are in power? For example, Fidel Castro led a revolution ‘by the people’ but once in power remained there from 1959 until voluntary retirement in 2008 due to health issues, leaving his brother Raúl in charge. Basically, when we talk of an immediate change of political guard 80

Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 30.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

35

we are talking of just that: an exchange of personnel not necessarily an end of a system. If a revolution aims to re-capture societal wealth expropriated from the commons it can do so by capturing institutions that have already concentrated it into private hands. Corporations, as the tools of the elite, represent the ‘bank’ or depository of social wealth and power having usurped all of it through a five-hundred-year-old process of capitalist development that included enclosures, colonialism, and neocolonialism. Social structures represent these productive relations. The corporation, as the material expression of capitalism, owns the means of production. If a movement captures the governance of corporations it effectively transfers control of the means of production to the community altering the relations from capitalist to communal without any need for governmental decrees which will follow accomplished facts on the ground. What the resulting political system or State calls itself becomes irrelevant in that it is now on the path toward becoming an egalitarian society. A Case Study in Political Revolution: Egypt Egypt is one of the largest nations in the middle-east with a population of over 80 million people.81 It is an ancient and highly homogeneous culture 90 percent of whom are Muslims, mostly Sunni, and 10 percent Christian of which 9  percent are Coptic.82 There are also five to six million ultra-conservative Salafis among other minorities.83 The nation as a whole is generally conservative but has a long history of secularism. The government has been a democracy in name only since 1952 under generals who became ‘presidents’, the last one prior to the 2011 uprising being Hosni Mubarak. Since its inception, the United States has been governed by a two-party capitalist system that has been democratic in form but oligarchic in substance. Its cultural divides are many but primarily down socially conservative rural areas versus progressive urban centers as Marx had discussed or densely versus thinly populated states. In 2011 an Egyptian by the name of Wael Ghonim posted a message on a Facebook page he created to protest the death of Khaled Said at the hands of the police a year earlier. He and others called for people to follow the Tunisian example and protest the Egyptian regime’s corruption on January 25.84 Here telecommunications demonstrated the valuable role they play in organizing 81 U.S. Department of State, 2010. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 See Associated Press, various reports 2011–2013.

36

Chapter 1

protest and resistance with the Arab Spring being widely credited to social media including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and so on. From January 25 to February 11, 2011 there were nationwide demonstrations challenging the Mubarak regime with Tahrir Square at the epicenter. Protesters were joined by a wide swath of Egyptian society including labor, student, human rights, and social justice organizations at the front.85 The regime’s security forces killed hundreds. Finally on February 11, Mubarak resigned leaving the military the de facto government which met two key demands of protesters: suspending the constitution and dissolving parliament.86 In the United States activists were inspired to organize similar ‘Occupy’ protest movements to grieve various issues ultimately against a corrupt ‘system’. The protests spread across many cities in the United States lasting months. Yet, although they have been among the largest in living memory, they paled in comparison to the proportion of Egyptian society that protested. The Occupy protesters refused to make any demands for various strategic reasons (the most commonly cited justification was that more groups could join in). The protesters could have combined most grievances into a common call to replace the corrupt system as did the Egyptians, but they did not. Practically, this demonstrates that as far as the United States is concerned the general population is not interested, let alone ready, to act toward a political revolution even though Americans have far greater per capita resources (computers, cars, internet connections, and entire personal arsenals of weaponry) and basic civil liberties at their disposal to organize and engage in action than did the peoples of the Arab Spring. In Egypt, for all intents and purposes, this was an organic revolution, one that was amazingly pacifist in nature. It was the evident extent and breadth of participation from the general population and most important social groups that forced the regime to eventually acquiesce.87 Unfortunately, the insurrection may have been planned and well-coordinated but the revolution was not. Civil society did not have any organized opposition political parties, institutions, or groups in the Western sense. This was deliberate State policy to assure the re-election of the ‘president’ and the continuation of the military regime he truly represented. The only organized group of some size and capability was the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization founded in 1929. The Brotherhood is a social movement focused on the poor. It often provides education, healthcare, housing, food, and a variety of social services to those who 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

37

would otherwise have no access. In essence it performs State functions for those the State has forsaken. This social network has translated into a wellorganized political group capable of fielding candidates at various levels—and winning. Because of this, various regimes branded the Brotherhood an ‘illegal’ organization baring it and affiliated candidates from electoral participation. When the time came for post revolution elections, Brotherhood candidates were allowed to participate. Thanks to its machinery the Brotherhood secured large electoral victories. In parliamentary elections held from November 28, 2011 to February 15, 2012 the Brotherhood took about 50 percent of the lower house while the ultraconservative Salafis secured about 25 percent with liberals, independents and secular candidates taking the remaining seats.88 The upper house itself was dominated by Islamists who took almost 90 percent of the seats.89 This demonstrates that political revolutions can easily be stolen by smaller better organized groups; an older example is Lenin’s faction who usurped the Russian revolution which, incidentally, had brewed for years prior to 1917 independently of the Bolsheviks. In the United States there are no organized anti-capitalist opposition parties or institutions of meaningful size or resources. The Democrats and Republicans present different shades of capitalist interests. Democrats are social liberals favoring, for example, legalized gay marriage while Republicans are social conservatives. The nominal Leftist (mostly centrist) political parties who field occasional candidates at various levels represent an extremely small percentage of the popular vote. The Occupy movement that swept the United States failed to result in any substantive change. The organizers argued that their intention for advanced liberal democracies, including the United States, was to force a public discussion of issues concerning class and inequality. As discussed in chapter 2 Relations of Authority, discourse does not guarantee change. Let us assume Americans did participate in droves and forced change in the political and economic system which was the only general demand that could be derived from the movement participants. Given the lack of genuinely mass non-capitalist oppositional institutions, who would lead the insurrection? Conceptually, it could be Tea Party groups, who represent the opposite of the movement often sponsored by corporations and elites. From that point on, the Brotherhood (who clearly constituted a minority of the Egyptian demos despite the electoral figures) and its president Mohamed Morsi proceeded to consolidate State power into their hands. This prompted liberal parties and church representatives to withdraw from the 100-member 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid.

38

Chapter 1

constitutional assembly on November 19.90 They cited in particular attempts by Islamists to force their ideology into the constitution.91 On November 22, president Morsi granted himself greater powers and immunity from judicial review—in essence making himself a dictator. He also prohibited the judicial system from dissolving the upper house of parliament and constitutional assembly.92 His actions drew protests for days by the Egyptian people as Islamists rushed to finalize a constitution with Morsi announcing a referendum for December 15. The constitutional referendum was held with low turnout as many groups refused to participate in protest.93 Demonstrations escalated from January 25, 2013 until July 1 when the military intervened backed by popular support giving Morsi an ultimatum to resign.94 He refused but was eventually removed in a coup d’état on July 3. During that period Islamists had attacked churches and killed Christians, Shiites and other civilians.95 In short, they acted as did the military strongmen in whose hands they had suffered themselves. Now it was the Islamists’ turn to impose their will and deny others their freedoms, most noticeably women and religious minorities. Once the Brotherhood was removed from power it put its supporters back on the streets, a position it had been familiar with. The majority who had been dissatisfied with the Islamists stealing the revolution provided wide support for the military when it issued an ultimatum that the Brotherhood cease occupations of public space after Morsi’s removal from office.96 When the army moved on the protesters, hundreds were killed with mobs of non-Islamists (described in the media as ‘vigilantes’) joining the security forces.97 What ensued were days of armed clashes between the Brotherhood, security forces, and vigilantes while the government considered a ban on the Brotherhood. Here we see the relevance of Freire’s argument, namely that education is needed so that the oppressed do not become oppressors. When the Brotherhood took power it immediately went to work suppressing rights for women and other groups by crafting an Islamist constitution based on Sharia law against the will of the majority. The majority in turn were as eager to attack and brutalize the Brotherhood when the military offered the opportunity. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

39

Other lessons include the murkiness of political and social groups claiming to be representatives of the downtrodden. The Brotherhood did not have any clear ties with labor groups and definitely not with progressives. Yet, they worked with the marginalized who barely show up in any statistics acting as their advocates. They live on the edges of society often in catacombs (ancient tombs). Where did these leaders lead the poor? Neither into a utopia nor even a liberal democracy but to another autocratic regime of a different color. Ironically, had it not been for the military, the only independent institution of civil society left, the Islamists may have been able to hold onto power indefinitely establishing a religious State against the wishes of the majority. Egypt also demonstrates a more subtle point. Even if a group were to seize political power, there is no guarantee the broader population will be supportive. Let us assume it was not Morsi in Egypt that had secured power but a Left revolutionary group in the United States. And, instead of unconvinced Egyptians, there are unconvinced Americans regarding the new society the revolutionaries are trying to construct. What happens in this case? Either the revolutionaries, even if well-meaning and sincere, will have to impose their rule and will until the ‘revolution is complete’, thus rendering equality a mere slogan, or it will be overthrown by a population who does not share in their vision. Americans and most populations in the developed world are actually quite conservative and ignorant to varying degrees regarding theoretical communism or socialism or any other ism other than capitalism. They may have some rough ideas of what these isms truly are or see them through the lens of a dominant ideology but either way they do not have detailed knowledge. And that’s fine because systems of equality can only be collectively constructed. What is missing is the knowledge of process and acceptance of basic egalitarian principles. For example, egalitarian systems cannot be derived via a shotgun process or at the voting booth; even most progressive Europeans would find it difficult to accept an equal universal income share/wage such as that between doctors and janitors; they cannot permit domination of one group over another as, for example, happened when a large conservative swath of French society protested following France’s recently legalized gay marriage— although they would accept gays in society compared to say the Brotherhood. Once more this demonstrates that education is a prerequisite to true revolution if equality is the goal. Another lesson is that religion divides more than it unites. Therefore there must be a level of cultural homogeneity for democracy to function. In the Egyptian case there will be no resolution of the conflict because a significant minority considers it a violation of their most cherished beliefs when they are not permitted to impose these beliefs on others. For the majority, the demands

40

Chapter 1

of the minority represent an existential threat to their way of life. In the United States we see less violent cultural cleavage points between the North and South, Evangelicals and Baptists versus atheists and other religious minorities, the countryside versus city. Each considers their beliefs and way of life to be essential to their identity. The problem is that identity violates the rights of others. The racist South continues to harass blacks through various disenfranchisement schemes. The Evangelicals would prefer a religious State. Villagers prefer their traditional rural lifestyles and beliefs to the ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ of the liberal city. In fairness, Egypt to some degree had to go through this turmoil in a transition from autocratic rule. Otherwise, the regime would remain or at best change toward other forms of totalitarianism. For example, when the ussr collapsed in the absence of a protest movement, the same old political guard kept power, only changing affiliations or rebranding political parties and institutions. A simple reason is that there were no organized oppositional institutions as per State policy. Perhaps this explains why to this day Russia continues to be ruled by Vladimir Putin, an autocratic ex-kgb agent. In the case of liberal democracies things are relatively different in terms of civil rights and liberties. However, the same violent reaction from the State can be expected if it were to be confronted by political revolution. For all these reasons I have argued radical change can come through popular insurrection for key demands fuelled by critical education from activist groups and public intellectuals. For example, universal single-payer healthcare will not become a reality in the United States when the system is captured by for-profit corporations. If Americans engaged in widespread violent insurrection over this demand they could wrestle it from the elite. Next, people could demand through insurrection living wages, quality free education at all levels or, better yet, the abolition of private educational institutions. Eventually, it will not sound that preposterous to demand legislatures, courts, and corporate boards be filled by lottery from the overall pool of citizens.

Does Direct Democracy Require Small-scale Societies?

A form of direct democracy is possible in modern, large-scale societies although not based on the ideal type. According to Kinna: As Kropotkin argued in The Conquest of Bread, social transformation relies upon the ability of individuals working in local communities to find ways of securing their own sources of well-being: food, shelter, and

Theory, Praxis, And Change

41

clothing. This tradition of thought has supported a variety of utopian visions, characteristically defined by calls for the decentralization of production and direct worker/community control. Some anarchists have also argued for the abandonment of international trade and the division of labor in favor of the close integration of agriculture and industry in local areas.98 Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to advocate a return to local, small-scale, autonomous economies as is so often proposed by many utopian theorists. For example, when asked about many primitive-anarchists who want to go back to growing one’s own food, Chomsky stated, they are utterly utopian as that would lead to the death of many people who in a modern society do not have the skills or ability to do so including himself.99 Moreover, modern standards of living are made possible by the global administration of resources irrespective of a system’s ideological underpinnings. This is so because of the ‘rationalization’ that the management of global resources has undergone over centuries. Locally based economies may work well in traditional or subsistence societies but would entail a dramatic downgrading in the living standards of the industrialized world. How do we turn back the development clock? The world’s poor would also face catastrophe if we were to abandon, say, modern agricultural processes which moving to small-scale communities would entail. Currently, we are able to sustain the planet’s population because of industrial farming regardless of our feelings toward it. Returning to local farms and organic techniques or worse, foraging for or growing one’s own food as some groups have proposed, would result in an inadequate global food supply thereby resulting in famine and death. Finally, utopians neglect that human history is one of great cities that brought diverse cultures together through trade. In fact, the root of the word civilization comes from the Latin civitas (city). Human civilization thus is the history of a large concentration of people forming a community. For these and many more reasons we cannot turn back the clock of modernity. This is why ideologies seeking to dismantle the global economy versus changing the basis upon which it is organized and operates (private/capitalist to public/communal) are stillborn practically speaking. Rather, we need to question not if but how to deal with large-scale management of global resources in an egalitarian and sustainable manner. Alperovitz makes a refined argument that large-scale political units (in terms of geography and population) are incongruent with the practice of 98 99

Shannon et al., 2012: 7. Chomsky, 2006.

42

Chapter 1

democracy.100 Among others, he quotes political figures, Harvard professors, and the founding fathers who have shared this viewpoint. Generally he believes the practice of democracy is problematic in both very small and large societies, favoring instead a Goldilocks solution of regionalization as a better mediumscale level of organization. The major question though is how do we get centralized governments controlled by elites to cede to a political breakup that regionalization implies? In defense of regionalization, Alperovitz argues that statistics demonstrate it is easier to organize unions in smaller nations. But how would regions (especially if they are unionized) deal with corporations that would play off regions against each other as they do with states on a domestic level (for example, right-to-work states versus unionized rustbelts) to drive down wages, obtain tax breaks, and other concessions at taxpayer expense? However, a large-scale nation would be in a better position to fend off such tactics by mega corporations. For example, the United States and China have vast domestic markets and use their access to these markets as a bargaining chip with companies and other nations that wish to sell in those markets. Thus modern large-scale economic activity requires powerful political units to counter-balance and regulate powerful corporations. What is needed is not more regionalization or localization so popular with the American Left and Right but a global citizen-lead democratic structure. Alperovitz’s model can work once it is established as when, for example, worker-owned firms will not care about foreign investment, but the question is how do we get there? Alperovitz does not see that there will be greater, not less, need to confront global capital at an aggregate political level because of his belief that democracy cannot work on large-scales. The model proposed here maintains democratic coordination at a large scale, namely that of a federation, but combines it with state/regional (as advocated by Alperovitz) and local level democratic structures. Solidarity in the broadest sense is cultivated as well which a regional model may actually break down. For example, Spanish regions, known for their fierce sense of autonomy, have historically demonstrated both solidarity and animus toward one another. Yet, Alperovitz partially but properly bases his argument on divergent regional cultures citing, for example, the Mexican heritage of California. In that sense, yes, separate political units would be more conducive to divergent needs, but, as the author acknowledges, absent a cultural impetus regionalization is not as capable to deal with large-scale problems. Furthermore, my vision provides space for local and regional cultures provided these are 100 Alperovitz, 2012.

Theory, Praxis, And Change

43

compatible with principles of direct democracy or equality generally. Furthermore, Alperovitz’s model assumes that worker-owned islands of equality can survive, even flourish, in a capitalist global structure—which is impossible, an idea elaborated upon in this book’s conclusion.

McDonald’s Iron Cage

Utopian groups are generally opposed to bureaucracies because of their inherent hierarchical structure and utilization by totalitarian regimes, thus their preference for small-scale, non-bureaucratic societies. One may argue bureaucracies would not be required in small-scale autonomous communities which is true. But, as explained, the return to small-scale local societies is not realistic. Therefore, any modern system regardless of its political structure will depend on bureaucracies, an idea pioneered by Max Weber and developed by others since, particularly Ralf Dahrendorf and George Ritzer.101 Weber realized that large volume operations are inevitable in modern ‘rationally’ organized societies, thereby necessitating a bureaucracy. This is because bureaucracies contain features that make rationally organized societies possible: efficiency (processing large amounts of information), calculability (performance measures), predictability (based on rules and regulations), and control (automation). According to these theories of rationalization, whether derived from Weber’s bureaucratic iron cage or Ritzer’s McDonaldization, society has moved from arbitrary individual decision making to one increasingly removed from human agency based on institutional rules and processes. Yet, the iron cage can be opened if we wish it. A simple way of viewing bureaucracies is as a tool. It can be used in various ways and for different ­purposes, good and bad. For example, modern scientific bureaucratic rationalization made possible both the Holocaust and the exploration of space. Furthermore, although bureaucracies belong to the ruling class, they are never the ruling class. They have authority and will serve the rulers to protect it: “The bureaucratic reserve army of authority is a mercenary army of class conflict; it is always in battle, but is forced to place its strength in the service of changing masters and goals.”102 Therefore we must think of bureaucracies as distinct from a government. Consequently, bureaucratic administrative structures such as, for example, a department of education, would continue to exist in a modern nation. This is the professional technocratic staff that will facilitate 101 Dahrendorf, 1959; Ritzer, 2008; Weber, 1978 [1922]. 102 Dahrendorf, 1959: 301.

44

Chapter 1

public decisions and daily administration. The problem is we need an administrative body but without this body leading to authoritarian State socialism. Last, bureaucracies are not incongruent with direct democracy. Rather they are a required functional tool since antiquity. As Castoriadis explains: There is, of course, in ancient Athens a technical-administrative mechanism, but it does not possess any political function. Characteristically, this administration, up to and including its higher echelons—police, keepers of the public archives, public finance—is composed of slaves… These slaves were supervised by citizen magistrates usually drawn by lot. “Permanent bureaucracy,” the task of execution in the strictest sense, is left to the slaves.103 Therefore, in a modern society based on equality the bureaucracy becomes the ‘slave’ of the demos rather than of a despotic State, corporation, or elites. In Dahrendorf’s terms bureaucracy is placed in the service of the community as master.104 Coupled with automation (discussed at the end of chapter 4, Social Structure) we could be liberating people’s time from bureaucratic tasks. This permits a system where utilitarian administration is performed dispassionately in an unbiased manner through automation powered by algorithms reflecting the will and interests of the demos. 103 Castoriadis, 1991: 110. 104 Dahrendorf, 1959: 301.

Chapter 2

Relations of Authority

The Fraud of Representative Democracy According to Castoriadis elections are not democratic: Scholars merely repeat today that Aristotle’s preferred constitution, what he calls politeia, is a mixture of democracy and aristocracy, and forget to add that for Aristotle the “aristocratic” element in this politeia is the election of the magistrates-for Aristotle clearly and repeatedly defines election as an aristocratic principle. This is also clear for Montesquieu and Rousseau. It is Rousseau, not Marx or Lenin, who writes that Englishmen believe that they are free because they elect their Parliament, but in reality are only free one day every five years. …representation is a principle alien to democracy.1

Those who own society’s resources can continue to do so only by controlling its political administration. To this end, the elite institutionalize their class interests within political structures including representative systems.2 Therefore, political structures absent direct democracy are post hoc reflections of true power. Consequently, any system based on elected representatives, as with a legislature and executive, or appointed, as with the Supreme Court, will be corrupted. The u.s. Constitution, as an example, was never intended to affirm universal democratic rights. Rather, the foundational documents of the United States established collective democratic governance by an elite obsessed with property rights, which was the true impetus behind the separation of powers if not the revolution itself. The founding fathers were distrustful of direct democracy fearing the landless “rabble” would use it to vote away their wealth.3 This is why Robert Morris, Hamilton’s mentor who financed the Revolutionary War, organized the constitutional convention. Morris wanted to change the country from a confederation to a federation controlled by what he approvingly called “moneyed people” while Hamilton sought to promote the interests of commerce and industry through a strong central government.4 1 Castoriadis, 1991: 107–108. 2 Brecher, 1997 [1972]; Dahrendorf, 1959; Stiglitz, 2012. 3 Bouton, 2007. 4 Ibid. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_004

46

Chapter 2

If democracy was used to challenge elite property, the Supreme Court would function as a safe-stop. What was established by the slave-owning, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant founding fathers was more accurately a feudal oligarchy. It was through constant popular struggle that representative democracy was expanded in the United States over time. Even contemporary forms of representative democracy offer little more than the illusion of participation, which largely consists of voting occasionally for some public offices.5 For example, the preamble to the u.s. Constitution “We the People” holds the demos to be the sole political sovereign. It does not exclude anyone on the basis of property ownership, ethnicity, race, education, or even citizenship. Yet the u.s. government is not one by and for the people for a number of reasons. First, much of the population remains disenfranchised. Those who are unable to vote include felons (the United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world that is disproportionally made up of blacks and other poor minorities). Anyone under the arbitrary age of 18 cannot vote. Non-citizens who are estimated to number between 12 to 20 million lack any political privileges.6 United States citizens who live in u.s. territories, such as Puerto Rico, lack voting representatives in Congress and the Senate, and cannot vote in the general election for president. Second, economic inequality taints the political process. Most members of all three branches of government are millionaires, even though less than 1 percent of Americans have $1 m ­ illion or more in financial assets. About half of Congress, at least 45 senators, the president and vice president, and seven (out of nine) Supreme Court Justices are millionaires.7 In 2011 the average net worth of senators was $11.9 million compared to the paltry $6.5 million of House members.8 Third, corporations and wealthy individuals use their fortunes to dominate the production of legitimizing ideology and public policies through staffing and financing of think tanks and universities;9 control over the dissemination of information through their ownership of the mass media;10 and providing the overwhelming amount of political contributions (if not direct staffing) with the corresponding influence over political decision making that goes with it.11 In other words, the u.s. political system is more accurately a plutocracy. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Chomsky, 1989. Knickerbocker, 2006. Too Much, 2009. Center for Responsive Politics, nd. Alperovitz, 2012; Domhoff, 2010, 1975; Wolff, 2012. Common Cause, nd; Greenwald 2004, 2012. Alperovitz, 2012; Asimakopoulos, 2009; Bartel, 2005; Domhoff, 2010, 1975; Hayes, 2012; Palast, 2004, 2012; Stiglitz, 2012; Wolff, 2012.

Relations Of Authority

47

Unfortunately, political democracy is void without corresponding economic democracy, namely involvement in investment, production, organization of work, distribution, and power over resources.12 Economic democracy is often referred to as industrial democracy or self-management. According to Castoriadis: A self-managed society is one in which all decisions are made by the collectivity that…is concerned by the object of those decisions. [It is] a system in which those who accomplish an activity decide collectively what they have to do and how to do it…decisions concerning people working in a shop ought to be made by those working there; decisions concerning several workshops at once, by the entirety of laboring people concerned or by their elected and revocable delegates; decisions concerning the entire business firm, by all the firm’s personnel.13 The idea of political democracy being tied to economic rights dates back to Plato, Aristotle and most democratic theorists since. In The Politics Aristotle argued in favor of private property but with communal use, which is what the societal staffing of corporate boards represents in my model.14 Plato observed that in oligarchic societies wealth determines access to political participation. Thus he believed that there should be no citizen with wealth above four times that of the poorest: If a state is to avoid the greatest plague of all—I mean civil war, though civil disintegration would be a better term—extreme poverty and wealth must not be allowed to arise in any section of the citizen-body, because both lead to both disasters. That is why the legislator must now announce the acceptable limits of wealth and poverty. The lower limit of poverty must be the value of the holding…The legislator will use the holding as his unit of measure and allow a man to possess twice, thrice, and up to  four times its value. If anyone acquires more than this, by finding ­treasure-trove or by gift or by a good stroke of business or some other similar lucky chance which presents him with more than he’s allowed, he should hand over the surplus to the state and its patron deities, thereby escaping punishment and getting a good name for himself. If a man breaks this law, anyone who wishes may lay information and be rewarded 12 13 14

Chomsky and Pateman, 2005. Castoriadis, 1993: 217. Aristotle, Book IIv, 1981.

48

Chapter 2

with half the amount involved, the other half being given to the gods; and besides this the guilty person must pay a fine equivalent to the surplus out of his own pocket. The total property of each citizen over and above his holding of land should be recorded in a public register kept in the custody of officials legally appointed for that duty…15 Therefore, Robert Dahl asks if “income, wealth, and economic position are also political resources, and if they are distributed unequally, then how can citizens be political equals? And if citizens cannot be political equals, how is democracy to exist?”16 In this regard, our political democracy is nominal given the extreme economic inequality where the richest 1 percent own 33.8 percent of all wealth versus 2.5 percent for the bottom half of Americans.17 Table 2.1 further demonstrates that productive property is highly concentrated exemplified by ownership of stocks and business equity. For example, the top 1 percent of u.s. households held 35 percent of all stocks (91.6 percent for the wealthiest 20 percent of the population) which is but the liquid expression of private productive property that also determines income opportunities as demonstrated by Table 2.2. Ironically, since 2008 most, including the middle class, have amassed more debt than assets.18 For example, overall household debt as a percentage of Table 2.1

Wealth distribution in 2010 for the bottom 90% top 10% and 1% of households.

Percent of: Total Net Worth Ownership of All Stocks Pension Accounts Business Equity Debt Source: Domhoff, 2013. *   Bottom 80%. ** Top 20%. 15 16 17 18

Plato, 1978: 215. Dahl, 1989: 326. Kennickell, 2009–2013. Wolff, 2007.

Bottom 90%

Top 10%

Top 1%

11.1* 8.4* 34.5 8.1 72.5

88.9** 91.6** 65.6 91.9 27.5

35.4 35 15.4 61.4 5.9

49

Relations Of Authority Table 2.2 Share of aggregate income received by each fifth and top 5 percent of households. Percent of households, all races Year

2012 1967

Lowest

Second

Third

Fourth

Highest

Top 5

fifth

fifth

fifth

fifth

fifth

percent

3.2 4.0

8.3 10.8

14.4 17.3

23 24.2

51 42. 8

22.3 17.2

Source: u.s. Census Bureau, 2012a.

after-tax income was over 90 percent in 2000 compared to 30 percent in 1950.19 The middle class has treated debt as income to sustain an unsustainable level of consumption because real incomes have stagnated since the 1970s.20 Furthermore, what little assets Americans have is really their home equity since home ownership is their single largest investment. This is putting aside the fact that homes are seen as an investment rather than a human right to shelter. In the wake of the Great Recession many homeowners have been forced into debt that far outstrips their home equity.21 Overall, the bottom 90 percent of society carries 72.5 percent of the debt compared to just 5.9 percent for the wealthiest 1 percent (see Table  2.1). The transformation has taken us from being wage-slaves in Marxist terms to being debt-slaves alternatively known as indentured servants, a characteristic of feudalism. A more insidious result of all this added economic hardship is “to leave working families with less time and energy to devote to politics—or indeed to social activities and organizations in general.”22 But Aristotle pointed out that in order for democracy to function, citizens must have time to become engaged and to inform themselves regarding the matters at hand.23 Therefore, as Alperovitz and Barber have argued, working long hours effectively disenfranchises working-class citizens.24 According to Wolff: 19 20 21 22 23 24

Leicht and Fitzgerald, 2007: 59. Leicht and Fitzgerald, 2007; Mishel, et al., 2003–2013; Wolff, 2010. Kochhar, 2012. Wolff, 2012: 95. Aristotle, 1981. Alperovitz, 2012; Barber, 1984.

50

Chapter 2

We must question the very possibility of genuine democracy in a society in which capitalism is the basic economic system. A functioning democracy would require that all people be provided with the time, information, counsel, and other supports needed to participate effectively in decision-making in the workplace and at the local, regional, and national levels of their residential communities. The economic realities of capitalism preclude that for the overwhelming majority.25 Which brings us to productive versus personal property, both of which we have a right to so as to survive without being compelled to forced labor which deprives us of liberty. This was the case throughout history when people had enough productive property to live independently such as a homestead or farm. Interestingly, in ancient Greece citizenship also meant being free from the need to work with your hands, a ‘privilege’ set aside for slaves. Now the working class has no personal or productive property, giving rise to that famous expression of wage-slavery. In a democracy every citizen has a right to their fair share of productive property so as to be free rather than having that wealth concentrated into oligarchic hands. However, it does not mean owning a share or ten in one’s pension plan (now a degraded 401K) assuming they are lucky to be employed and that the employer offers one, and that it finances these plans rather than looting them as have many corporations like Enron during their collapse (see Table 2.1 on stock ownership concentration). This is not real ownership but an illusion of ownership.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Lijphart argued a key element of democracy is the responsiveness by the government to its people.26 Current representative democracies are responsive only to the wealth of the elite in a system ripe with legalized bribery.27 For example, a study compared u.s. survey data on the views of 90,000 voters with their senators’ voting records from 2001 through 2010. It found that both Republican and Democrat senators voted in the interests of their richest constituents while ignoring the poor wholesale.28 In fact, the study found the 25 26 27 28

Wolff, 2012: 94. Lijphart, 1984: 2–3. See, for example, Palast (2004, 2012) and Wolff (2012) on U.S. corruption. Hayes, 2012.

Relations Of Authority

51

American system to act more as an oligarchy than a democracy which supports findings from earlier studies.29 Moreover, in the United States corporations, as fictional legal persons, are permitted to influence the political process thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling allowing them to expend unlimited funds.30 The problem is that corporations are not people. They are run by individuals who, as such, can vote and donate their own money if they wish to. The reason behind the decision was to unleash the financial power of the elite, who are the true owners of corporations, to manipulate political outcomes often anonymously.31 This circumvents the fundamental democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” As a result, the 2012 presidential election saw Citizens United opening the floodgates of unlimited anonymous giving by billionaires. For example, contributions to the Republican presidential candidate, Republican National Committee, and Super pacs by William Koch exceeded $4 million, hedge fund mogul John Paulson gave over $1 million with many more hedge fund elites contributing upwards of a million each, Richard and Bill Mariott Jr. of the hotel fame donated over $2 million.32 The king of them all was casino magnate Sheldon Adelson who spent over $150 million promising to double that in the future.33 Not to be outdone, president Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and Super pacs received over $1 million from hedge fund magnate George Soros and over $3.5 million from hedge fund mogul James Simons. Media baron Anne Cox Chambers, Qualcomm’s Irwin Jacobs, and Jon Stryker from the medical technology industry each ponied up over $2 million.34 Of course, president Obama was beholden to Wall Street rather than Main Street since his 2008 presidential campaign. Top donors at the time included Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, ubs, ag, Morgan Stanley, and many other financial and commercial corporations.35 No wonder Obama’s economic team, all with extensive Wall Street ties, was a carryover from the Republican administration that preceded his. How much did the single black mother donate? Nothing, thus receiving the corresponding political attention. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

See, for example, Bartel (2005). Alperovitz, 2012. Greenwald, 2012. Blumenthal, 2012. Wing, 2012. Blumenthal, 2012. Center for Responsive Politics, nd.

52

Chapter 2

Similarly, why are wealthy individuals permitted to donate unlimited funds to politicians or to their own campaigns? Although she eventually lost, in 2010 “Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor in California, passed a milestone…investing $119 million of her own money into her campaign, breaking a record held by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.”36 Then there are the legalized auctions to purchase public officials: buying tickets to fundraising events that cost tens of thousands of dollars, amounts far beyond the reach of the majority. For example, in 2010 president Obama attended a New Jersey fundraiser “…at the home of Michael Kempner, ceo of mww Group, an East Rutherford-based public relations and lobbying firm. The invitation said the guest list is limited to 50, at $30,400 a plate.”37 Compare this to a federal minimum wage (in 2013) of $7.25 per hour or $15,080 before tax for a person working forty-hours per week, fifty-two weeks a year or the average national wage of $48,984 per year.38 Why are executives appointed to government oversight positions for industries they worked for and continue to have financial ties to? Is this not an obvious conflict of interest? According to Stiglitz the elite use lobbying and other methods to “capture” regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, by appointing sympathetic industry insiders.39 As a result, regulatory agencies adopt policies that benefit the regulated at the expense of the public interest. Capture, explains Stiglitz, occurs “as a result of revolving doors, where the regulators come from regulated [sic] sector and, after their brief stint in government, return to it. …‘Capture’ is partly what is called cognitive capture—in which the regulator comes to adopt the mindset of the regulated.”40 For example, while former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was the ceo of Goldman Sachs, he requested the deregulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission (sec) which caused the 2008 meltdown. He convinced the sec to allow major financial institutions to increase their leverage and risk exposure by exempting them from the uniform net capital rule that required them to hold higher capital reserves.41 As Treasury Secretary, he then asked for the epic 36 Nagourney, 2010. 37 Friedman, 2010 (online). 38 In 2009 dollars, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 39 Stiglitz, 2012. 40 Ibid., 2012: 249. 41 The uniform net capital rule was established by the sec in 1975 to regulate the ability of broker-dealers (companies that trade securities for customers as brokers and for their own accounts as dealers) to meet their financial obligations. The rule requires brokerdealers to value their securities at market prices and apply a discount or ‘haircut’ to those values based on the securities’ risk profile. The discount values are used to determine

Relations Of Authority

53

bailout of 2008, benefiting financial corporations, which were his true clients. Interestingly, Paulson literally asked Congress for a blank check in a three page memo. The hubris continued when Treasury Secretary Paulson privileged his former employer, Goldman Sachs, both in terms of the frequency of contact and decisions made, such as allowing Goldman’s rival Lehman Brothers to collapse, during the financial meltdown.42 Paulson was followed by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, another Goldman Sachs executive. Former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was a ceo of Goldman Sachs. Former vice president Dick Cheney was the ceo of Halliburton, the company whose subsidiary won billions of dollars through no-bid contracts because of the war in Iraq—a war he orchestrated through propaganda. Former presidents Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are oilmen tied to the Saudi monarchy. New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, who violated his own term limits, owns a media empire. Former president Bill Clinton made hundreds of millions in speaking fees after leaving office. Are these corporate civil servants capable of being fair in regulating industries that own them or that they themselves own? It all comes down to this: more money equals power, and more power equals greater chances of getting what you want. This amounts to a fundamental violation of the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” versus “one person, billions of dollar-votes.”43 Unfortunately, if the outcome of a political process can be determined by resource expenditures, then the outcome will be fundamentally undemocratic regardless of the political system’s nominal structure. Another sign of decay is a system under which those in positions of authority remain unchanged for long periods of time, or have their relatives ‘inherit’ them. Career politicians are often defended by arguing that their experience or expertise is invaluable, which is blatantly untrue.44 Such politicians are either dictators, as was the case with former ‘president’ Mubarak of Egypt or, in the case of representative democracy, entrenched with the sole purpose of maintaining their privilege. To do so necessitates appeasing those with resources who end up deciding the outcomes of political elections with their wealth. However, those who own resources are the top one to five percent either as

42 43 44

whether the broker-dealer holds adequate liquid assets to pay all non-subordinated liabilities and retain a cushion of required liquid assets (the ‘net capital’ requirement) to ensure payment of all obligations to customers should there be a delay in liquidating the assets. On April 28, 2004, the sec voted unanimously to permit broker-dealers with net capital of more than $5 billion to apply for exemptions from the uniform net capital rule. Morgenson and Van Natta, 2009. Alperovitz, 2012; Palast, 2004, 2012. Castoriadis, 1991.

54

Chapter 2

individuals or behind the veil of a corporation. The majority has nothing to offer and is treated accordingly in the political process.

Stealing Democracy Old School

Should money or the Supreme Court be unable to secure democracy for and by the elite, there is an old school method dating back to the nation’s birth: steal it.45 The history of political corruption is well documented from Tammany Hall to Rod Blagojevich who as Governor of Illinois tried to sell a vacant senatorial seat in 2009 resulting in jail time. In fact, many of these old and newly improved tactics have been resurging with a vengeance since 2008. The most sinister fraud, because it is structural, is gerrymandering which essentially involves establishing a political advantage for a party or candidate by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantage. It is also used to help or hinder particular groups based on background factors like ethnicity, race, and religion. The results of this can be seen in the 2012 congressional elections. Although Democrats received 1.1 million more votes than Republi­ cans, they received fewer congressional seats, leaving the Republicans in the majority due to ‘rigged’ districts.46 Another structural flaw is the Electoral College.47 In essence, the founding fathers wanted to assure popular votes could be checked along with the power of larger states. Also, the Electoral College (and Senate) is tied to geography rather than population. This gives greater power to coalitions of smaller states whose interest may be contrary to that of the country as a whole—the North–South divide being one example. Then we have the actual theft of votes. Palast enumerates the methods used.48 One is purging, which consists of removing voters from rolls on the grounds that they are dead, felons, legally insane, etc.49 Caging is another trick by which someone sends mail to a voter asking them to respond.50 If the mail is returned unopened, the voter’s registration or absentee ballot can be challenged. Typical victims include military personnel, students, and the homeless, all of whom are traditionally left-leaning. A ballot is said to be spoiled if it is 45 The United States is literally built on stolen Native Indian lands. 46 Palmer and Cooper, 2012. 47 See, for example, Dahl (2003). 48 Palast, 2012. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.

Relations Of Authority

55

unreadable.51 Party bosses have used ‘spoiling’ to throw out opposition ballots on miniscule grounds in violation of the spirit of the law. Palast mentions the 2000 presidential election where Florida’s Republican Secretary of State rejected ballots that had Al Gore as a write-in candidate and also checked his name arguing the intent of the voter was not clear therefore the ballot was spoiled. Prestidigitizing is another concern by which votes cast using paperless machines disappear apparently due to glitches (not to be confused with deliberate hacking to change the vote).52 In 2008, 546,000 votes disappeared this way.53 Interestingly it occurred 491 percent more often in Hispanic precincts than in white ones, and even more in black precincts.54 When voters are not found on a roll they often use provisional ballots. The problem is many of those ballots, typically by people of color, are tossed out usually by white poll-workers.55 Palast describes other questionable practices that add to the litany of fraud such as rejecting mail-in ballots for ridiculous reasons often from poor and minority communities. Reasons may include a bubble marked with an x instead of a dot, wrong postage or envelope size, wrongly folded ballot, and so on. About one in fourteen mail-in ballots get rejected this way.56 Elites, including the Koch brothers, manipulate the balloting process by creating large voter databases to assure Republican-leaning voters receive their mail-in ballots perfectly prepared from them while challenging those mailed from undesirables.57 Last there is good old fashioned stuffing of the voting box with phony ballots.58 Under direct democracy such systemic corruption and manipulation of the process is minimized or next to impossible since everyone represents themselves.

Political Parties

Another positive aspect of the proposed model is the emasculation of political parties—ironically an anathema to socialists and Marxists who advocate hierarchical organizing. However, even the oligarchic founding fathers had cautioned against political parties. George Washington, observing Congress 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.

56

Chapter 2

instinctively splitting into two bitter factions, warned against political parties in 1796 during his farewell address: “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state…Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.”59 The same sentiment against political factions was echoed in Federalist Papers 9 and 10 by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively. Bipartisanship and polarization are but the surface problems posed by political parties especially in systems with strong parties that have centralized hierarchical structures as with many European parliamentary systems. The same problems, however, still manifest themselves in systems where parties are looser as in the United States. For example, how democratic is it for parties to be dominated by dynastic political families, including ironically so-called socialists, as in the case of Greece where the father and grandfather of a current party leader and prime minister, George Papandreou, were also party leaders and prime ministers? Why should the Kennedy or Bush family name have any added influence in party or national politics? How is this inherently undemocratic system any different from a political aristocracy or caste as in countries like India? More importantly political parties, by definition, represent sub-segments of society. What some on the Left fail to recognize is this happens even with a workers’ party in that there are usually multiple parties claiming to be the true workers’ party. Which one is the ‘right’ one? Or, are they all correct in which case one wonders where is the solidarity among them versus the usual sectarian vitriol often exceeding that which they have for the capitalists? Even in the presence of a single workers’ party, who is to say it will operate in the interests of the workers? For example, the Bolsheviks recruited the works councils or Soviets for the Russian revolution to establish workers’ self-rule.60 The Soviets, which were a true organ of the workers, acted in good faith to accomplish their goal of forming a national level organization that would establish workers’ self-rule. Realizing this would prevent their rule, the Bolsheviks swiftly betrayed the Soviets by calling on unions to discipline them. Amazingly, the workers’ political party—the Bolshevik party—used workingclass organizations to split and control the working class—not to mention the wholesale betrayal and slaughter of their anarchist comrades, the Kronstadt sailors. This effectively established the dictatorship of the Bolshevik leadership 59 60

Washington, 1796. See, for example, Brecher (1997 [1972]), Pannekoek (2002 [1950]), Rabinowitch (2008), Smith (2011).

Relations Of Authority

57

rather than that of the workers whom they had purportedly revolted for in the first place.61 As Castoriadis wrote, the ussr changed nothing fundamentally other than creating another permeation of capitalism, namely bureaucratic capitalism.62 Guy Debord, who also mistrusted so-called socialist states, explained the role of the Soviet elites as a de facto betrayal of their revolutionary ideology: “No bureaucrat can individually assert his right to power, because to prove himself a socialist proletarian he would have to present himself as the opposite of a bureaucrat, while to prove himself a bureaucrat is impossible because the official truth of the bureaucracy is that the bureaucracy does not exist.”63 GilmanOpalsky expands Debord’s observation to describe modern representative democracy: Democratic leaders have to play the part of people who govern a representative system; they are actors in this regard. The participation of the general public has to be perceived as real. No democratic leader can ­individually assert his right to power, because to prove himself a democratic leader he would have to present himself as the opposite of a selfinterested private man, while to prove himself a self-interested private man is impossible because the official truth of democracy is that such men do not rule. It is fitting here to point this out because, like Castoriadis, Debord is simultaneously opposed to the bureaucratic capitalism of ­so-called socialist states and to the free market capitalism of capitalist States. Hence, his analysis leaves him at odds with reformist measures of democratization that are felicitous with capitalism, and also at odds with classical revolutionary schemes.64 Political theorist Robert Dahl observed that representative democracy leads to the formation of interest groups resulting in the breakdown of the common good.65 Here, Dahl echoes Plato’s emphasis on the common good over private interests. In this sense, political parties are another larger scale special interest group and therefore seek to promote the benefit of some over others, even within the party. Specifically, within them we will find leaders, raising the question of whose interests are truly being represented. Unfortunately, as soon 61 Ibid. 62 Castoriadis, 1988. 63 Debord, 1995: 74–75. 64 Gilman-Opalsky, 2008: 18–19. 65 Dahl, 1989.

58

Chapter 2

as a hierarchical leadership structure is established we encounter the same problems of corruption and influence as with elected legislatures. The tendency of political parties toward hierarchical organization was recognized by Robert Michels and later reaffirmed by Dahrendorf.66 Employing the term iron law of oligarchy Michels argued that all party leaders eventually become a selfinterested oligarchy. The large volume and complex nature of tasks performed by political parties require expert leaders with a stable tenure of office, an organizational logic that increases oligarchic tendencies. Therefore it is in the nature of elites to advance their own interests and power at the expense of their followers. Consequently, contrary to popular belief, political parties are fundamentally undemocratic, including so-called Left parties. Was socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou of Greece listening to the rioting workers of his party every time he forced upon them new austerity measures at the behest of the imf, European Bank, and European Union (earning him the nickname ‘errand boy’ among the Greeks)? Furthermore, negotiated change within a social structure is by definition limited by the parameters of existing institutional arrangements and social relations that reflect the interests of those in charge.67 As such, negotiated outcomes may be reformist at best, although typically they are cancelled out by the mechanisms of the structure. As a result, radical parties and social movements are historically co-opted when they participate in formal structures of governance—they end up being run by parliamentarians and prime ministers. When outside of governance structures, a party can be as radical as it wants in its demands. Once in government they have indirectly conceded to the legitimacy of existing social arrangements, which they were opposed to in the first place. Unfortunately, existing institutional arrangements benefit those who established them. This makes ‘practical’ decisions necessary in negotiations, the parameters of which the elite have predetermined, usually leading to no substantive changes. For example, a communist Congressperson is given choices as to how to tax, if at all, the wealthy rather than should the wealthy keep their wealth. The same problem, for example, confronted the old radical u.s. labor movement which has been coalesced into the institutional framework of the capitalist system.68 Now, instead of leading the militant rank and file, labor leaders suppress them;69 unions in order to obtain contracts gave up the right to 66 67 68 69

Dahrendorf, 1959; Michels, 2010 [1911]. Dahrendorf, 1959; Merton, 1968. Lijphart, 1984; Mills, 1971; Perlman, 1966. See especially Aronowitz (1992), Brecher (1997 [1972]), Mills (1971).

Relations Of Authority

59

strike;70 and, more importantly, labor gave up on political action that would challenge the ideological hegemony of capitalism.71 It opted instead for Samuel Gompers’s model of business unionism72 while aligning itself with the Democratic Party.73 However, at the heart of any labor movement is the organized resistance to private productive property rights.74 By accepting the institutionalization of class conflict, workers have de facto submitted to capitalist principles, thus legitimizing an inherent ideology of inequality.75 To be clear, it is not suggested we eliminate political parties. Rather it is suggested we bypass them by letting people deliberate and decide matters themselves, absent of party or legislative ‘bosses.’ There is no reason why people could not continue to organize formally around issues important to them which is technically what political parties are about. Under the proposed model, however, the nature and function of the parties would change more toward social clubs or advisory groups in that they would not be fielding candidates since decision makers would be randomly selected, as will be discussed shortly in this chapter. Interestingly, this should also theoretically increase societal discourse. It is here within the appropriate structure that Jürgen Habermas’s discursive process can be housed. If neither parties nor political leaders get to rule themselves, they would have to increase their reliance on public discourse to promote their viewpoint. If anyone from the population could be selected as a decision maker, then a group or political party would have a greater chance of seeing its agenda enacted by disseminating it and convincing the broader population of its merits. This increases the chances of the selected legislators sharing those views and acting on them. As important, the proposed process eliminates elections for political representatives which, no matter what the intent or the quality of oversight, will be open by definition to manipulation. For example, some candidates would have greater media access then others especially if they represent elite interests who also happen to own the mass media. Career politicians are eliminated as well including their incumbent advantages and corruption that goes with it. For instance, incumbents are rarely defeated, demonstrating, once again, that 70 71 72

73 74 75

Aronowitz, 1992; Brecher, 1997 [1972]. Aronowitz, 1992; Brecher, 1997 [1972]; Mills, 1971; Perlman, 1966. A radical labor union may seek in addition to immediate worker demands, e.g., shorter hours, a change in the political system or class relations, e.g., toward socialism. A labor union practicing business unionism accepts the capitalist system and attempts practical improvements for its members such as healthcare benefits or higher wages. Brecher, 1997 [1972]. Aronowitz, 1992; Brecher, 1997 [1972]; Mills, 1971; Perlman, 1966. London, 1989/90.

60

Chapter 2

power determines political outcomes which is inherently undemocratic. As Castoriadis tells us, “Once permanent ‘representatives’ are present, political authority, activity, and initiative are expropriated from the body of citizens and transferred to the restricted body of ‘representatives,’ who also use it to consolidate their position and create the conditions whereby the next ‘election’ becomes biased in many ways.”76 Corporations would not be able to purchase or promote puppet politicians if random selection for legislative and decisionmaking bodies were to be enacted. Combined with a limited one lifetime term of service, say three years, it further complicates influencing public servants. All media are also bypassed by this process, which is important. Mass media by definition will express some viewpoint, either pro-capital, pro-labor, a ­commentator’s personal opinion, or the media’s own view. Elections, however, should only represent the unbiased views of the population. The only legitimate role of the mass media in this case is to provide objective news information. Given that there is no such thing as bias-free representative elections, we have the paradox of elections for representatives being inherently undemocratic.

A Path to Direct Democracy

We cannot expect ordinary people to instantaneously adopt a fundamentally different socioeconomic system that is alien to them. Rather, as Gramsci explained, we need to develop alternative models of society while also demonstrating why and how these would be preferable to the status quo, thus eroding its legitimacy. People need time working within these new models to appreciate their feasibility and gradually become accustomed to them. Only then would average citizens be willing to act toward transformational change. Gramsci’s point was that if a counter hegemony grows large enough it is able to incorporate and replace the historic bloc (blocco storico) into which it was born.77 Here we see Gramsci’s conception of a new social structure being 76 77

Castoriadis, 1991: 108. According to Gramsci for a social class to move from a position of subordination or defending its own economic-corporate interests to that of hegemony (a dominant class), it must first develop its own intellectual and moral leadership including cultural production that would challenge that of the current hegemonic group. It would do so by challenging the legitimizing ideology of the dominant group. In its challenge to the status quo it would initially make alliances (which this author rejects as futile) with other social groups developing into what he calls a new historic bloc, a term inspired by Georges Sorel

Relations Of Authority

61

developed within the womb of the existing one until it can overthrow it by revolution, like a caterpillar transforming in its cocoon until it breaks out as a butterfly. Gramscians use the terms war of position and war of movement to explain how this is possible. In a war of position a counter-hegemonic movement attempts, through persuasion or propaganda, to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order. In a war of movement, once the counter-hegemonic tendencies have grown large enough, it becomes possible to overthrow, violently or democratically, the current hegemony and establish itself as a new historic bloc. The new bloc will incorporate ideas, social relations, and institutions to produce and reproduce its hegemony. Specifically, Dahrendorf conceptualizes the social order as being shaped by authority relationships.78 By authority he means power that is attached to a social role or position which is legitimate, backed, and delimited by social norms and sanctions. These norms do not express social consensus, but are established and maintained by power to favor the interests of the elite. For Dahrendorf, established norms are simply ruling norms. He sees authority as dichotomous, one either has it or not in a given association. Thus, even if a world could exist in which there was no differentiation in terms of income or esteem we would be talking about a stratumless society. However, Dahrendorf argued class differentiation would still exist because it is assumed all societies will need organization to get things done and this inevitably involves authority differentials—or a state of inequality expressed through social hierarchies. Thus he believes that a social structure in which anarchy prevails for a lasting period is utopian. Someone or some group will ultimately have (or claim) legitimate authority for organization making this the basis for conflict group formation and therefore conflict. Castoriadis points out that in modern societies (and most throughout history) organization is universally hierarchical.79 He sees hierarchical organization as synonymous with bureaucracy adding hierarchy results in stratification of authority and incomes. One class directs all others and disproportionally benefits materially as through income while the other classes execute directives receiving a lesser share of production. The proposed model resolves the problem by disbursing power and authority (including income which will be explored in the chapter on material relations), in an egalitarian and regularly

78 79

who never used the term as such. Much of Gramsci’s ideas are based on a theory to praxis model explaining the value of organic intellectuals and educational systems in teaching for action (Gramsci, 1971). Dahrendorf, 1959. Castoriadis, 1993: 216–217.

62

Chapter 2

rotating time frame along Dahrendorf’s line of thought. This will result in a ‘flattening’ of hierarchical organization moving us toward horizontal social relations of authority. More to the point, one way in which Dahrendorf could conceive of a social order without differentiation resulting in conflict groups was if the positions of authority where filled by all the members of the society on a regularly rotating basis. In ancient Athens, for example, The designation of magistrates through lot or rotation in most cases insures participation by a great number of citizens in official tasks-and knowledge of those tasks. That the ecclesia [the political assembly including all citizens] decides all important governmental matters insures the control of the political body over elected magistrates, as does the fact that they are subject to what amounts in practice to the possibility of recall at any time.80 Therefore, under direct democracy personnel changes in the positions of authority would have to be provided for structurally. For example, a rule by which the chairperson of a university department would be filled by all the department’s professors at regular intervals or, as Dahrendorf offered, the example of the Israeli kibbutz. These arrangements would structurally limit conflict group formation because all would have an equal opportunity to find themselves in positions of authority. Aristotle himself in The Politics defines a citizen as having “Participation in giving judgment [judicial authority] and in holding office [having equal chance to participate in governing bodies as argued by Dahrendorf].”81 In my model, randomly selected decision makers governing political, economic, and judicial institutions of authority would constitute the democratic institutionalization of conflict but also the democratic distribution of power and authority. It is in the context of Dahrendorf’s and Gramsci’s work that the following proposals are made. First, in the economic sphere, the boards of directors of major corporations and private equity firms should be staffed exclusively by randomly selected citizens and workers of the enterprise. Second, in the political sphere, existing legislative and judicial bodies should be filled through statistically random selection from the demos while leaving the latter as the executive through electronic voting, referenda, and similar procedures. In Dahrendorf’s terms, totally replacing personnel in these positions of domination (economic 80 81

Castoriadis, 1991: 110. Aristotle, 1981: 169.

Relations Of Authority

63

and political decision making bodies) would result in a sudden and revolutionary change, more or less violent, and ultimately leading to a radical end. Although it may not seem as such, it would avoid the total destruction of existing institutional arrangements and the chaos that would result in everyday life. Critics might ask how radical is this and is it any different from reformism? To be sure, the proposal looks different from theoretical direct democracy, anarchism, or Marxism found in academic literature. But those are ideal types, which are separated from reality in the same way that theoretical ideal-type capitalism of classical economics is separated from reality.82 My proposals are a form of what Robert Merton termed theories of the middle range that will bring us as close as possible to a functioning state of equality as a definition of direct democracy.83 Those espousing ideal theoretical models will be disappointed. Further, as Gilman-Opalsky cautions: The old question of reform versus revolution must be abandoned. Both sides of the question have been inadequately conceived. “Reform” has meant changing laws and policies, changing certain attitudes and valuations, leaving the very structures (social, political, economic, and cultural) more or less intact. And, newer definitions notwithstanding, “revolution” has mainly been mistaken to mean overtaking the law making.84 82

According to Weber, “An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct. …In its conceptual purity, this mental construct…cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality” (Shils and Finch, [1903–1917] 1949: 90). All university economics courses begin with such ‘ideal type’ descriptions and tenets of a given economic system be it capitalism or anything else. As such, in the real world there are approximations to ideal types but the actual ideal is never reached. This is true not only of capitalism but anarchism as well. 83 “Theories of the middle range: theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behavior, social organization, and social change. Middle-range theory is principally used to guide empirical inquiry. It is intermediate to general theories of social systems which are too remote from particular classes of social behavior, organization and change to account for what is observed and to those detailed orderly descriptions of particulars that are not generalized at all. Middle-range theory involves abstractions, of course, but they are close enough to observed data to be incorporated in propositions that permit empirical testing.” (Merton, 1968: 39) 84 Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 30.

64

Chapter 2

In distinguishing Marx from Marxism (as interpreted by Bolshevik Leninism and Western capitalism) Marx himself believed theoretical socialism is possible to attain through parliamentary means in developed capitalist societies such as England.85 In general, lottery schemes are not new. Ancient Athens and other Greek city-states used lottery systems to fill certain public offices including the fivehundred-seat Senate, the courts, and military office by the demos.86 In modern times various theorists have proposed random selection of decision makers on grounds of fairness and egalitarianism.87 The lottery challenges the principle of representative democracy, engrained in liberal systems, though it retains a representative aspect, just like jury selection in the United States. Specifically, representative democracy is founded on the principle of a smaller number of elected people representing a larger group in decision making bodies. In contrast, under direct democracy people decide and vote directly for themselves. Under representative democracy candidates promise the electorate that they will vote a certain way on issues and, if elected, are expected to represent that constituency, although in reality they may not and vote as they wish. Here the elected representatives claim to ‘speak’ for others. Even the most ardent proponents of direct democracy, from Bakunin and Proudhon to most modern writers, ultimately develop representative decision making models. Delegates, elected directly from a smaller body, represent it at aggregate levels, for example, regional and federal ones. This happens for the simple reason that it is logistically impossible to get, for example, 300 million Americans to vote directly on all issues affecting the community on a daily basis. The lottery system opens up representation to all through random sampling. The language comes from statistics and surveys. A sample is a statistically representative selection from a larger population.88 When selection is performed randomly, as in the case of some form of lottery, the result is a random or representative sample meaning every member of the entire population has the same chance of being selected. This also means there will be identical proportions of all groups between the random sample and the population. For example, say we have a population of three-hundred million voters that includes X percent workers, Y percent employers, Z percent students, and so on. If we randomly select say 1200 individuals (a typical sample size for surveys 85 86 87 88

Chomsky, 2013. Aristotle, 1981, 1984. See, for example, Burnheim (2006), Carson and Martin (1999). In statistics the term population refers to what is being studied and could be made up of objects or individuals e.g., voters, institutions or newspaper articles (Schaefer, 2013).

Relations Of Authority

65

of this type) from that population we will mathematically end up with 1200 individuals that are representative of the larger population and in the same proportions, namely X percent workers, Y percent employers, Z percent students, and so on for other constituencies. How would the sample reach its decisions? The proposals here incorporate elements from models of deliberative or discursive democracy based on the writings of Jürgen Habermas or the concept of Strong Democracy put forth by Barber and others.89 Accordingly, it is suggested that public deliberations be held for deciding various issues. A choice is made by the demos when an issue is fully deliberated and consensus reached. Therefore, legislation derives legitimacy from the deliberative process. Fishkin has suggested decision-making by way of a deliberative opinion poll.90 A representative sample would be generated from the community to discuss an issue. The group would then be polled and their recommendations forwarded to the decision makers or adopted outright. Unfortunately, a major problem with deliberative democracy is its inability to address the issue of power and structure. Namely, how can dialogue take place in a community where the elite either refuse to allow public input and deliberation or limit the parameters of the debate thereby rendering it meaningless. Perhaps this is why, for Habermas, capitalism and democracy are not necessarily irreconcilable with each other or with ‘fairness.’91 In contrast, according to Freire “any apparent dialogue or communication between the elites and the masses is really the depositing of ‘communiqués,’ whose contents are intended to exercise a domesticating influence.”92 Consequently, if the elite (even under a representative democracy) wish to limit substantive debate, action would be required by the demos to force public deliberations as during the u.s. civil rights and labor movements of the past. But, a second problem now emerges. Once a deliberation is concluded what are the guarantees those in office will actually implement the proposals of those involved in the discourse? For example, think of the countless blue-ribbon committees formed by various administrations; how many recommendations have actually been implemented? Before we can have a democratic process involving discursive, strong, participatory democracy and the like, there must be a democratic structure that will permit and facilitate the practice of communal decisionmaking. This requires a diffusion of power and authority throughout the entire set of social relations. 89 90 91 92

Barber, 1984; Habermas, 1997. Fishkin, 1991. Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 30. Freire, 2001: 131.

66

Chapter 2

Under the proposed model, Fishkin’s representative sample forming a deliberative opinion poll would be the randomly selected decision makers on corporate boards, legislatures, and courts. Randomly selected citizens and workers would deliberate matters at hand. More importantly, they would also have the power to adopt outcomes of deliberation by virtue of being the decision-­ makers. Therefore the model would incorporate various elements of direct democracy both structurally and procedurally. Participatory budgeting provides another modern example of direct democracy, examples of which can be found in municipalities like Porto Alegre, Brazil, Chicago and many other cities around the world.93 In essence, municipal residents deliberate how budgets should be allocated based on which projects are deemed important by the community. Alperovitz discusses additional examples of recent structural changes and initiatives at the local level that increase community involvement in decision making.94 For example, seventeen elected District Councils in St. Paul, Minnesota, are given authority over some expenditures and services. Ninety independent neighborhood associations in Portland, Oregon, are responsible for designing their own development strategies. Similarly, ninety-five neighborhood associations in Birmingham, Alabama, receive federal Community Development Block grants and have the authority to decide how funds are to be apportioned. Seattle offers Neighbor­ hood Matching Funds for local projects if their residents match the public portion of the funds which in turn are apportioned based on the recommendations of Neighborhood District Councils. Such forms of direct democracy can work well and be part of the process at a local level in congruence with the proposals outlined here. But the question of scale is raised again when looking at broader governance levels such as those at the state or federal levels. How could citizens of a nation deliberate budget allocations? A simple solution would be Fishkin’s representative sample generated to deliberate, in this case, budgets. According to the proposed model, participatory budgeting will be practiced by randomly selected legislators who statistically represent the population. A practical feature of this idea is that these legislative and judicial institutions already exist in the form of parliaments (or Congress in the United States) and Supreme Courts. What changes is how personnel are assigned to these existing institutions of authority. This could be combined with internet voting, referred to as Electronic Direct Democracy.95 93 94 95

See, for example, Wampler (2009) on participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre and Lerner and Antieau (2010) for Chicago. Alperovitz, 2012: 133. See, for example, Behrouzi (2005), Nixon and Koutrakou (2007).

Relations Of Authority

67

Specifically, citizens of a state or nation can propose and vote on budget allocations via the internet or some other process decided upon by the demos. It is also possible to create multiple procedural variations depending on what the demos decides. For example, randomly selected legislators can deliberate a number of projects to be funded which then can be put to an internet or traditional referendum that will approve or reject projects and rank them in terms of priorities. No randomly selected person for the boards or legislatures speaks for anyone other than themselves. For example, an anarchist will vote in accordance with his or her own ideology, which captures some of the ideas of other anarchists in the population. Mathematically this means the ideas of that group will be reflected proportionately in the decision making bodies. It also means that large social groups like the working class, people of color, and women who do not effectively have their interests represented in the current system will have the largest number of individuals selected as representatives directly from their ranks given the proportionality of random selection from the demos. It also means everyone else who is part of the demos, including capitalists, homophobes, and religious zealots, will be represented in these decision-­ making bodies as well. Is this desirable? Yes. In a democratic system, especially a system of direct democracy, everyone has a right to free speech and representation no matter their beliefs. Once a system starts excluding people it is no longer egalitarian but on the path toward totalitarianism, including Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat. If the purpose of representative democracy is to reflect as closely as possible the will of the demos, it is possible to define representativeness in statistical terms. The difference between this proposal and the existing systems of representation is the idea that the randomly selected individuals (as representatives) do not claim to ‘speak’ for others—randomness and proportionality being the key. Statistically, it is impossible to obtain such a representative sample even in parliamentary voting systems, although in the popular usage of the word the elected officials are considered to be representative of the electorate. For example, who represents those who did not register to vote, or those who did but did not actually vote? These two groups alone typically represent over 50 percent of the electorate in u.s. presidential elections.96 Furthermore, who represents anarchists in the u.s. Senate? No one, yet there are anarchists in the demos. Who represents the poor in government? Clearly many politicians claim to ‘speak’ for the poor yet the poor’s interests are almost never reflected 96

The United States Elections Project, nd.

68

Chapter 2

in policy or law.97 According to the proposed model, we would have a group of civilians reflecting the makeup of society. The equal chance of selection by random sampling, upon which fairness is based, will result by mathematical definition in a sample that reflects/represents the pool where it came from/of whomever is in the population. In this case everyone will be represented proportionately in the sample by the mechanics of random selection. Consequently, a statistically random sample treats the entire population fairly. If all citizens are equals and the goal is to give everyone an equal chance to express their views and exercise authority then random selection is defensible. Decision makers selected this way will be as reflective of the diversity in the demos as scientifically possible and far more so than those generated by elections or appointment as under existing systems. Furthermore, it is proposed that the demos or the qualifying pool of citizens from which selection is to take place be defined as all residents over the age of sexual consent. No other qualifying limitations should be considered. What about the argument that representatives must be ‘qualified,’ such as, for example, that they have a certain level of educational attainment or passing a qualifying exam? One reviewer of a Marxist journal commented on this work: “leaving everything to individuals’ mere voting on issues assumes that individuals already know everything. Where is the role for education, and who organizes that education?” It is both logical and tantalizing to agree with this argument. Unfortunately it is a fallacy. If we are all equal in a democracy we are all equal to vote and exercise authority. Establishing qualifications represents de facto disfranchisement. For example, poll taxes and literacy and comprehension tests were established by Jim Crow laws of the racist South.98 Also, who designs these tests? Who determines what the qualifications should be? Noble birth? A high school diploma? A Bachelor’s degree? Logically, the Ph.D. trumps the rest and should be the minimum qualification—remember only 1 percent of Americans have this degree. What about the poor who are systemically denied a quality education, should they also be denied voting or representative rights by the system that deprived them of the tools to participate? Those who insist on qualifications fundamentally have no faith in or desire for democracy. In this case the only logical egalitarian alternative system would be the one Plato outlined in the Republic.99 Castoriadis supports this point by arguing against politicians or experts more generally in the practice of democracy: 97 98 99

Bartel, 2005; Hayes, 2012. Stiglitz, 2012: 129. Plato, 1991.

Relations Of Authority

69

Political expertise—or political “wisdom”—belongs to the political community, for expertise…is always related to a specific, “technical” occupation, and is, of course, recognized in its proper field. Thus, Plato says in the Protagoras, the Athenians will listen to technicians when the building of proper walls or ships is discussed, but will listen to anybody when it comes to matters of politics. …So Athens was, after all, a politeia in Aristotle’s sense since some (and very important) magistrates were elected. Now the election of the experts entails another principle central to the Greek view, clearly formulated and accepted not only by Aristotle, but despite its massive democratic implications, even by that archenemy of democracy, Plato. The proper judge of the expert is not another expert, but the user:…evidently, for all public (common) affairs, the user, and thus the best judge, is the polis.100 Nevertheless, education is the foundation for a democracy (as will be discussed in chapter 4, Social Structure), a fact ironically recognized by the founding fathers of the United States. This is why the highest quality free education based on critical pedagogy is imperative to break the chains of backwardness and oppression.101 As Gramsci argued, through education people will be better equipped to resist propaganda, identify their true interests, and act upon them effectively.102 We hope it will also permit people to identify and acknowledge injustices, including against those of different sexual orientations, abilities, or backgrounds. This is why the elite gut critical education at all levels in order to control the masses.103 Another Marxist made the following comment on this model: “With all the work that has been done about the informal networks within bureaucracies, how do you deal with those power structures and how do you deal with what Galbraith termed the Technostructure?” Whether we are talking about a Technostructure, Michels’s bureaucratic elites, or power dynamics in groups the answer is simple.104 These already exist in every known society and political system, including the current ones. Comparing this model to prefigurative ones to criticize it for such shortcomings is disingenuous. That view also misses the point that the model is a practical beginning, as process, toward a system that people themselves consider to best represent their will. Last, it will be 100 101 102 103 104

Castoriadis, 1991: 108–109. Freire 2000; McLaren, 2006. Gramsci, 1971. Chomsky, 1989; Giroux, 2007. Michels, 2010 [1911].

70

Chapter 2

demonstrated that it is possible to ‘tame’ bureaucracy by totally flattening its organizational structure through technology and automation approved and overseen by the demos (see the end of chapter 4, Social Structure).

Economic Authority

The working class can realize direct economic democracy by initially demanding, through insurrectionary action, that each major corporation have its board of directors filled exclusively by randomly selected citizens and workers of the firm while leaving stock ownership private, a scheme ideally replicated in all industrial democracies. Private equity in the form of hedge funds and family business offices above a certain level of capitalization either under ownership or management would also be legally required to form governing boards as proposed. This ends elite authority over productive property establishing private ownership with public authority—a historically radical change. The idea also reflects Aristotle’s vision of private property with communal use in modern society.105 Here it is helpful to sketch out the powers of corporate boards relative to shareholders and how that relationship would be altered in the proposed model. Currently, in the United States and United Kingdom, corporate boards are charged with maximizing profits for their shareholders, every other interest being secondary. The size of these boards typically ranges from nine to twenty individuals.106 Shareholders have voting rights over various issues depending on legal jurisdiction and company constitutions. These rights include voting for the board of directors, which in reality is commonly cited as having little if any impact on the board’s or ceo’s decisions.107 As Stiglitz writes, “It’s hard for shareholders to challenge what the management does, hard to wage a takeover battle, hard even to wage a proxy battle for control.”108 One change in these relationships would be a return to historical corporate charters, according to which corporations are offered legal recognition in exchange for service to the sovereign then, to society now, with profits being secondary. Alperovitz includes the kernel of this idea where he suggests that his model would include “new public chartering requirements, the addition of specific stakeholders to corporate boards, and the democratization of corporate­ 105 106 107 108

Aristotle, Book IIv, 1981. Wolff, 2012. Alperovitz, 2012: 73. Stiglitz, 2012: 66.

Relations Of Authority

71

structures from within.”109 But he does not develop the idea of other stakeholders, choosing instead to focus on worker-management schemes and management structures. In Schweickart’s model corporations are expropriated by society and operated under worker’s self-management, therefore there are no shareholders.110 In my pragmatic model, shareholders own the capital but have no voting rights; they are a silent partner in investment terms.111 Why? Corporations affect society and private equity represents its own interests therefore determining non-democratically how the community will be impacted. Community-worker boards will be democratically representative of society given their selection method. Shareholders will participate in corporate governance on equal footing with every other citizen given the statistical chances of proportional representation of their class on the community board seats—and worker seats if they choose to engage in actual work. However, during this intermediate period of structural transformation shareholders continue to receive profits as a return for their capital investment which they retain in the form of stocks. This is designed to provide continuity between what is and what can be while minimizing State resistance that would be severe should we wish to immediately expropriate productive property as other theorists suggest. Citizens should serve on only one board for a once in a lifetime term of service, say three years. Citizens selected for service on corporate boards should not be permitted to serve on a legislature or court. The workers of the company should also be limited to a once in a lifetime term of service and disallowed simultaneous service on legislatures or courts. In cases where all workers of a firm have had a chance to serve on its board they would rotate using the lottery system for second terms and so forth. In this manner, authority is fairly distributed among all members of an institution and citizens generally. The new boards would continue to nominate all the top executives, including ceos, cfos, and presidents. The officers should also be nominated by workers and ballot write-ins.112 Once nominated they should have to receive confirmation 109 Alperovitz, 2012: 74. 110 Schweickart, 2011. 111 A silent partner invests in an enterprise and shares in the profits and losses but is uninvolved with management. Their association with the enterprise is often unknown to the public. Currently stock reflects fractional ownership of a corporation with voting rights. Stock ownership is also often unknown to the public. The new model simply converts all stock holders/investors into silent partners sharing in the profits or losses with the demos as management. 112 Any worker of the enterprise can do this. Remember we are now talking about appointing executives like a ceo, not to be confused with executive board seats half of which are filled from the workers ranks by lottery.

72

Chapter 2

by a simple majority vote of the workers. Furthermore, these officers should be removed at any time and for any reason either by the board or by a recall vote of the workers that would override any board decision. In fact, any simple majority vote by the workers should override the board. This would apply primarily to operational control of the enterprise. Strategic control and decisionmaking must be weighed against community interests, not just the narrow interests of company workers. This is why the entire board of directors makes strategic decisions which include the interests of both the community and workers given the make-up of the new boards. However, a worker on the board should also be recallable by the workers of the enterprise any time for any reason by simple majority vote. Of course, all this leaves many details to be considered. This is deliberate. It is up to the worker-citizens to decide those details, not someone else, academics included, giving the new system flexibility. However, one thing is certain, no worker-citizen would vote for a ceo to earn tens of millions of dollars even as the company is run into the ground only to ‘parachute’ out with even more millions. Worker and community governance of corporations would become groundbreaking real-life experimental schools for the practice of self-rule (politically) and self-management (economically) without elites. Using control of the boards to implement what today would be considered socialist policies such as job security, reasonable workloads, increased leisure time, living wages and so on, the working class would be in a position of becoming self-assured, confident, and willing to further act on its class interests—conditions historically necessary for any successful revolutionary group, beyond participation in corporate governance. All this would also allow time for further developing and fine-tuning a counter-hegemonic model of society by the working class itself.113 At some point the majority, realizing that corporate ownership actually rests in the hands of the top 1 percent, may ask the simple question why and act on the lack of convincing answer forcefully unlike the Occupy movement of 2011 that fizzled-out without any concrete gains. For example, the top 1 percent of u.s. households received 34.8 percent of the stock market gains of 1989–1998, while the richest 10 percent received 72.5 percent, while the bottom 80 percent received only 13.6 percent.114 Having captured the governance of wealth which capturing corporate boards represents, the next major revolutionary step might be to expropriate productive resources outright in a working system of  communal ownership without central planning as proposed by many ­theorists including Alperovitz, Schweickart, and Wolff.115 But until all that ever 113 Gramsci, 1971. 114 Mishel et al., 2003–2013. 115 Alperovitz, 2012; Schweickart, 2011; Wolff, 2012.

Relations Of Authority

73

happens, worker-citizen-staffed corporate boards would represent industrial democracy. Furthermore, the proposal demonstrates historical continuity by building upon existing structural labor victories found in many industrial nations, such as works councils—a concept embraced by anarcho-syndicalists. Works councils are a deliberative assembly intended to establish workplace democracy or self-management. They are controlled by workers through recallable delegates. Local councils elect representatives to higher bodies that coordinate the industrial system of a nation. The national councils are not superior to the ones below but are instead constituted from and operated by them. Decisions are made from the bottom up from the agendas of workers themselves. There is no imposition of a decision from the top as in the case of revolutionary parties. Unlike unions that negotiate with employers through collective bargaining, through works councils workers are in actual control of the workplace. In theory, the national council would have delegates from every city in the country, replacing traditional centralized governments in what is called council democracy. Many Marxists and most anarchists believe that works councils embody the fundamental principles of socialism such as control over production and distribution. This is described as socialism from below compared to socialism from above. Socialism from above is carried out by a centralized State run by a bureaucracy, whereas socialism from below represents working-class self-rule and management. Some Left communists (particularly council communists) and anarchists support a council-based society, arguing only workers themselves can start a revolution with works councils as the foundation. There are also Leninists, for example, the International Socialist Tendency and its offshoots, that advocate a council-based society but maintain that works councils cannot carry out a revolution without the leadership of a vanguard party.116 In his classic book Workers’ Councils Pannekoek argued that the transition from capitalism to communism has to be achieved by workers themselves organized through works councils.117 He regarded these as a new form of organization capable of overcoming the limitations of unions and social democratic parties. Pannekoek argued the Russian revolution failed in part because Lenin and his Bolsheviks crippled the Soviets (works councils) once in power, instituting the permanent rule of their party, thereby turning the Communist Party into a new ruling class.118

116 Molyneux, 1987; 2003 [1978]. 117 Pannekoek, 2002 [1950]. 118 See also Rabinowitch (2008) and Smith (2011).

74

Chapter 2

There are several historical examples of revolutionary works councils including those of Russia in 1905 and 1917 (known as Soviets); Germany in 1918 (Räte); Turin, Italy 1919–1920; rural Ireland 1920–1921; China 1926–1927; Spain 1936; Hungary 1919 and 1956; France 1871 and 1968; and Chile in 1973 (cordones). In the works councils of the 1918 German revolution, factory organizations such as the General Workers’ Union of Germany (aaud) formed the basis for organizing region-wide councils.119 The aaud was constituted by Left communists from the Communist Workers’ Party of Germany (kapd) who advocated organizing based on factories rather than trades. Council communists established these factory organizations as the basis for region-wide workers’ councils forming a government. Another example was the Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 based on local factory committees. The council was supposed to function as a form of workers’ control in place of a government. In modern times, works councils are shop-floor organizations representing workers that are distinct from unions. Works councils exist in a number of European countries including Britain (Joint Consultative Committee); Germany and Austria (Betriebsrat); Luxembourg (Comité Mixte); the Netherlands and Flanders in Belgium (Ondernemingsraad); France (Délégués du Personnel); Wallonia in Belgium (Délégués du Personnel); and Spain (Comité de empresa). On September 22, 1994, the Council of the European Union passed Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council (ewc) or similar procedure for the purposes of informing and consulting workers in companies which operate within the European Union.120 The ewc Directive applies to companies with at least 1000 workers within the European Union and at least 150 workers in each of at least two Member states.121 They give representatives of workers from all European countries in large multinational companies a direct line of communication to top management. They also give workers’ representatives from unions and national works councils the opportunity to consult with each other and to develop a common European response to employers’ transnational plans, which management must then consider before those plans are implemented. Germany and France offer good examples of how works councils operate and the type of workers’ rights that they have institutionalized.122 General 119 General Workers’ Union of Germany (Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands; aaud), was the name of factory councils formed during the German Revolution of 1918–1919 in opposition to traditional trade unions. 120 eur-Lex. Directive 94/45/EC. 121 eur-Lex. Directive 2009/38/EC. 122 Rogers and Streeck, 1994.

Relations Of Authority

75

labor agreements are made at the national level by national unions and employer associations. Local plants and firms then meet with works councils to adjust these national agreements to local circumstances. Works council members are elected by company workers, typically for a four-year term. They do not have to be union members and works councils can be formed in companies where neither the employer nor the workers are organized. Works council representatives may also be appointed to the company’s board of directors, setting a precedent to the model suggested here. An important difference between national works councils is whether they are given codetermination in addition to rights of consultation and information. When only consultation and information rights are provided, the councils continue to have a high degree of power within the production process that greatly empowers workers: Works councils laws invariably obligate employers to disclose to the council information about major new investment plans, acquisition and product market strategies, planned reorganization of production, use of technology, and so on. And council laws typically require employers to consult with the council on workplace and personnel issues, such as work reorganization, new technology acquisition, reductions or accretions to the work force, transfers of work, over-time, and health and safety.123 However, when works councils are given codetermination rights, they become even more powerful labor institutions. This because codetermination requires that employers obtain approval for certain decisions from the councils. Should the council refuse to approve a managerial decision, it can mount legal action and challenge the employer. Therefore, the laws provide resolution mechanisms such as arbitration, grievance committees, and special labor courts. Germany is an excellent example of a country where works councils have codetermination rights: German works councils enjoy information rights on financial matters…In addition, however, they have codetermination rights on such matters as principles of remuneration, introduction of new payment methods, fixing of job and bonus rates and performance-related pay, allocation of working hours, regulation of overtime and short-time working, leave arrangements, vacation plans, suggestion schemes, and the introduction 123 Ibid., 1994: 100.

76

Chapter 2

and use of technical devices to monitor employees’ performance. They also enjoy prescribed codetermination rights on individual staff movements, including hiring, evaluation, redeployment, and dismissal, and the right to a ‘reconciliation of interests’ between the council and the employer on a wide range of other matters bearing on the operation of the firm.124 When talking about ‘reconciliation of interests’ it is important to note this means workers have power over what is produced, as well as any closures and relocations in parts or all of the company plant. Consequently, codetermination indicates extensive institutionalization of the basic principles of industrial democracy. Even in the absence of codetermination, works councils in and of themselves are indicative of higher levels of institutionalized workers’ power, given their right to access company information. This is the case with France’s works councils that are given rights to information and consultation, but not codetermination. In short, there is a functional precedence allowing us reasonably to argue these changes are more feasible. True, works councils are not the solution to effecting structural transformations because they do not have the power of outright corporate governance nor are they the focus of this work. Yet they exemplify how radical demands that once seemed impossible can be achieved even within the capitalist framework short of full blown revolution. Surprisingly, as I have been finishing this book, the United Auto Workers union seems to have secured a ‘beachhead’ at a Chattanooga, Tennessee, Volkswagen plant.125 The successful union drive is notable because it is in the traditionally antiunion American South. German upper management has even been open to offering their Tennessee workers a works council, as per German law for large firms.126 In the United States that is optional, but law stipulates that in the case of a works council, workers must be represented by an outside union. The developments confirm a) change once thought of as impossible is, in fact, possible including works councils in u.s. factories and b) that the political establishment is rigged against equality. Specifically, the Governor of Tennessee Bill Haslam and senator and former mayor of Chattanooga Bob Corker opposed the decision by Volkswagen management to accept a union let alone a works council.127 Corker complained when Volkswagen’s ceo struck the deal with 124 Ibid., 1994: 101. 125 Boudette, 2013. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid.

Relations Of Authority

77

government officials, but the ceo reiterated that “they would have nothing to do with the uaw.”128 The societal control of corporate boards represents the next evolutionary step from works councils toward direct democracy with an intermediary compromise to the abolition of private productive property or of the State. It is the implementation of institutionalized control of all the top corporations by the community and workers that makes this a radical change. For example, in practical terms, would such boards funnel tremendous sums of money to antilabor political parties and officials as they now do under elite governance thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings? Would such boards hire anti-labor or union-busting consultants? Furthermore, such a fundamental change in class power relations will alter corporate behavior to reflect the public good and eliminate production externalities and corporate free-rider problems. Communities could prohibit the use of corporate wealth to influence the political process or the news media. The managerial class could be instructed to operate under new parameters of production, using sustainable technology, offering all workers substantive benefits, living wages, and reasonable workloads. This would also eliminate the most common excuse that corporations offer for not being socially responsible: ‘we will not be competitive if we employ these practices, because our competitors do not.’ If the workers who are also citizens have the final say on all boards, it is reasonable to argue that a consensus of demands will arise with high corporate responsibility, which will level the cost playing field for companies.

Political Authority

If the demos is successful in securing corporate governance through insurrectionary direct action, a second stage of action for political democratization can be realized. The following is but one possible vision or course of action that bridges ‘what is’ to ‘what can be.’ Generally, the practice of direct democracy is possible at the local level as demonstrated by the Swiss cantons in modern times and ancient Athens in antiquity. Unfortunately this is not possible at the next governance level. How could millions meet in a single space to discuss legislation? Even if this were possible in physical or internet space, there would be a cacophony of voices. Technically, this was the inspiration if not justification behind representative democracy. Libertarian socialists who accept the need for larger-scale societal organization concede this point which is why 128 Ibid.

78

Chapter 2

they design systems where representatives are selected to join assemblies at higher levels with various safeguards such as instant recall. But this raises once more the issue of how representative the selected individuals would be if based on some form of election or appointment. In the proposed vision of direct democracy there are three levels of governance without an executive branch, leaving the demos as the executive. Should there be an executive the door opens up once more to corruption regardless of how the executive is selected or regulated. Let it be noted that an executive is a leftover element of aristocracy, namely the ‘king.’ In a substantive democracy the demos is the sole executive. At the local level, such as that of towns, villages, and boroughs, direct democracy in the classical or Athenian sense is feasible. All other details of structure and process must be decided by the local residents including residency requirements if any (for example, a minimum one-year residency).129 It cannot be emphasized enough that democracy begins at home and the workplace as argued by Alperovitz, Barber and Wolff.130 For example, Alperovitz discusses the idea found in Tocqueville that municipal democracy is necessary as practical training for people to learn how to use democracy.131 John Stuart Mill shared the sentiment, holding local democracy to be: the peculiar training of a citizen, the practical part of the political education of a free people. …we do not learn how to read or write, to ride or swim, by being merely told how to do it, but by doing it, so it is only by practicing popular government on a limited scale, that the people will ever learn how to exercise it on a larger [scale].132 Interestingly, Alperovitz makes the connection between economic security and political participation at local and national levels. Accordingly, “a recent analysis of the 2000 election by the u.s. Census Bureau demonstrates that ‘citizens who had lived in the same home for five or more years had a voting rate of 72 percent’…much higher than rates for individuals who had lived at their residences for a shorter time.”133 129 Typically residency requirements are designed to prevent voters being bused-in to alter a local vote or politicians and political parties from opportunistically entering easy electoral contests outside their residential districts. 130 Alperovitz, 2012; Barber, 1984; Wolff, 2012. 131 Alperovitz, 2012. 132 Quoted in Alperovitz 2012: 44. 133 Alperovitz 2012: 47.

Relations Of Authority

79

At the level of state or province, group dynamics are such that direct democracy cannot function with say a million lawmakers meeting to hash out issues. A modified form of direct democracy, however, is possible through randomly selected lawmakers combined with direct voting by the demos on major negotiated legislative options. Accordingly, states or regions would have a unicameral legislature (meaning only one House). The number of lawmakers will depend on the size of a state’s population and the number needed for a representative sample and working groups. The legislature is then filled by lottery from the pool of that state’s residents to serve a once in a lifetime three-year or whatever agreed upon term. Residency should be established by living there at least one year prior to selection or by whatever criteria each state chooses. Terms should be staggered, scheduling terms of office so that all members of a body are not selected at the same time. This is done to avoid a pool overly influenced by strong passing sentiments. Staggered terms also prevent vacating all office holders at once resulting in loss of institutional memory. In contrast, one cohort gets to be the institutional memory bearer for the next. No one can serve simultaneously on more than one legislature, court (see below), or corporate board, nor on both a court and legislature (or corporate board) at any level (or combination of levels, including state and federal). The intention behind limiting service is to allow the broadest possible number of citizens an opportunity to exercise authority. If every citizen, say of a local or other jurisdictional level, served on a body of public authority, the clock is reset for second terms via lottery until everyone has served a second term and so on in a system where authority is rotated in an equitable and regularly expected manner. Realistically, this could occur where populations are small enough (for example, a rural town or small scale enterprise). In a federated political structure, each of the states or regions receives a percentage of the seats in the national unicameral legislature proportional to that state’s population. This is similar to how the number of seats is currently apportioned in the U.S. Congress. The selection of lawmakers would follow the same process as at the state level. What most utopian models lack, including the more pragmatic versions by Alperovitz, Schweickart, and Wolff, is a consideration of a corresponding legal structure.134 Accordingly, it is disingenuous to expect nine or any other small number of appointed individuals to be the Solomons of society. Who appoints a judge can determine how cases will be decided—an example being the Roberts Supreme Court crafted by George W. Bush that delivered to the elite Citizens United. How, then, should a legal system be structured, assuming one 134 Alperovitz, 2012; Schweickart, 2011; Wolff, 2012.

80

Chapter 2

should even exist. Most utopians reject any legal structure, typically due to their belief that there should be no compulsion or coercion. Instead, individuals should be free to enter and exit agreements at will. Unfortunately, this leads to chaos. Nor would major infrastructure projects ever be undertaken or, if they are, completion would be impossible with people walking on and off construction sites. More so, people cannot be expected to respect the fundamental principles of a democratic process at all times. This is due to human nature that can be overcome by passions at the expense of reason. In fact, psychologists have confirmed that emotions typically trump logic. The 9/11 attacks have demonstrated this with the wave of Islamophobia that followed. Nor does the average person have the legal proficiency to understand many complex or technical legal issues. Remember there will be legal issue even in a noncapitalist society, such as those involving domestic affairs. Therefore legally trained professionals are as needed as architects, educators, and doctors for a democratic society. Given the need for a legal system, there should be three judicial levels: local, state or regional, and federal. The democratization of authority should also incorporate legal decisionmaking. Accordingly, local courts should be filled by random selection from the state’s pool of legally trained professionals and citizen jurors with a large number of professional and lay judges presiding over each case. There is a precedent for this. Ancient Greeks who practiced direct democracy also appointed common citizens as judges. For example, a popular court could consist of 501, 1001 or up to 1501 citizen-judges selected by lottery.135 By keeping the element of citizen jurors we also maintain a basic aspect of trial by one’s peers. Yet, at the same time, combining citizen jurors with multiple professional jurors holding various perspectives adds another layer of evaluation to ensure a fair trial. Cases should be decided by a simple majority vote of the combined bodies. At the state or regional level, a number of judges should be randomly selected from a qualified pool of legal professionals and citizens residing in the state for a one lifetime three-year (or otherwise agreed upon length) staggered term. The court should consist of a number of voting judges (both professional and citizen jurors) for every case although lottery could determine a subset of professional and citizen judges that would be asking questions and facilitating the trial. In essence the other judges would be a jury. Limited service assures that current cultural beliefs and values are reflected in the serving pool which will be updated at regular intervals while the court’s size and random selection limit influence. A federal Supreme Court should be structured as the state courts. Professional and citizen judges should be randomly selected from qualified 135 See Aristotle, 1984; Castoriadis, 1991: 117.

Relations Of Authority

81

pools for a one in a lifetime three-year or otherwise term of service. There will be a number of voting judges for every case although lottery could determine a subset of judges that would be asking questions and facilitating the trial. The remaining judges function as a professional jury. The judges should be selected for staggered terms to avoid a pool overly influenced by strong passing sentiments of the time. Constitution In addition to a judiciary and formal laws there should be a constitution all of which utopians typically oppose. Most anarchists, for example, reject laws and contracts (on the grounds that these represent coercive relationships) other than voluntary agreements to be entered and exited at will. If one applies the same logic to a constitution, then there would not be one because it is a binding agreement for all members of the community. Castoriadis feels strongly that direct democracy and a constitution are incompatible: the “Constitution” as a fundamental Charter embodying the norms of norms and defining particularly stringent provisions for its revision… does not hold water…modern history has for two centuries now in all conceivable ways made a mockery of this notion of a “Constitution”…the oldest “democracy” in the liberal West, Britain, has no “Constitution” at all.136 For him, direct democracy is a dynamic process while Constitutions are considered static thus contrary to democracy. In this regard, Castoriadis clarifies that constitution as used by the ancient Greeks including Aristotle literally meant the constitution, nature, or disposition of a people tying politics as a process to paideia, education broadly defined to incorporate training in governance: [Constitution] means both the political institution/constitution and the way people go about common affairs. It is a scandal of modern philology that the title of Aristotle’s treatise, Athenaion Politeia, is everywhere translated “The Constitution of Athens,” both a straightforward linguistic error and the inexplicable sign of ignorance or incomprehension on the part of very erudite men. Aristotle wrote The Constitution of the Athenians.137 136 Castoriadis, 1991: 115. 137 Ibid., 1991: 109.

82

Chapter 2

Castoriadis acknowledges this does not mean discontinuity with adherence to past agreements made by the community such as foreign treaties. Instead, he sees direct democracy as a continuous review and re-evaluation of positions and arrangements as people’s needs evolve. But why can’t a constitution be dynamic with fundamental principles enshrined? By definition, a constitution is not a detailed plan of governance. It is a general consensus outlining the organizing principle of the community. It is here that the judiciary must act as guardian of these principles in times when the population violates them as in, for example, forcing Japanese-American citizens into internment camps ­during World War II or practicing slavery under a constitution declaring all ‘men’ equal. Most realists will agree that a constitution, even a minimalist one, is essential. What should be the constitution of a direct democracy? In short, whatever the majority decides at the time of its creation to be modified as time goes by and need arises. A constitution is necessary to reinforce the governing principle of organization even in a direct democracy based on discursive processes. If equality is the organizing principle it must be stated how this is interpreted in practice. For example, does it include material equality and if so what does that mean? Does it include equal authority relations and if so where (for example, in gender relations, military, governance, and production)? Realistically, laws would also be part of any large-scale society. What many may confuse is that although the majority of legal statutes deal with property, many also deal with human matters such as what do we do with crimes of passion? More so, laws reflect norms. As society changes so do its norms and the laws reflecting them. In addition, what utopians ignore is that every society, even a utopian one, has ‘laws’ even if not written down in a formal code. Specifically, sociologists distinguish between formal norms like a legal code and mores which do not have to be written down but still prescribe severe sanctions for violators. A  group’s mores are just as important to them as a legal code, if not more. The only difference is that in large-scale societies mores are codified. Therefore, every society has ‘laws.’ Also, if the demos is the one making laws there is no reason why it cannot change them as needed. In general, one would hope for a declaration of universal equality; the demos as the sole sovereign; a definition of citizenship; the codification of governing principles and structures such as establishing legislatures and how they would be filled; basic rights and obligations of citizens; and mechanisms for amendments. Certain freedoms, though, must be enshrined, especially freedom of speech, press, and assembly. As per the First Amendment, there should be no law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of

Relations Of Authority

83

grievances.’­Interestingly, representative democracies routinely violate these freedoms as demonstrated during the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011. At the time, many peaceful protests, marches, assemblies, and occupations of public spaces have been suppressed by representative democracies around the world with legal and police harassment including forceful evictions from public spaces. In practical terms we should also question the current freedom of the press given that six corporations effectively control most mass media in all formats: television, print, radio, news, and entertainment.138 One would also question if freedom of speech exists in practical terms. In the United States, for example, it is illegal to disparage food or discussing how animals like chicken are raised including their physical environment and diet.139 Such a system as described here can come very close to a practical version of direct democracy especially when combined with electronic forms like internet voting given the proper safeguards at the state and federal levels.140 Envision the following. A truly representative state or federal legislature, as proposed here, could debate a number of options for legislating on a major issue. Once a basic set of options are agreed upon these could be put to a state or national referendum respectively. This process has inherently many advantages; for example, every major decision such as going to war or not, or building schools or stadiums, could be put to a popular vote. It is plausible that certain days of the month, week, or even times of the day are set aside for the purpose of deliberating and voting on such matters. Given a new economic system that permits for far more leisure it is also plausible residents would have the time to become informed regarding issues of the day. Corruption and undue influence would be limited since anyone wishing to purchase a vote would have to buy many more people than a senator or two as is currently done given that a single senator can block virtually any legislation from passing by putting a hold on it.141 In any case, such forms of voting should increase transparency and offer flexibility while ensuring maximum input from the demos. Another important feature is that in such a system we are all held 138 139 140 141

Common Cause, nd. Kenner, 2009. Behrouzi, 2005; Nixon and Koutrakou, 2007. In the U.S. Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the Senate which allows one or more senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. If the senator provides notice privately to his or her party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership has agreed), then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. If the senator actually objects on the Senate floor or the hold is publicly revealed, then the hold is more generally known as a senatorial hold.

84

Chapter 2

accountable for our society’s actions and consequences. Contrast this to current systems where the elite are the decision makers but the people are held responsible. For example, it was the decisions of Wall Street elites that brought down the global economy in 2008 but it was the taxpayers who paid for government bailouts to the culprits. Clearly, many details are not outlined here because this book is not meant to be a purely theoretical exercise based on one’s ideology disconnected from reality. Rather, the purpose is to broadly outline a working system that increases transparency and social justice, leaving the details to the people themselves. But, as in ancient Athens, voting and participation in governance must be mandatory as part of one’s civic obligations to the community. Remember, with privileges come obligations. Compulsion to vote may be based on financial penalties as in many European democracies or mandated community service. Why is participation so important? When people do not participate it opens the door to influence and corruption which ultimately undermines democracy. This is the real reason the United States does not make voting mandatory (and holds elections on workdays), arguing it is a democratic right not to participate. Such a pseudo right only benefits the elite who understand the value of participation in contrast to the poor majority, thus allowing them to outvote the interests of the many. This is also why the history of the United States and most nations is one of resisting the expansion of the democratic franchise.142 This continued into 2012 with Republican efforts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters through various unreasonable identification requirements and illegal purging of voter rosters as happened, for example, in Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania.143 142 Asimakopoulos, 2000; Smith, 2004. 143 Palast, 2012.

Chapter 3

Material Relations

Economic Utilities of Direct Democracy

Economics is not the exclusive purview of any particular ideology nor synonymous with capitalism. Rather, economics is a field of study examining how a society can meet as many of our unlimited ‘wants’ in the most efficient manner with our limited resources resulting in utility maximization.1 Specifically, according to the law of declining marginal utility, the satisfaction derived from consuming an additional unit of a good or service yields less satisfaction from the consumption of the preceding unit. When you are very hungry, your first gyro sandwich will give you a lot of satisfaction but you may want more. The second gyro sandwich will give you satisfaction too but not as much as the first one when you were on an empty stomach (which is why retailers drop the price for the second item: ‘buy one at full price get the second at half off’). An efficient economy aims to maximize total societal utility. In general, for an economic system to be viable, economists believe that it must be capable of addressing the fundamental questions outlined in Table 3.1. As outlined in Table 3.1 capitalism is a system based on private ownership of the means of production, free markets, free prices set by supply and demand, and distribution based on capital ownership and unequal income. Credit and banks are private enterprises complimented by quasi-governmental institutions such as the Federal Reserve. Money represents debt in that it is issued by a central bank to the government with interest as part of the fractional reserve system. Investment decisions are also by and large private or governmentally driven by the private sector. The Soviet model, as a real-world example of Marxism/top-down socialism, was based on State ownership of productive resources, and central planning replacing free markets and prices, while it maintained a system of distribution based on unequal income. In Soviet economies credit was State controlled with no banking system in the Western sense other than the State Bank (Gosbank) referred to in the West as Monobank.2 Monobank included Sperbank (Savings Bank) as a utility for household savings 1 It is assumed that a rational actor will try to obtain the greatest value, satisfaction, or utility possible from the least amount of expenditure in order to maximize the total value, satisfaction, or utility derived based on available resources. 2 Kennett and Lieberman, 1992: 134–136.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_005

86 Table 3.1

Chapter 3 Fundamental questions for an economy.

System

Capitalism United States

Marxism-Socialism ussr

Direct democracy

Ownership of productive resources Coordination Setting prices Allocative efficiency

Private

State

Societal

Markets Markets Structural misallocations Central bank/private Decentralized/private Fractional reserve Unsustainable Profitable goods & services Economic efficiency

Central planning State Structural misallocations State bank (Gosbank) Centralized/state Bookkeeping money Wasteful Basic goods & services Economic efficiency

Utility markets Utility markets Efficient

Ownership of capital & unequal wage labor Guiding function of prices

Political power & unequal wage labor Central planning

Banking system Credit Money Resource use What to produce How to produce Distribution Can the system adapt

Public utility Public utility Utility currency Sustainable Needed goods & services first Socioeconomic efficiency Equal labor Guiding function of relative prices

deposits, Stroibank (Investment Bank) used by central planners to allocate long-term investment funds, and Vneshortgbank (Foreign Trade Bank) for international transactions.3 Money was strictly controlled by the State Bank and was mostly bookkeeping money.4 It is difficult to sketch-out and evaluate basic principles of numerous nonmarket models as these are prefigurative, therefore open to their characterization as utopian. They have some similarities and differences but in general most utopian non-market socialists such as Albert and Hahnel (who do not consider their model utopian) reject markets for various reasons including the view that they undercut solidarity, but they also reject central planning as do most contemporary utopians.5 Albert and Hahnel’s parecon is a post-capitalist 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Albert and Hahnel, 1991.

Material Relations

87

model regulated through worker’s self-rule and management in the form of consumers’ and works councils respectively. It is here that they are criticized as utopians for proposing a system of governance based on works and consumer’s councils that would operate in a structurally different way than what people are accustomed to. In short, the problem with such models is that they represent an immediate and fundamental break with existing socioeconomic structures and modalities of life. Albert and Hahnel argue their model is based on marketless democratic planning performed by the two councils that would also decide what is to be produced and would set prices. In addition, they advocate compensation based on skill and the onerous nature of work, yet other utopians reject the use of remuneration in favor of a need-based form of distribution but in contrast to parecon would eliminate currency and prices as well. Another major distinction of Albert and Hahnel’s model is that it is an end in itself rather than a path to communal societies envisioned by most utopians. Ultimately none of this is workable in modern society as argued by market socialists like Schweickart.6 Prices, income, currency, and markets are general concepts that must be addressed by any type of economic system. These provide a guiding function of what and how much is to be produced and how it should be distributed. The problem is not to choose between markets, central planning, or utopian models but how to integrate economic institutions into a democratic framework. According to Stiglitz, markets “are shaped by political processes…by laws, regulations, and institutions. Every law, every regulation, every institutional arrangement has distributive consequences.”7 The model outlined here is a form of market socialism but imbedded within a greater structural framework of decentralized authority. It combines democratic decentralized market production with political self-rule. Specifically, having forced the State with direct insurrectionary action to accept governance based on randomly selected representatives, the stage is opened for deeper structural transformation based on everyday experiences rather than utopianism. Markets and Prices Historically, markets serve as a utility, either spatial in the form of shops on ‘Main Street’ or virtual in the form of online retail markets such as Amazon. com, through which goods and services are distributed based on individual choice. The new model would continue to rely on markets for distribution but in the traditional sense of a market place (physical or virtual) versus capitalist 6 Schweickart, 2011. 7 Stiglitz, 2012: 52.

88

Chapter 3

markets. Furthermore, market socialism preserves continuity with capitalism out of which it is born, making it a more likely system to replace it compared to nonmarket forms of socialism.8 Schweickart too considers economic democracy to be a market economy because of the market’s allocative efficiency in contrast to central planning.9 As Schweickart writes, “Without a price mechanism sensitive to supply and demand, it is extremely difficult for a producer or planner to know what and how much to produce and which production… methods are the most efficient.”10 He agrees centralized planning is inherently flawed, while schemes for decentralized non-market planning are unworkable. Worse, as theory predicts and the historical record confirms, central planning is conducive to authoritarian concentration of power. This is one of the lessons from the Soviet experience. Prices in the new model would reflect relative pricing rather than the ‘nominal’ price that can be set by any number of arbitrary variables. For example, u.s. government subsidies to oil companies and the environmental destruction caused by fossil fuels are not included in the price of gas. As a result the nominal price for gas at the pump does not reflect its true cost relative to other things being produced in the economy such as unsubsidized renewable energy. Relative price is the price of a good or service in terms of another. It may be expressed as a ratio between any two prices or the ratio between the price of a particular good or service and a weighted average price of all other goods and services. This means that in a free market, supply and demand signal what is to be produced and its relative cost to other things or opportunity costs in economic terms. This allows the system to know where resources must be allocated in real time including the true societal cost of producing them relative to other things. For example, how many forgone new school buildings does every airplane carrier cost? The proposed system of direct democracy would maintain the use of relative prices. As Schweickart argues prices would be unregulated in an economic democracy set by supply and demand.11 Yet, society may impose price controls or supports for certain goods and services as is done in most real-world economies including capitalism and socialism. 8 9

Howard, 2000. Allocative efficiency is achieved when the economy produces a combination of goods and services where the marginal benefit (the value society puts on that added level of output) is equal to marginal cost (the value of resources used for that output) or mb = mc. At this point overall or total utility is maximized. 10 Schweickart, 2011: 51. 11 Ibid.

Material Relations

89

Currency, Income, Banking, and Credit Currency, income, banking, and credit should be seen as blood in the ec­onomic circulatory system transferring the information of which nutrients (needs) are required for the body of society and delivering them. This is what is meant by signaling and guiding function of prices, for what and how much needs to be produced.12 Currency as a utility facilitating the exchange of goods and services (versus an inefficient barter system) has existed since early human societies and under most situations—cigarettes, for example, are used as currency in jails and labor camps. It also leads to allocative efficiency noting that central planning systems have never matched that of markets. Think of a dollar not as currency but as a vote of what to produce. If we are all equals, we should all have equal votes as to how we wish to allocate society’s resources. Since $1 = 1 political vote, we should all receive the same universal wage. Therefore, equal income results in an equal political vote per person as to what to produce and who can have it. Castoriadis who was skeptical of market-based democracy conceded: A “market” of individual consumer goods is truly defensible only insofar as it is truly democratic—that is, only if each person’s ballot carries the same weight. These ballots are each person’s income, if these incomes are unequal, immediately the vote is rigged; some people’s votes would count much more than those of others. …The “vote” of the rich person for a villa…carries much more weight than the vote of an ill-housed person for decent housing.13 Currency as a utility would not represent debt like fractional reserve notes issued to the u.s. government by the Federal Reserve with interest. Rather money would represent the overall productive capacity of the economy as expressed, for example, though Gross Domestic Product (gdp), and serve as a medium of exchange. An example would be the issuance of Greenbacks by Lincoln during the Civil War. Furthermore, some theorists, like Fotopoulos, suggest moving toward a twotier voucher system of payment, one for basic and one for non-basic needs.14 Voucher-based models are intended to create an artificial market providing 12

13 14

In classical economics the guiding function of prices refers to the ability of price changes to bring about changes in the quantities of products and resources demanded and supplied. Castoriadis, 1993: 225–26. Fotopoulos, 1998.

90

Chapter 3

freedom of choice but without the adverse effects of capitalist markets. In this sense, vouchers are not a money model since they cannot be used as a general medium of exchange or store of wealth. Unfortunately these models are utopian. First, the word ‘voucher’ congers up third-world images and long Soviet breadlines for empty shelves. Second, why should anyone other than the individual concerned decide what are basic or non-basic items? What is basic for one person may be non-basic for another. In my vision we all get equal income shares and are free to prioritize our purchases without a planner or our neighbors in assemblies doing it for us. Castoriadis is blunt: It would…be absurd to limit consumption by means of authoritarian rationing, which would be equivalent to an intolerable and stupid tyranny over the preferences of each. Why distribute to each person a record and four movie tickets a month, when there are people who prefer music to images, and others who prefer the contrary—not to mention the deaf and the blind?15 Third, we see again the fear of a ‘real’ market. However, it is not the market as a place of exchange (or the act of exchange conceptually) that is the problem. In fact, social exchange theorists (who constitute a branch of rational choice theory in microsociology) such as Peter Blau have argued every human interaction involves some form of exchange, including material and emotional ones.16 Finally, if the goal of a voucher is to prevent the store of money or nonsanctioned transactions we can achieve the same with e-currency.17 Specifically, in my model we will receive the dollar denominated income that is common to everyone. However, this can all be e-currency using means such as debt cards, personal id numbers, and online bill-pay linked to our personal utility banking accounts, as is done now in advanced societies. This way, if there is no cash, we can control how, where, and for what electronic payments are made by whom and to whom. If accumulation is the fear, there is another solution: make the e-currency expire after X time or allow it to be saved up to a socially agreed cap for larger future purchases. This forces people to consume their share rather 15 16 17

Castoriadis, 1993: 225. Blau, 1986. Bitcoins developed in 2008 by anonymous programmers offer an interesting example. This is a form of e-currency independent of any government or central authority. It is used globally for various transactions bypassing a formal banking system altogether. One party pays another for a transaction with the bitcoins transferring directly from one account to the other.

Material Relations

91

than to hoard it, assuming that is a real concern to begin with. Most importantly, the proposed model provides continuity with existing society. Likewise, banking and financial systems have existed in complex societies since antiquity and have evolved together with technology and economic systems. Various contemporary models consider banking and credit to be utilities.18 The community would use utility banks for retail services such as individual checking and savings accounts, to issue credit for investments, transfer money/credits from company to company such as a factory paying a supplier and from the governing institutions to individuals like pensions, payment for infrastructure and so on. Such a banking system is therefore a structure which makes possible the circulation of money/credit which in turn facilitates free individual choices in consumption. Is there debt in the system? No, as an individual you can only have what you can pay for in full. Exceptions would be high-cost items such as housing where interest-free payment plans should be offered by public developmental authorities. This is also how an ideology of sustainability can be encouraged. However, one can save portions of the National Wage to use for bigger consumer purchases such as large televisions. This way, we avoid the formation of financial capital by Mr. General Capital that may wish to loan out some of his savings for interest—the birth of private banking and capitalist activity in other words. In essence, this system guarantees most income will be consumed thus solving the problem of insufficient demand under capitalism where workers get paid too little to afford the goods they produced. Society will also be in a position to determine how much savings is required by extracting directly from production what is needed rather than relying on a pool of individual savers as under capitalist banking. Individual savings, however, would never be able to grow disproportionally large given equal income and wealth distribution. Profit and Worker-owned Firms In a market economy, firms must generate profits in order to be viable by maximizing the difference between total sales and total costs. A capitalist firm counts labor as a cost or a factor of production like land and capital. As a result, a firm maximizes profits by minimizing costs, in this case for labor. However, for worker-owned firms labor is not a cost because workers as owners would still obtain compensation regardless of profits or labor costs. Specifically, if worker-owners voted to reduce wages to $1, they would recoup the lost wages in the form of increased profits. Or, if the worker-owners voted to maximize wages at the total expense of profits, the firm would not cease operations because the lost profits will show-up as increased wages. 18

See, for example, Ellerman (1990), Schweickart (2011).

92

Chapter 3

What then is the difference between the proposed model and those of, for example, Schweickart or Wolff and many others who view worker-managed or worker-owned firms as a path toward egalitarian societies?19 Fundamentally, worker-owned firms competing with traditional capitalist firms present structural limitations for egalitarian change. One such limitation that most authors acknowledge is the preferential treatment in law and finance for corporate structures and a generally lagging legal code to address such new ownership structures. A more important limitation is that worker-owned firms do not change the social structure around which all relations are built. For example, how do worker-owned firms address political participation, and what happens with the unemployed or unemployable? Here the same critiques formulated by anarchists regarding unions as a force for class struggle apply. For example, unions are co-opted within the capitalist framework rendering structural change no more than rhetoric by union officials who often have lifestyles closer to that of employers than those they represent. They focus on their membership obtaining higher wages or healthcare rather than on the working class as a whole. Unions are degraded into a thing of the past in the United States or decorative pressure valves for workers to express themselves, leaving the system unchallenged both in the economic and political spheres. In other words, capitalism has normalized class conflict within nonthreatening boundaries of discourse. I think of unions today as the equivalent of George Orwell’s ‘Minute of Hate’ in 1984. Castoriadis questioned worker self-management in the following terms: Since the workers of the business firm depend in a thousand ways on the workings of the economy and society as a whole, it is completely unclear how self-management in the business firm could acquire any genuine content unless the collective organs of the producers and of the population themselves were to assume those functions of coordination and general orientation that at present are in the hands of the people who wield political and economic power.20 More so, Castoriadis, echoing the anarchist-communist critique of mutualism as a self-managed form of capitalism, contends that any form of hierarchy in decision making, or in incomes within self-managed firms by definition ­violates genuine equality. This is true to a large extent regarding real-world examples of self-managed or worker-owned firms in that there is a hierarchy 19 20

Schweickart, 2011; Wolff, 2012. Castoriadis, 1993: 209.

Material Relations

93

of  incomes—even if they are flatter than traditional corporate income ­pyramids—and differentiation along management-worker functions. It should be noted that income hierarchies are defended in the corporate and self-­ managed firms on various grounds including skills, expertise, and scarcity of talent. To the contrary, this serves as confirmation that in nature the two firm structures are no different. Castoriadis had foreseen these arguments revealing their fallacy for those espousing genuine equality: Of course, the existence of a hierarchy of command, of wages, and incomes is today “justified” by a host of arguments. …it must be noted that these arguments very clearly are ideological in character: they are made in order to justify, with an only apparent logic, a reality to which they are only remotely related, and they are formulated on the basis of presuppositions that themselves are never brought to light.21 He then proceeds to debunk the logical fallacies used to justify hierarchy which we will see in the next few pages regarding absolute income equality. In the proposed model, worker-managed (and later owned) companies are incorporated within broader economic, political, and cultural structures. Authority over Productive Property Various theorists hold that corporations can be socialized without being ­government-owned. Ellerman and Schweickart suggest each productive enterprise be controlled by their workers who are responsible for the operation of the facility, including organization, discipline, production techniques, and the nature, price, and distribution of products, which is more or less what works councils do.22 Decisions pertaining to distribution of proceeds are made democratically. Delegation of authority is based on democratic representation. Executives are not appointed by the State or elected by the demos. Since shareholders are expropriated, private equity does not exist nor determines firm personnel. Whatever internal structures are put in place, ultimate authority rests with the enterprise’s workers, “one person, one vote.” In Schweickart’s model, society owns the means of production that can be ‘leased’ by workers who self-manage their workplace and its assets.23 The lease is in the form of capital asset taxes that fund public investment authorities. Workers are also required to maintain a capital depreciation fund. A firm can 21 22 23

Ibid., 1993: 209. Ellerman, 1990; Schweickart, 2011. Schweickart, 2011: 50.

94

Chapter 3

sell off capital stocks and use the proceeds to buy additional capital goods. If the firm wishes, it can sell off some of its assets to contract its capital base in exchange for reduced tax and depreciation obligations. In these cases proceeds from the sale go into the national investment fund, not to the workers, since these assets belong to society as a whole. Profits are distributed among the workers. If they are below the national minimum wage the firm is declared bankrupt. In this case company assets are sold to pay creditors but cannot be used as income by the workers who must find work elsewhere. In addition, there would be almost no cross-border capital flows.24 Corporations would not be able to relocate abroad since their own workers control them. Financial capital would also lose its global mobility because investment funds will be publicly generated and legally constrained to domestic reinvestment. There would also be limited foreign investment because capital assets of the nation would be collectively owned and not for sale. In the model proposed here, society, not government or individuals (workers included), own productive resources. Worker-citizen corporate boards utilize these resources and operate them as now and along the lines of Schweickart’s model. Companies must generate sufficient sales to cover operating expenses/ production costs that include payment of the National Wage to all workers and capital depreciation. If demand/sales cannot cover these costs, the company must downsize as now to balance its books. Eventually it can be closed and workers would seek alternative employment. Company workers will have two choices how to use surplus revenue (profits). One is to give back the surplus to the community. A second option would be to invest in the company either in terms of hiring personnel or capital investments. In this model there would also be limited capital flows. Workers who control corporate boards will not allow companies to outsource production, nor would that be legal. In cases where the workers are the owners (as with workers’ collectives) they would also not be allowed to outsource production to poorer nations. If any kind of outsourcing were to be permitted it would effectively turn workers of developed nations into capitalist exploiters of their brothers and sisters in poorer nations. In truth, foreign investment would also dwindle in that foreign capitalists would not invest in nations where law requires they cede control to workers. Innovation and Small Business Innovation is said to be highest under competitive conditions for profit; that is, under capitalism. However there is no guarantee that innovation would not be as high in an egalitarian system. But, even if there were a negative relationship 24 Ibid.

Material Relations

95

between the levels of innovation and social equality, an argument can be made based on the consequences. Specifically, desirable outcomes should not be pursued if the methods to obtain them are socially unacceptable. For example, would it be acceptable to pursue futuristic medical discoveries by deliberately harming people? This in fact was how Nazi medical doctors derived their great breakthroughs, by experimenting on labor camp prisoners leading to their torturous mutilation and death. Such methods cannot be justified by the potential gains in knowledge. Similarly, if we assume innovation can only be maximized by hierarchical systems, there can be tradeoffs between the rate of technological innovation and the level of equality. In that case, it may be preferable to have equal societies for the social benefits that come with them such as better social indicators at the expense of the rate of innovation. Nonetheless, the libertarian socialist literature highly contests whether copyrights and patents encourage innovation under capitalism. Rather, research indicates innovation under capitalism is not as high as believed. For one, patents and copyrights clearly restrict rather than encourage innovation benefiting individuals at everyone else’s expense.25 An example of this is provided by a study analyzing the effects of 1279 gene patents.26 According to the findings, gene patents limited the production of future public knowledge by 5 percent. An immediate consequence includes the fleecing of the citizen by the artificial monopolies that patents create. Just one patented antibiotic (quinolones) cost the Indian citizen between $144 and $450 million more than under competitive conditions.27 This is made possible by the enforcement arm of the World Trade Organization, namely the agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (trips).28 As the researchers argued, as a result of medicine being restricted due to profit, we also experience a negative impact of patents on overall social welfare and well-being. In human terms this means people that could have been saved or had a dramatic improvement in their quality of life are rendered unprofitable by the markets. Thus, the consumer who cannot afford the price is permitted to die or live in agony. Moreover, critical theorists contend equal societies would exceed hierarchical ones in technological innovation. Freedom from want and increased leisure time would increase the rate of innovation. Another key difference is that in this model the fruits of knowledge are shared by all, reinforcing a virtuous cycle of growth with positive social outcomes. 25 McElwee, 2013. 26 Ibid. 27 Chaudhuri, Goldberg, and Jia, 2006: 1507. 28 Ibid., 2006: 1507.

96

Chapter 3

Then of course there is the legitimizing myth of small business itself held by capitalism. Going back to Table 2.1, the top 1 percent own 61.4 percent of all business equity compared to only 8.1 percent for the bottom 90 percent. The top 10 percent own collectively 91.9 percent. The top 1 percent own 35.4 of all stocks (88.9 percent for the top 20 percent) with 11.1 for the poorest 80 percent. Clearly, whatever small business exists under capitalism must be very small indeed. At the very least few would question that the distribution of ownership and control is highly unequal, so much so that it acts as a dampening force on innovation let alone encouraging it. In addition, the proposed model allows for innovation in the good oldfashioned way. Anyone can save his or her portions of their National Wage and/or apply for social credit from the banking system for an idea to start a productive enterprise. In that case, the individual innovator/manager will no longer receive the National Wage nor could this individual hire anyone for less than that and under socially agreed working arrangements such as the length of standard work time. This way, if the firm is not socially valuable it will not generate income nor will society be throwing resources at bad ideas. It will simply go bankrupt. If the firm is successful, initial net revenues (profit) are retained by the innovator up to the amount of the National Wage. Surplus revenues above normal operational expenditures can be returned to the community, or invested in the company in the form of capital assets or additional personnel. Once that company reaches a level of employment set by society, such as the number of workers, it reverts to collective worker self-management. Smaller-scale operations are left to the management of their founders. Individuals cannot buy or sell a company because it belongs to society. This gives the new system entrepreneurial freedom and innovation that has been harvested so successfully by capitalism.

Relations of Consumption

A socioeconomic system must address not only how to produce, but also how to distribute goods and services, including wealth, whether based on a wage system or not. There is virtual agreement among critical theorists regarding the shortcomings of a market-based wage system of distribution. However, one of the main problems, whenever self-rule has actually been practiced, was to work out how one contributes to and receives resources from the community in relation to distribution.29 Utopian formulas of exchange based on the idea 29

Guérin, 1970.

Material Relations

97

‘to each according to need, from each according to ability’ turned out to be very difficult to put into practice. How can community governance be combined with an economic system that is egalitarian and fair? Namely, how do we count or should we count? Whether or not we should count who contributes and consumes what and how much has a simple answer. For example, utopians who favor free ­consumption from the commons without any compulsion to work fail to ­recognize that such a system is unsustainable without a corresponding transformation in individual and social psychology.30 Currently, human nature is full of manufactured wants while many view work as something to be avoided at all costs (often for good reason in capitalist society). If we permitted unlimited consumption (without the requisite change in social psychology) we would quickly encounter shortages given limited resources. For this reason, and to avoid waste, everyone in the proposed model decides what is most important to them to expend their National Wage on. This maintains free choice while realistically addressing how we use our limited resources. Therefore, individuals pay for utilities such as water, electricity, heating, cooling, and for goods and services generally as in most current systems. Otherwise, it is in people’s nature to be wasteful when things are unlimited at no immediately perceived personal cost. If people could consume all they wanted, but work as little as they cared, few would be willing to work given current psychology. 30

My references in this work to peoples’ nature, psychology, or social psychology are based on scientific facts. For example, human emotions have been found to be stronger drives than logic, all things equal. These established psychological facts are based on clinical experiments and other forms of scientific research. However, other notions of established (pseudo) psychological facts such as capitalism’s assumption of human nature being individualistic and competitive are essentialist and reductionist–an example of a reified abstraction. For example, Durkheim wrote of “unlimited natural human desires or tendencies” in relation to social pathology. Merton’s discussion of Durkheim corrected this reified element in Durkheim by arguing that “human desires” (the pursuit of wealth and status and the corresponding means by which they are realized) are not some natural tendency but are instead desires that are socially produced, created, or manufactured—a well-known fact in marketing that uses emotional appeals in advertising (see, for example, Merton’s discussion of the American Dream, chapter 5 of Baran and Sweezy (1966), chapter 13 of Braverman (1998 [1974]), Goodman and Dretzin (2005), and Veblen (2012) on man­ufactured wants and capitalism’s transformation of social relations). In a similar way, my references to individual and social behavior, for example, in terms of desiring to maximize consumption while minimizing work, are in the context of an artificially created state of social psychology that is nevertheless real in terms of most peoples’ actual behavior. These social behaviors, or more accurately, social norms, can be changed. This though does not happen overnight but rather requires a long process of reeducation that may span generations.

98

Chapter 3

Realistically then we do need to count but this need not be an end in itself as in Albert and Hahnel’s parecon model. Instead, we should view this as a process toward those more idealistic social structures while allowing human psychology to adjust to new forms of social organization and thinking. For these reasons, practical solutions, such as those invoked during the Spanish Civil War, have included counting hours worked as payment into the system for ‘community credits’ with which to ‘obtain’ supplies at the community ‘store.’ In this sense, prices and income serve the basic functions of rationing (or distribution) and guiding the economy as to what needs to be produced. The real problem is that wage levels are set by class power relations that determine in turn which skill sets (labor) are valued by markets. According to Dahrendorf various positions and jobs are seen as superior or subordinate in relationship to others, leading to stratification.31 What, though, explains the stratification of positions? He argues that this is explained by the presence of general norms in a society that consider some skills or characteristics superior to others, resulting in discrimination against those who do not possess these characteristics or skills. For example, white-collar work is esteemed rather than blue-collar work. These norms however represent the interests of the powerful, thus value their characteristics, legitimizing their rule or position of authority. This type of ‘value’ is therefore fictitious. In fact, Karl Polanyi demonstrated that the very concept of labor as a commodity to be bought and sold as something separate from the individual is fictitious commodification, a point made by Marx and many critical theorists through the concept of alienation.32,33 Castoriadis goes the next logical step demonstrating that in capitalist societies, ideologies justifying income hierarchy based on differential levels of knowledge, qualifications, talents, responsibilities, or skill shortages are not only fictitious but contradictory.34 For example, he notes scientists have great knowledge in society but little power or income; air-traffic controllers are directly responsible for thousands of lives 31 32 33

34

Dahrendorf, 1959. Polanyi, 2001 [1944]. Alienation is the process whereby workers are made to feel estranged from the products of their labor, themselves, and society. In past economic systems workers could gain enjoyment from the fact that others obtain satisfaction from the product of their labor. Workers in a capitalist system must sell their labor (as property separate from their essence as human beings) to a capitalist for a wage in order to live. Workers are alienated from their labor’s product because they no longer own it. The product and all profits from its sale belong instead to the capitalist who purchased the labor-power from workers. Castoriadis, 1993.

Material Relations

99

every day but are paid far less than ceos of airline companies; regarding scarcity, there is a shortage of some semiskilled workers relative to a glut of lawyers yet the lawyers always earn more. Similarly, the argument that it is a weighted balance of many variables that determine income levels is based on arbitrary considerations. Stiglitz confirms, “it was clear that the link between pay and societal contribution was, at best, weak.”35 Consequently, income is a form of rationing based on class power instead of an objective measure of time worked or social contribution. For example, studies have shown ceo compensation cannot be objectively justified by market economics but by class power relations.36 Thus, the ceo has higher income even though the value of his labor does not justify it. Rather, his income is a return, a ‘rent’, a reward for his class power. Thus, the skilled income premiums for the ceo are fictitious. For example, a typical ceo in the 1960s made 42 times more than the average worker compared to 531 times more in 2005.37 Clearly, ceo productivity did not increase by 500 percent. As for capitalist return for risk and innovation, that too is bogus because the rate of return is socially determined based on class power as well. Arguing that markets determine a fair rate of return for risk is premised on the value judgment that markets should be making this determination in the first place. The global economic collapse caused in 2008 by the actions of Wall Street firms demonstrated the outcome of doing so. Since markets represent capital, clearly capital in essence is determining its own value. Otherwise, why is an innovative activist who takes risks with her own money and time to form a charitable foundation not rewarded with billions even when the organization is successful? In the new model, prices and wages are retained for their rationing and guiding functions but the basis upon which these are set would no longer be class power. If we accept that all people are equal then all socially necessary labor is also equal. If society should not be stratified, then neither should labor be so. Proudhon too made the point in his mutual aid model that the exchange of services would be equal therefore equalizing all labor. This makes socially necessary labor a homogeneous concept or ‘product’ measured by standard units of time at a given social average of intensity and ability. Just like a gallon of milk is the same regardless of who produced it, one hour’s worth of street cleaning is equal to one hour worked by a medical doctor. Why? Because all socially necessary labor is, well, labor. What Marx saw as simple versus complex 35 Stiglitz, 2012: 77. 36 Bebchuk and Fried, 2006; Burton and Weller, 2005. 37 WhoRulesAmerica.net.

100

Chapter 3

or compound labor was instead knowledge.38 It is a society’s pool of accumulated knowledge which builds on past discoveries that can be compound or complex. Labor is the medium through which knowledge is applied to the physical world in order to alter it. As such, all socially necessary labor, mental and physical, is equal (irrespective of who or what performs the work) to be measured by standard units of time such as, for example, one hour’s worth of work. Marx was wrong about the nature of complex or compound labor and for associating any type of value with labor rather than with knowledge for the same reasons he attributed Aristotle’s inability to deduce the next intellectual step toward a labor theory of value.39 Namely, according to Marx, Aristotle could not see the common link between commodities being human labor (free or slave) as creating ‘value’ because of his epoch’s zeitgeist which was based on devalued slave labor. In the following passage Marx is referring to Aristotle’s argument that there is no equivalency between a house and a bed: Aristotle therefore himself tells us what prevented any further analysis: the lack of a concept of value. What is the homogeneous element, i.e. the common substance, which the house represents from the point of view of the bed, in the value expression for the bed? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. But why not? Towards the bed, the house represents something equal, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both bed and the house. And that is—human labor. However, Aristotle himself was unable to extract this fact, that, in the form of commodity-values, all labor is expressed as equal human labor and therefore as labor of equal quality, by inspection from the form of value, because Greek society was founded on the labor of slaves, hence had as its natural basis the inequality of men and of their labor-powers. The secret of their expression of value, namely the equality and equivalence of all kinds of labor because and in so far as they are human labor in general, could not be deciphered until the concept of human equality had already acquired the permanence of a fixed popular opinion. This however becomes possible only in a society where the commodity-form is the universal form of the product of labor, hence the dominant social 38

For example, Marx discusses the value generated by simple versus complex labor in Volume I, chapter 1 of Capital (1977 [1867]). 39 The labor theory of value was first proposed by Adam Smith, and later David Ricardo and most famously Karl Marx. It stipulates that the value of a commodity (or service) is dependent only on the amount of labor required to produce it.

Material Relations

101

relation is the relation between men as possessors of commodities. Aristotle’s genius is displayed precisely by his discovery of a relation of equality in the value-expression of commodities. Only the historical limitation inherent in the society in which he lived prevented him from finding out what ‘in reality’ this relation of equality consisted of.40 Ironically, Marx could not discover the next step toward a knowledge theory of value by disentangling knowledge, value, and labor because he too was limited by his corresponding zeitgeist of hierarchical relations, in this case social not just economic, where status inequality was also a ‘natural basis’ for stratification. This prevented him from concluding, as he describes in the above passage, that all labor is homogeneous assuming we are all equals. This led him to see labor as ‘stratified’ from the simple to the complex with corresponding wage premiums as in, for example, the artisan versus unskilled worker. For example, how could a professor’s, or a medical doctor’s labor be equated to that of the janitor’s? This is the same malady of ego which to this day afflicts even radical scholars of the Left who see ‘educated’ labor as being worth more. But, if we are all equal, then we are all equally necessary or unnecessary. Can the medical doctor build her house, educate her children, sweep the streets, dispose of garbage, and produce her own clothing? Can a lawyer or college professor build their own automobile, computer, or furniture? This simple truth also “could not be deciphered until the concept of human equality” evolved to include not only producers but citizens more broadly where, for example, lgbts, janitors, atheists, blacks, and immigrants are seen as having equal social status with heterosexuals, lawyers, and whites, and have “acquired the permanence of a fixed popular opinion.” Castoriadis puts an interesting twist on the same point from the perspective of classical economics which Marxists share. Accordingly, a firm should hire additional workers until the wage of the last worker equals the (marginal) value of what she adds to output. This is all part of marginal analysis in classical economics. But for Castoriadis the whole theoretical framework is flawed in a world where the division of labor leads to the interdependence of all work: If, in a coal-fired locomotive, the train’s engineer is eliminated, one does not “reduce a little” of the product (transportation), one eliminates it completely; and the same thing is true if one eliminates the fireman. The “product” of this indivisible team of engineer and fireman obeys a law of all or nothing, and there is no “marginal product” of the one that can be 40

Marx, 1977 [1867]: 151–152.

102

Chapter 3

separated from that of the other. The same thing goes on the shop floor, and ultimately for the modern factory as a whole, where jobs are closely interdependent.41 Given the globalization of neoliberalism and McDonaldization of society, we can further extrapolate that all humans are interdependent. Therefore in an equal society there is only one form of labor, being neither skilled nor unskilled any more than a gallon of milk can be different relative to another gallon of milk. According to McCarthy, for Marx “The source of equivalence of goods rests in equivalence of persons…Marx indicates that the concept of value and the concept of human equality are elided into one concept: value.”42 Furthermore, although there is such a thing as use value, real value is something different.43 Value is not what someone is willing to pay for something or the labor time required for producing it as Marx argued. Rather value has its foundation in knowledge. Everything derives value from the knowledge required to create it while labor is the tool, the medium, for giving form to knowledge in the physical world. Plato had made the argument in his theory of forms. He wrote that a real tree, for example, is not any specific tree found in the material world but the ideal tree found in the world of ideas. The 41 42 43

Castoriadis, 1993: 213. McCarthy, 1992: 113. Use value is the utility or satisfaction derived from consuming a good or service. In Marx's critique of political economy, every good has a value and a use-value, and if it is traded as a commodity in markets, it has an exchange value as well, most often expressed as a money-price. According to Marx: “The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value. But this usefulness does not dangle in mid-air. It is conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity, and has no existence apart from the latter. It is therefore the physical body of the commodity itself, for instance iron, corn, a diamond, which is the use-value or useful thing. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When examining use-values, we always assume we are dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use-values of commodities provide the material for a special branch of knowledge, namely the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use-values are only realized (verwirklicht) in use or in consumption. They constitute the material content of wealth, whatever its social form may. In the form of society to be considered here they are also the material bearers (Träger) of…exchange-value. …Exchange-value appears first of all as the quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-values of one kind exchange for usevalues of another kind. This relation changes constantly with time and place. Hence exchange-value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange-value that is inseparably connected with the commodity, inherent in it, seems a contradiction in terms.” (1977 [1867]: 126)

Material Relations

103

idea of a tree is what represents any tree and, as a never changing concept, constitutes what is real (truth) to the ancients, whereas in the real world things are imperfect approximations of the ideal. The ‘house’ and ‘bed’ both originate in the idea of what they are. Knowledge of how to give them material form is derived from society’s overall knowledge base. In addition ‘cost’ is understood by Marx and contemporary economists as the expenditure of resources for producing or reproducing something. Labor’s only material cost is what it takes for it to survive and reproduce itself. Consequently, labor has no value in of itself beyond ‘use value.’ Similarly, Marx was wrong in thinking machines represent stored labor. Instead, they represent accumulated knowledge. Since labor has no value, neither do machines, beyond the material cost of creating and replacing them. The only value to be found is the knowledge that made it possible for humans to create mechanical copies of their productive abilities. Now machines can provide most of the labor required to operate society. If these machines are owned by everyone then no one is compelled to engage in forced labor setting them free to partake in other creative activities. But since it is the pool of accumulated societal knowledge (which is part of the commons or society’s total wealth) that made the creation of these machines possible then they are also part of the commons to which we all have right to. Once more, Castoriadis is pertinent here. Even according to Marxist and classical economic definitions of cost, income inequality would have to be at far lower levels than currently. This further demonstrates the arbitrariness of income hierarchy: For Marxist economics…wages…would in fact be equivalent to the cost of producing and reproducing this commodity [the worker] that is, under capitalism, labor power. Consequently, differences in wages between unskilled labor and skilled labor would have to correspond to the differences in training costs of these two categories (the main part of which is represented by the maintenance of future workers during their “unproductive” years of apprenticeship). It can easily be calculated that, on this basis, differences in pay could hardly exceed a 1:2 ratio (between labor absolutely devoid of all skill and that requiring ten or fifteen years of preparatory training).44 He continues to demonstrate why the only logical wage even by these standards is a common wage: 44

Castoriadis, 1993: 213.

104

Chapter 3

We must emphasize, moreover, that, even if academic or Marxist theory offered an explanation of wage differentiations, they would in any case be unable to furnish a justification for them. For, in both cases, the existence of different skills is accepted…as a given beyond debate, whereas in fact it is only the result of the overall economic and social system and of its continued reproduction. If skilled labor is “worth” more, it would be…in the Marxist view, because the family of this laborer has spent more for his training (and, theoretically, has to “recoup the costs”–which in practice signifies that the skilled worker will be able in his turn to finance the training of his children, etc.). Why, however, has this family been able to spend more—something that other families were not able to do? Because it was already privileged from the standpoint of income. …Let us add that if it is no longer the worker himself or his family but society that assumes these training costs…there is no reason for the person who has already benefited, at society’s cost, from professional training guaranteeing him a more interesting and less arduous job to profit a second time around in the form of a higher income.45 Because there is no true value (beyond use value) generated by labor, its cost being what it takes to survive and reproduce; because knowledge, which is socially generated, is the true creator of value; and given the moral position of universal equality of citizens, it is logical that there should be only one common wage for a standard work period. The minimum wage for labor is the cost to maintain and reproduce it (the worker). Beyond that, labor cost per unit is whatever compensation is socially agreed upon regardless of whose labor it is. The maximum hourly labor compensation, in turn, is determined by what a society can bear based on its material development and available resources. In short, the overall productive capacity determines the ‘wage level’ for a unit of labor and therefore the average standard of living. This could be represented by a society’s National Income as measured by national accounts. Consequently, so long as one contributes up to the required socially necessary time for operating society (3 hours per day, for example) then he or she would be compensated equally as everyone else. In essence this is how we can divide resources equitably once the means of production have been returned to the commons. Of course, there could always be allowances and adjustments in the system to reflect divergent needs based on disabilities, old age, and other similar criteria. These are details to be worked out by the citizens themselves. However, the model will build solidarity as the expansion or contraction of the economy would affect all boats equally. 45 Ibid.

Material Relations

105

More important, since we would be given a standard National Wage in compensation for our labor to obtain goods and services we desire, this system also maintains a guiding function of prices. Command economies lack this function ultimately leading to misallocations, shortages, and collapse, as do capitalist economies based on unequal income distribution leading to the excess production of luxuries and shortages of necessities. This means that in the proposed model individual choice still determines what and how much a society will produce in contrast to central planning. But, unlike the consequences of unequal wages under capitalism, in this system peoples’ needs would be met before luxuries are produced given the equality of compensation. In short, it maintains free consumer choice and flexibility of capitalism but with the equality of Left isms. This is the democratization of consumption, production, and of the allocation of resources. It is the creation of a single social class: that of worker-citizen. Income Distribution Income inequality in the United States is staggering. In 2006, the top 1 percent of the population received 21.4 percent of all income, the top 10 percent accounted for 47.2 percent, whereas the bottom 50 percent received only 14.6 percent.46 If we agree that labor is homogeneous and therefore all income should be equal what would be the standard annual compensation and for how many hours of work? The following example is for illustration purposes for a large society like the United States. From the 2012 National Accounts, personal income was $13,743.8 billion.47 If we divide $13,743.8 billion by the adult population of 235 million from the 2010 census the average income per capita would be $58,484. Since all adults would be required to work and be compensated equally, $58,484 would become in effect the National Wage. Of course, it is up to the community to make allowances for selected groups like the disabled, and retirees, which is a separate conversation. If one makes billions a year, as do some hedge fund managers, this compensation is equivalent to nothing.48 For the unemployed, underemployed, minimum wage earners, and working poor it is a dream come true. It is also probably more than many middle-class workers earn currently. Why? This National Wage would be tax-free, making it the equivalent of a $76,029 pre-tax income based on a 30 percent tax bracket. This also does not reflect the savings from guaranteed free national healthcare, free education at all levels, no property or sales taxes, 46 47 48

Kennickell, 2009–2013. u.s. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2013. See, for example, Creswell (2013).

106

Chapter 3

and so on. When everything is said and done the average living standard would be equivalent to that of someone earning over $150,000 per year in 2012. Let’s compare these figures to what people earn under the existing system. In 2010 median family income, meaning there could be more than one person working in that family, was $65,138 for whites; $39,715 for blacks, and $40,785 for Hispanics (in 2011 dollars) minus income taxes.49 A family with two working adults in the new system would be earning a family income equivalent to $152,058 pre-tax (in 2012 dollars). Therefore, although it is not a lifestyle of a billionaire or measly millionaire the majority would be materially better off under this system of equal compensation. Things become more interesting when we consider the length of the working week to earn the National Wage. Americans work an average of forty hours per week to earn less than under the proposed system as demonstrated. In a system where workers are the owners there is no need for surplus labor to generate profits for private owners. Thus automation is embraced, given guaranteed employment at the National Wage, with the effect of reducing the amount of socially necessary labor.50 If the American economy can function with a forty hour workweek, which is the longest among industrialized nations, it is reasonable to assume that the new workweek could drop immediately to twenty or fewer hours.51 With automation and new innovations to reduce necessary labor being embraced we could have that utopian ideal often discussed by Marxists and anarchists of a three-hour workday for perhaps a three- or fourday workweek! Alperovitz handedly demonstrates studies confirm existing technology could easily support a society based on a twenty-five-hour week.52 Unfortunately, the obstacle toward implementing this is the private profit motive or the pursuit of surplus labor. In addition, implementing such deep labor-saving technologies in a world based on private ownership of productive resources would result in cataclysmic unemployment. On the other hand, reducing work hours coupled with some system of adequate remuneration for the working population presents an existential threat to the elite. As anarchist anthropologist David Graeber notes “The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal 49 50

51 52

Mishel et al., 2003–2013, Median family income, by race and ethnicity, 1947–2010. Available at: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-table-2-5-median-family-income/. Socially necessary labor time in Marxist terms is the amount of labor time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given good or service. In this context, socially necessary work refers to the overall amount of labor time required to operate and maintain overall society. Mishel et al., 2003–13. Alperovitz, 2012.

Material Relations

107

danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ’60s).”53 If people had time to reflect upon their lives without financial distress the elite fear this would expose their corrupt rule leading to demands for fundamental reorganization of society. Therefore, the best way to control a population is by keeping them busy for long hours at meaningless tasks.54 Keeping them semi-starved also helps in that now people will be preoccupied with survival. Another indirect advantage resulting from the reduction in mandatory work hours is that it opens opportunities for groups that would otherwise be forced to forgo them as under both capitalist and real-world socialist systems. Currently, for example, many women are still found to be their family’s primary caregiver. This limits their available time for more demanding positions such as that of surgeons or ceos. Legally reducing work time down to a small fraction of one’s life (three hours a day, for example) opens opportunities for a wider segment of society. Then it would be possible for working mothers or fathers to be employed at any task they wish and are capable of while permitting a normal personal, family, and civic life. Theoretically this should also transform the division of household labor given reasonable societal workloads for both spouses coupled with social norms of gender equality. It gets even better. Nothing was said of corporate profits. These profits are in essence based on goods and services being sold for more than the cost to produce them. Instead of funneling these profits to the elite, society can finance social programs including education, healthcare, housing, infrastructure, social security, and so on. Second, the community can decide to charge below or at cost for items deemed important such as food staples while placing heavier premium pricing on luxuries and socially harmful products such as cigarettes and alcohol. Alternatively, society could eliminate what economists call externalities and free rider problems.55 Consequently this model increases allocative efficiency. For example, instead of building yachts, super cars, and mansions we would be building hospitals, schools, and housing for all. Instead 53 Graeber, 2013. 54 Ibid. 55 An externality or spillover is a benefit or cost from production or consumption, accruing without compensation to nonbuyers and nonsellers of the product or service. In classical economics, an efficient economy would eliminate all externalities so that the true costs of production and consumption are borne solely by the transacting parties. The free rider problem is the inability of potential providers of an economically desirable but indivisible good or service e.g., clean air, to obtain payment from those who benefit because the exclusion principle (the ability to exclude those that do not pay) is not applicable or unenforceable.

108

Chapter 3

of allocating resources for butlers, marketing executives, and financiers we would be employing educators, builders, and medical professionals. How would people afford big-ticket items like housing and cars? Items such as housing could be socially provided to everyone through societal development authorities that will charge rent toward ownership. As Proudhon argued, in a mutualist society ownership would be based on occupancy and use. Housing in this sense will also be based on occupancy. One can only own the home in which one resides. Individuals and families are not allowed to rent out their homes. Only society can offer rental housing but payments should be applied toward ownership of the housing units by their occupants. Better homes can be purchased from individuals or public housing development authorities, or rented from the housing authorities depending on how much of their income people wish to allocate toward housing. Also, citizens can choose to save portions of their National Wage for big-ticket items such as automobiles. If a family or individual sells their home or car, the net proceeds are retained by them. Those funds can be used to purchase a different home or other goods and services. Remember, in this system one can only accumulate based on a common and equal income stream. Therefore their purchases would have a logical limit as to how big they could be, given the natural ceiling on the savings rate that a fixed National Wage imposes. Thus such big items represent accumulated ‘fair shares’ or deferred consumption value/credits that naturally belong to and should revert back to the individual. Regulated Labor Markets: Hiring Halls If certain workers or professionals are allowed private practices/self-­ employment they will have the potential to earn more (or less) than others which brings us back to capital accumulation and the (re)birth of inequality. Furthermore, direct economic transactions between individuals or between firms are difficult to monitor and thus make it harder to enforce social regulations. For example, if I want someone to mow my lawn I could hire a person legally which obligates me to pay minimum wage, employer taxes, etc. Or, I could hire an undocumented or desperate worker on my own ‘off the books’ and get away with paying below the minimum wage and nothing else. On the flip-side, an individual may be in a position to privately charge more than prevailing wages for whatever reasons allow her to. Once more, this represents the birth of inequality and primitive capital accumulation. Here we see the logical problem faced by most theorists advocating an equalization of remuneration. If everyone is to be equally compensated, it logically degenerates into a single employer within the economy, namely the government. This was similar to the Soviet model which in turn resulted in woeful inefficiencies and waste, not to

Material Relations

109

mention continued hierarchical relations between workers and state bureaucrats. An old Soviet saying among workers was “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.” How then should someone obtain a job? Who employs independent professionals or the unemployed? And, how does everyone get paid? For example, if a household needs a plumber or attorney how would it obtain one? The answer: basically the same way they would now with some historical twists. As in times past, and in the present as well, labor markets can be regulated by converting existing local government unemployment offices into hiring halls. An example in the United States would include the old union halls for dock workers, minus the corruption. Although their use has diminished in the United States, they are found in Canada and many European countries. Typically, a union organizes and operates the hiring hall which in essence is an employment placement agency for its membership rather than workers at large. Traditionally, hiring halls are established for skilled workers, such as machinists. The union is responsible for verifying the qualifications of its members in terms of technical aptitude, professional behavior, adherence to a code of conduct, and other regulatory mechanisms. For these reasons employers dependent on skilled labor often prefer recruiting through hiring halls. When employers are not compelled to recruit exclusively from a hiring hall it is called an open shop. If perspective employers are contractually obligated to recruit exclusively members of a hiring hall it is called a closed shop. Closed shops are illegal in the United States but legal in many other countries depending on specific trades and regions. In an egalitarian system of direct economic democracy, hiring halls would function as a regulated public utility or employment market for all labor, whether skilled or unskilled. This model represents a closed shop for societal  labor with hiring halls functioning as regulators with the assurance, for example, that every registered hall member meets the standard hours of socially designated work in return for the National Wage, and that the quality of work would be performed according to accepted standards. As now, individuals should have the choice of employment at companies, as independent contractors, or establishing their own firm as outlined in another section of this chapter. Unemployed citizens or self-employed professionals would sign up with the local hiring hall and have the freedom of selecting  to  apply from available positions for which they qualify. Both firms and non-institutional employers, such as families, cannot hire anyone directly but through a hiring hall with the freedom to interview and select among perspective applicants. Firms and customers contact the hall for the type of worker they wish to hire or from whom they wish to obtain a quote on specific work needed, such as the addition of another bathroom to a

110

Chapter 3

home including average completion time and the number of workers required to complete the task. If the firm or customer agrees, they pay the hall which then pays the workers. All employers are permitted to terminate employment either for cause, when a project is completed, or other socially permissible reasons (for example, the firm needs to downsize production). Electronic versions of private hiring halls are in existence today in countries such as the United States. Truckers, plumbers, and so on register with online websites and bid on work posted by customers. As for supervision, it would be minimized to inspections by the labor hall once a job is completed, no different than town inspections at work sites to check building code compliance, labor standards, working conditions, and so on. Moreover, the employer or customer paying for a service can evaluate the workers and their performance as now through an online evaluation questionnaire that is visible to the public. If someone has a bad reputation as a worker or professional, few would be willing to hire the person. This acts as a disciplinary device to regulate behavior and quality of work without relying on armies of unproductive supervisors. Instead, workers are disciplined not by a capitalist but by the quality of their work and reputation. Through hiring halls, automated systems, and other strategies, the new model will have the structural ability to determine the type and amounts of socially necessary labor required for the maintenance of society including the production of wanted goods and services. In combination with material equality, this allows us to split education into two equal and parallel tracks teaching everyone from every age and ability the required skills necessary for the contribution of their fair share toward socially necessary labor. Both tracks should base the curriculum on principles of critical pedagogy.56 One track is vocational, the other is academic in the traditional sense. Both tracks are mandatory, say from kindergarten to grade 12. After that both continue on a voluntary basis and operate on a merit-based system. From the academic track we produce individuals with Ph.D.’s, medical degrees, and trained architects. From the vocational track we produce carpenters, hairdressers, and sorters for recycling plants. Now what if more people became Ph.D.’s in areas where there is not sufficient socially necessary work available? This should not constitute a serious problem because both tracks are interchangeable when it comes to what the individual does for socially necessary work or what we commonly refer to as a ‘living.’ Too many sociology professors and not enough trash collectors? Then all the sociology professors get to perform much less socially necessary work as 56

See, for example, Freire (2000), Gramsci (1971), McLaren (2006).

Material Relations

111

instructors in a classroom. Specifically, instead of teaching for three hours a day, the workload could be reduced to two for sociology instructors. But if that does not add up to the minimum work hours set by society, then the professors must make up the hours by engaging in other tasks where labor shortages are more acute, including trash collection or cutting hair. If aggregate demand is insufficient to employ all citizens, socially necessary work time can be reduced from say three to two hours. What everyone does with their time after that is up to them. Do research if you want or enjoy your gardening. Conversely, if aggregate demand exceeded what can be produced through full employment, socially required work time increases accordingly. And what if the desirable jobs like ballet dancer are either in low demand or have a high supply of qualified individuals so that only a small percentage would be needed despite all realistic reductions in work time for the profession? Say that three hours a day is the standard work requirement and dancers have reduced the profession’s time to one hour. They cannot reduce it further because of the nature of the work. As outlined, these dancers would still work for three total hours, one as dancers and two doing whatever else there is a demand for. But assume there is still less need, to the point that dancers will outnumber available positions regardless of how low the work-hour red­uctions go. Realistically, what this means is an evolution of hierarchy because some will work as dancers but others who are qualified will be left out and thereby forced to work in areas outside of their training and competency, perhaps as less prestigious pool lifeguards. One possibility is that the best dancers rise to the top and dominate these positions. A worse but more realistic possibility is that some will monopolize the positions on grounds other than excellence. Either way, this is the (re)birth of a caste system. From that point on there will develop a hierarchy of permanent haves and have-nots of prestige and status. These social relations will seep into all others, ultimately metastasizing into a social structure based on the organizing principle of inequality. A just solution is that everyone qualified be offered equal opportunities in work performance. Returning to our oversupply of dancers, positions can be rotated on a timely and regularly expected basis, as positions of authority in courts, legislatures, and corporate boards. Everyone qualified can now have the opportunity to contribute to society the art of dance in rotation with all other dancers within every X period of time. Notice that while rotation equalizes opportunity, according to studies it also enriches the overall work experience. Psychologically, it transforms the dancers from ‘unemployable bums that were too lazy or stupid to pick real jobs like banking’ into artists who work as everyone else for the same compensation by rotating tasks between performances, theatre management, school cross-guard duty, accounting, or as pool

112

Chapter 3

lifeguards, all of which are based on a two track educational system that combines vocational and academic training by developing students’ innate talents into a natural division of labor where all share equally in production and consumption. Moreover, relying on hiring halls bypasses the need to have a ‘government’ as the all-encompassing employer and assures self-employment is an option without this also leading to new micro-capitalist accumulation. Furthermore, this system has continuity with the past and peoples’ everyday experiences. The proposed model also enables us to standardize the cost per service in units of labor time. Essentially, given the equality of remuneration and work time, this process homogenizes labor into time units of equal worth to be exchanged as needed without relying on a barter system for labor. Therefore this represents the practical implementation of a labor exchange advocated by some early anarchists such as Proudhon. No one can earn additional income regardless of time or effort. If we allowed this it would result in Mr. General Capital saving up more than others with which to engage in a process of accumulation (of resources, goods, anything that translates into power) resulting in a hierarchical society. Last, efficiency is increased dramatically. Specifically, there could be hiring halls in each locality. These can be automated online with absolute transparency to avoid favoritism, corruption, and so on. For example, anyone should be able to look up who worked where, when, for how long, and how their work performance was rated. All hiring halls could have their data networked through a central processing center. This allows the system to identify the type and quantity of labor and projects that are needed across localities and regions further increasing allocative and planning efficiency. Unemployment without cause will occur in the system, as everywhere in history, but now it will be possible to assign work to everyone who is able and willing. However, since the system can quantify how much labor is actually needed, it will be possible to reduce overall hours of work across society by putting surplus labor to work versus on the streets to keep wages of the employed low and their hours long. In sum, a universal wage and the labor hall system represents the collectivization of labor rather than of productive property alone. Distribution of Productive Property Proudhon famously asked “what is property?” in his book of the same title, answering “property is theft.”57 Similarly, today when we ask what is wealth we can reply that wealth is a euphemism for stolen resources from the commons. 57

Proudhon, 1994 [1840].

113

Material Relations

There is only societal wealth. It includes the zeitgeist of the epoch, its mode, means, and forces of production, overall levels of knowledge and discovery, and natural resources including land, air, and sea. According to Figure 3.1, societal wealth represented by the size of the pie is finite at a given time although over time it can expand or contract, just like a nation’s gdp. If one accepts that wealth thus defined is social, then private wealth is wealth removed from the overall stock. The distinction between public and private wealth is therefore socially constructed by entrepreneurs today, feudal lords and kings in times past. The divide in the pie represents the fault line of class conflict by which power determines the control of wealth. When the upper class dominates, the frontline is pushed into the public domain increasing the share of privately controlled wealth and vice versa. Government, corporations, the media, education, and guns and tanks are all weapons used in this class warfare by various social groups to gain material advantage. Consequently, by definition class war is a zero sum game at a given time. An increase in one side of the pie can only come at the expense of the other. This is what is meant by privatization under capitalist globalization: the proportion of societal wealth being siphoned through legal fictions from the public commons. This struggle has been ongoing throughout all history.

Side A Public Ownership (All Benefit)

Side B Private Ownership (Individuals Benefit)

A

B

Frontline of class conflict where power determines the flow of wealth. Figure 3.1 Total societal wealth.

114

Chapter 3

During feudalism, it was the aristocracy that managed to secure large societal resources as with the infamous English enclosure laws of the 12th, 18th, and 19th centuries at the expense of peasants. Then along came the bourgeois revolutions after which I am the trespasser on Bill Gates’s company grounds or I use ‘his stolen software’ without paying him. During the Great Recession begun in 2008, the historic rates of home foreclosures and trillions in corporate bailouts at taxpayers’ expense represent a modern form of financial enclosures. This also includes access to knowledge which is restricted by copyrights and patents. Since everything is a product of accumulated societal knowledge, so too discoveries and inventions are socially produced even if it was an individual that put two and two together.58 Copyrights and patents are private property rights and as such remove knowledge from society’s overall pool. This means less people have access to knowledge hidden behind patents and thus innovation is stifled. In short, patents and copyrights are the equivalent of privatizing knowledge and therefore end up being privatized forms of true value and wealth. As Slavoj Žižek explains: The problem is always the same. It’s the enclosure of the commons. Marx was talking about land and property when he wrote about this, but today intellectual property is our commons, information is our commons. Something that Marx could not have predicted is taking place today: we are witnessing a strange regression to the same kind of enclosure of the commons, and people having to pay rent to people like Bill Gates for intellectual property.59 This implies another radical idea, namely the elimination of all copyrights and patents, returning knowledge to the public domain. Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and all other capitalists did not invent, create, or innovate anything other than how to profit at public expense. They simply built on the overall publicly available social level of development or alternatively the existing knowledge base. If it was not them, others would have done what they did working from that same base of existing social knowledge. Mark Lemley, a Stanford professor, writes: Surveys of hundreds of significant new technologies show that almost all of them are invented simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by two or

58 59

Stiglitz, 2012: 78. Žižek, 2010.

Material Relations

115

more teams working independently of each other. Invention appears in significant part to be a social, not an individual, phenomenon. Inventors build on the work of those who came before, and new ideas are often either “in the air” or result from changes in market demand or the availability of new or cheaper starting materials. And in the few circumstances where that is not true—where inventions truly are “singletons”—it is often because of an accident or error in the experiment rather than a conscious effort to invent.60 But history exhibits a bias toward the fallacy of attribution. According to Michel Foucault, “The history of knowledge has tried for a long time to obey two claims. One is the claim of attribution: each discovery should not only be situated and dated, but should also be attributed to someone; it should have an inventor and someone responsible for it.”61 Furthermore, most basic and theoretical research is publicly funded through university labs, government grants, and the military, making knowledge a public good according to Stiglitz.62 However, the benefit from publicly derived knowledge is privatized and, therefore, restricted for profit: Bill Gates built his fortune by privatizing research performed by the Department of Defense. His most significant contribution, from his own mouth, was the use of graphical user interface. GUI was largely developed by Douglas Engelbart, who was funded by the Air Force, but his research was only possible because of advances in batch processing (the use of punch cards, developed in the 19th century to automate fabric design during weaving).63 Yet, as can be seen, the applications of that basic research are given to corporations as patents. For example, in 2001 corporations accounted for 82 percent of total u.s. patent holdings.64 In contrast, individuals owned 17 percent of all u.s. patents.65 The Federal Government’s share was only 1 percent.66 Innovation therefore occurs at public expense while the benefit is privatized. 60 Lemley, 2012: 711. 61 Foucault, 1971. 62 Stiglitz, 2012: 93. 63 McElwee, 2013. 64 See National Science Board (nd). 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid.

116

Chapter 3

On a related note, material growth as measured by gdp does not reflect a society’s true growth or its overall well-being.67 More specifically, gdp only counts market transactions, excluding non-market activity. Therefore, the value of child services provided by a stay-at-home mother is not measured. Neoclassical economists acknowledge gdp is not an index of a society’s wellbeing but a measure of the annual volume of goods and services produced by a nation in a given year. A number of things could improve well-being without being measured by gdp such as expansion of civil rights and crime reduction. Other shortcomings of gdp as a wellness index are that it does not account for the level of available leisure time, improved product quality, black market transactions, environmental quality, how concentrated wealth distribution is, and whether resources are efficiently allocated given unequal income distribution. Rather, the measure of true growth and well-being is a society’s level of knowledge which is collectively produced building on prior knowledge. It is knowledge which allows people to create what we see around us. The material building blocks for everything, including skyscrapers, computers, and spaceships, have always been present. What was lacking was the knowledge of how to combine things to create what we have today. Therefore, a society’s overall level of knowledge is the only measure of not just growth but real value as well. In addition, a society’s pool of knowledge increases exponentially with the extent of societal education as we are all capable of intellectual production and more educated minds can result in more discoveries and inventions. As many have argued, from Plato to Althusser, and in contrast to Marx, it is ideology which shapes the material world.68,69 Specifically, it is the overall pool of knowledge combined with the extent of educational attainment of a society which generates ideology and develops the material forces of production.70 67 68 69

70

Stiglitz, 2012. Althusser, 2001. For Marx, material relations are society’s foundation, shaping ideology (which constitutes part of society’s superstructure) as found in this passage: “In the social production of their ex­istence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” (Marx 1978b [1859]: 4) Forces of production (produktivkräfte) as used by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology (1978c [1845–1846]), can be translated both as productive forces and as productive powers. Unfortunately, Marx and Engels were not specific and ambiguity persists about the correct usage of the term. In general, however, the forces of production refer to the means of production and labor power including production of knowledge.

Material Relations

117

The greater a population’s level of educational attainment the greater the level of knowledge which can be applied to the forces of production such as through new and more-productive machines and software. At the same time the greater the extent of societal education the greater the possibility of reaching more social subgroups, including the underprivileged. However, if a society has subordinate groups it must control them, often physically with violence, but primarily through internalized control by means of a legitimizing dominant ideology usually embedded in superstition such as religion. Hinduism with its caste system is a classic example. Education has the effect of increasing critical thinking including the ability to articulate and respond to injustice. As such, although a society’s productive forces are developed further when education is widespread, it also gives birth to a class-conscious counter ideology by subordinate groups. From that point, it is a matter of time before the subordinate group demands a new social order. This is the true birth of revolution. The spread of knowledge through education develops the productive forces and gives birth to ideological challenges against the existing social order. Wealth distribution in the United States is the most unequal in the industrialized world. In 2007 the richest 1 percent owned 33.8 percent of all wealth compared to only 2.5 percent for the bottom 50 percent of the population.71 The dominant ideology of the United States is that anyone can succeed if one just works hard enough and is intelligent. Clearly, these distribution figures expose this myth as it is hard to imagine that half of the population can be so lazy and unintelligent to own collectively so little. Likewise, it is incomprehensible to think 1 percent can work so much more and be so intellectually superior to the bottom 99 percent to own close to half of everything. How can 400 individuals be worth more than $2 trillion in 2013 when hundreds of millions have nothing?72 That the rich get richer at the expense of workers can also be demonstrated by the distribution of productivity gains. True corporate ownership rests in the hands of the elite as demonstrated by stock ownership. For example, in 2007 the top 1 and 5 percent of households owned 38.3 and 69.1 percent respectively of all stocks.73 The wealthiest 20 percent accounted for over 90 percent of all stock ownership whereas the bottom 80 percent of the population accounted for only 8.9 percent.74 In turn, productivity has been increasing over the past few decades while workers received stagnant or declining income shares. From 71 Kennickell, 2009–2013. 72 Forbes.com. 73 Wolff, 2010. 74 Ibid.

118

Chapter 3

1992 to 2007 productivity increased by 25.4 percent but median compensation grew only 0.8 percent while remaining at 0 from 2002–2007.75 From 1973 to 2011, productivity grew by 80.4 percent but median hourly compensation increased by only 10.7 percent documenting this is a long-term trend.76 Economists at Goldman Sachs confirm that “The most important contributor to higher profit margins…has been a decline in labor’s share of national income.”77 Clearly a rising tide has not lifted all boats. Because the working class has been totally defeated through de-unionization, free trade agreements, and so on, all economic gains accumulate to the owners of capital. Consequently productivity gains with flat incomes can only be rationalized based on class power just like the compensation of ceos. It would be a waste of paper to engage in any further arguments and rationalizations as to this injustice, especially since others have already devoted entire forests to demonstrate this plain truth: the wealth of the rich is based exclusively on class power and ownership of productive resources which translates into advantages and privileges in all other spheres of life. Consequently, there is no such thing as equal opportunity which is the final legitimizing safe-stop myth in the United States against meaningful direct action and ultimately revolution. Class war is an ongoing fact rather than something to be avoided as so frequently warned against by the system’s major representatives, especially politicians, capitalists, and judges. The problem with the current state of affairs is that the plutocrats have won a spectacular victory over everyone else and continually try to keep this from the public consciousness lest there be resistance from the populace. This is why the media are collectively owned by the elite: to control the free flow of information and ideologies that lay bare the legitimizing myths in support of counter ideologies. If opportunity was equal, then resource ownership would also have to be equal in addition to the availability and quality of education, healthcare, and housing. Does this mean we would all be equal in poverty as has been often said about the former Soviet Union? No. For example, the total net worth of all Americans combined in 2007 was $64,897.9 billion.78 Divided equally among 235 million adults we would each have an instant net worth of $274,885! This while earning the equivalent of a $76,029 pre-tax income per year.

75 Mishel et al., 2003–2013. 76 Ibid. 77 Greenhouse and Leonhardt, 2006. 78 Kennickell, 2009–2013.

Material Relations



119

Resource Use

Capitalism engulfs ever-increasing segments of society through its logic of perpetual growth which contrasts with the reality of finite resources. For example, we are over-fishing the oceans, deforesting the planet through logging and farming, and over-extracting fossil fuels, all of which translate into adverse environmental consequences. The main problem is that capitalism does not consider the use of resources to be productive unless they yield profits. However, not all productive activities can be measured in market terms as we have seen. For example, when European colonists entered the forests populated by indigenous people they thought the latter were wasting the land in that they were not practicing European forms of cultivation for profit, which also assumes the concept of private property.79 What the Europeans did not realize is that the indigenous people were in fact using the land in a productive manner. The difference is that their techniques were based on sustainable and communal use rather than for market profits based on private property. Overall, capitalist use of resources based on an ideology of perpetual growth is unsustainable. This is a common position taken by market socialists such as Schweickart and non-market theorists like Albert and Hahnel.80 In addition, there is capitalism’s tendency toward commodification as it expands domestic markets into more spheres of life creating a further drain on resources.81 Direct democracy, in contrast, is the truly rational system, balancing technical, social, and environmental efficiencies. Production would be based on sustainable development. This is because the producers are also vested local resident citizens who have such concerns rather than geographically removed private interests that often oppose such methods due to cost and profit motives. For example, the ceo of a waste incinerator does not mind locating it in an urban black residential area. Of course, the white ceo lives somewhere in Cannes, Fiji, a compound in Colorado, or usually all three.

What to Produce

Capitalism is ripe with what Thorstein Veblen termed conspicuous consumption  and the production of new unnecessary needs sold by an ever growing 79 80 81

McMichael, 2012. Albert and Hahnel, 1991; Schweickart, 2011. See, for example, chapter 5 of Baran and Sweezy (1966), chapter 13 of Braverman (1998 [1974]), Goodman and Dretzin (2005).

120

Chapter 3

­marketing class that applies cult and propaganda techniques to an unsuspecting public.82,83 This leads to the production of goods and services that are profitable regardless of whether they are needed. Together with unequal distribution based on wage income, which is itself based on power, the result is an overproduction of luxury items for the elite rather than basic needs such as affordable housing that the working class cannot afford. Castoriadis writes, “Wage and income hierarchy is equally incompatible with a rational organization of the economy of a self-managed society, for such a hierarchy immediately and heavily falsifies expressions of social demand.”84 This is empirically documented by America’s chronic shortage of affordable housing combined with a glut of McMansions. Therefore, the allocation of resources under capitalism is inefficient and wasteful in that it fails to maximize total utility for society at large in either economic or social terms, a basic goal of any efficient economic system. Castoriadis, using France as an example, demonstrates in simple terms that inequality prevents allocative efficiency and can be clearly seen as unjust. He assumes the bottom 80 percent of the population receives a mean net income of 20,000 francs (with many of that population earning far less) and the top 20 percent a mean net of 80,000. In this example, the bottom 80 percent and top 20 percent would each receive half of all available income. Since the richest 20 percent have the same buying power as the bottom 80 percent, it …means, too, that around 35 percent of the country’s production…[is] oriented exclusively toward satisfying the demand of the most favored group of the population after the satisfaction of the “basic” needs of this group; or again, that 30 percent of all persons employed work in order to satisfy the nonessential needs of the most favored.85 Graeber has noted “In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week.”86 82

83 84 85 86

See Veblen (2012). In sociological terms one shows one’s class position and, or social standing through the type of goods and services they consume. For example, a well-to-do person may eat dinner at an expensive restaurant wearing an expensive watch whereas a poor person would eat at home and wear a modest watch. See, for example, Baran and Sweezy (1966), Braverman (1998 [1974]), Goodman and Dretzin (2005). Castoriadis, 1993: 225. Castoriadis, 1993: 226. Graeber, 2013.

Material Relations

121

Schweickart demonstrates that based on studies it is possible to have arrangements such as a six-hour work day with three month vacations or work one year with paid sabbaticals every other year and so on.87 Why then has none of this materialized? More so, contemporary economists generally approach the question of what to produce in material terms; that is, in terms of goods and services, while neglecting leisure as a desirable option altogether. This is not a coincidence. The internal logic of capitalism is based on perpetual profit growth which is mostly met through continuous increases in consumption. Practically, high consumption levels require working longer hours. Indirectly, capitalists understand that if workers had the choice between more consumption versus more leisure, opting for the former would result in reduced sales, thus profits.88 Capitalist therefore have the incentive to limit leisure. Of course, they also increase profits through exploitation which incentivizes them to lengthen the standard workweek rather than shorten it. Indirectly, long work schedules also prevent and distract people from having time to engage in anything else including critical reflection of existing social arrangements. People’s minds are thus effectively controlled, limiting the time to develop organic counter ideologies. Consequently, the question of what to produce in a democratic society should also include the option of increased leisure at the expense of work and consumption. Another inefficiency of capitalism includes negative externalities. These externalities range from the social (not having healthcare, remuneration below the level of a living wage), to the environmental (pollution, deforestation), to the psychological (insecurity and stress from contingent work, alienation, and crime). Such externalities exist ultimately because the producer’s private interest (profit maximization) and the individual consumer are separated from that of the public good. This is the result of private property detached from the public good. Production under direct democracy would focus on what is actually needed versus artificially created needs for two reasons. First, the decision of what to produce would be made by the citizen-workers given self-rule. Second, distribution would be based on an equal income share of society’s total production rather than wage income, while maintaining a price mechanism. This egalitarian purchasing power would be spent on whatever people consider more important to them. In economic terms, everyone makes their own choice between opportunity costs as perceived by themselves rather than a central planner or assembly vote. Also, luxury production would occur after basic 87 Schweickart, 2011: 106–112. 88 Ibid.

122

Chapter 3

needs of all are fulfilled. Therefore, direct democracy would allocate resources more efficiently based on marginal utility (need or satisfaction). In regard to the question of who builds infrastructure, there would be, as now, societal development authorities—similar to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey—financed by social credit through the utility banking system.

How to Produce

It has been commonly accepted among classical theorists that capitalism employs the most technologically efficient means separated from non-­ technical considerations such as social efficiency. For example, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, and others since have criticized the forced division of labor under capitalist production leading to unsatisfactory work life and alienation versus a natural division of labor based on peoples’ talents, skills, and preferences. Contemporary critical theorists, including neoclassical economists such as Joseph Stiglitz argue capitalism is not efficient even from a technical perspective. For example, is it efficient to produce based on planned obsolescence?89 A common example would be new model years for automobiles and updated iPhones. How efficient is production based on finite fossil fuels that slowly destroy the environment and all living things? Alperovitz also points out the inefficiencies stemming from corporate frauds to manipulate markets as in the case of enron in the California electrical crises of 2001–2002 that defrauded the public coffers to the tune of billions90 and also the billions of tax dollars spent on savings and loan bailouts during the 1980s and 1990s and the 2008 Wall Street bailouts.91 Stiglitz, in turn, argues that lobbying also distorts markets by giving political privileges to large connected firms seeking “rents.”92 According to Zepezauer,

89

Planned obsolescence in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor that might also rely on planned obsolescence. The marketing of new iPhone models every year with marginal improvements would be one example. 90 Alperovitz, 2012. 91 Ibid. 92 Stiglitz, 2012.

Material Relations

123

we now have corporate “wealthfare” where billions of tax dollars are given as subsidies and so on to profitable corporations such as General Electric.93 An indirect consequence of these massive distortions in the economy is dramatically reduced investment in public goods and services such as infrastructure and education. Finally, Alperovitz wonders just how efficient corporations are when their managers get compensated much more than their comparable public sector peers: William Harrison, former JP Morgan Chase ceo, earned $21 million in 2001 while William J. McDonough, president of the New York Federal Reserve, earned $297,500.94 An even greater structural inefficiency of capitalism includes unemployment. It is well documented that capitalist economies often experience rates of unemployment well above what is considered a ‘natural’ rate such as, for example, when people are willingly in between jobs. In the West official unemployment rates since 2008 ranged between 10 to 30 percent, but higher when we include those who have dropped out of the labor force (discouraged workers); and, those who remain underemployed (those seeking full-time work but finding only part-time or temporary employment). In 2013, Spain, Greece, and other southern European Union nations saw their youth unemployment reach over 60 percent with an overall national average ranging from 20 to 30 percent.95 These are entire generations of able-bodied people willing to work that are being wasted. Greece’s largest union estimated that it would take at least twenty years for employment to reach pre-crisis levels.96 This perhaps is capitalism’s greatest inefficiency. Ironically, unemployment and poverty generate resentment and division among the working class. Why should some work for so little and be taxed to support those in need of assistance when it is the system keeping wages low and people in poverty to the benefit of the elite? This brings us to the issue of unnecessary labor, of which there are two types. First, there is labor that could be performed through automation. This is inefficient from an economic perspective because it occupies peoples’ time when they could be freed to engage in other productive activities or leisure. Second, capitalism employs armies of unproductive labor in unnecessary industries. Sales and marketing are the clearest examples including the financial industry and the excessive numbers of supervisory positions generally.97 93 Zepezauer, 2004. 94 Alperovitz, 2012: 74–5. 95 Smith, 2013. 96 Ibid. 97 See, for example, Baran and Sweezy (1966), Cassidy (2010), Graeber (2013), Schweickart (2011).

124

Chapter 3

In addition, Stiglitz argues that people have a general sense of fairness and when it is violated morale goes down together with productivity—an observation dating as far back as Alfred Marshall in 1895.98 He explains that this is a basic tenet of neoclassical labor economics expressed through the efficiency wage theory. The author recounts a major study, by Princeton University economists, of Bridgestone/Firestone tires. When management unilaterally increased work hours, rearranged shifts and cut wages by 30 percent, productivity dropped, leading to defective tires being put on the road. More than a thousand died as a result. Inequality, Stiglitz further demonstrates, has an insidious effect upon our psyches that affects our productivity and cognitive capacity in general. When we are stressed and constantly anxious about being evicted from an apartment, losing a home, accessing quality healthcare, having enough food to eat, or whether we’ll be the next to be downsized, our performance in the workplace and personal sphere suffer. Worse, spending one’s full energies on survival, as the poor in the United States must, drains cognitive resources that could be applied toward escaping the situation altogether and it impairs the ability to absorb new knowledge.99 In terms of productive efficiency, there is no reason to believe that the most technically efficient production methods would not be utilized under direct democracy as well. If anything, efficiency and automation should reach new unimagined levels once the forces of production are freed from capitalist relations, realizing their full potential. For example, capitalism has the capacity to extend and deepen automation far beyond current levels. But because this would result in massive structural unemployment it is curtailed by capitalists and resisted by labor resulting in a chronic battle over the proper ratio of capital to labor dating back to the Luddites of 19th-century England. However, under direct democracy unemployment is a non-issue, since everyone’s basic living standards would be guaranteed through available employment options. Therefore automation would be embraced in order to reduce socially necessary work time. As a result, people would be freed to pursue other creative activities. In the area of work/production this translates into greater levels of specialization based on a natural division of labor discussed by critical theorists. This would give us greater advancements in knowledge and available services, increasing the overall standard of living. Thus, such an implementation of technology results in greater efficiencies.

98 Stiglitz, 2012. 99 Ibid.

Material Relations

125

The data also demonstrates that worker-owned or worker-managed companies are just as efficient, if not more so, than traditional capitalist companies.100 As Schweickart writes: A HEW study in 1973 concludes, ‘In no instance of which we have evidence has a major effort to increase employee participation resulted in a long-term decline in productivity.’ Nine years later, surveying their empirical studies, Derik Jones and Jan Svejnar report, “There is apparently ­consistent support for the view that worker participation in management causes higher productivity. This result is supported by a variety of methodological approaches, using diverse data and for disparate time periods.” In 1990, a collection of research papers edited by Princeton economist Alan Blinder extends the data much further and reaches the same conclusion: worker participation usually enhances productivity in the short run, sometimes in the long run, and rarely has a negative effect. Moreover, participation is most conducive to enhancing productivity when combined with profit sharing, guaranteed long-range employment, relatively narrow wage differentials, and guaranteed worker rights (such as protection from dismissal except for just cause).101 Real-life examples include the u.s. plywood cooperatives in the Pacific Northwest that have been electing management as far back as the 1940s. The Mondragon cooperatives in Spain are another example, in this case on the same multinational scale as traditional corporations.102 Furthermore, there are no empirical studies to suggest managers elected by workers are any more or less competent than management in traditional firms. In addition, direct democracy would incorporate social efficiencies. Specifically, work would be based on a natural division of labor. This means that people would be free to pursue productive activities that they enjoy and are conducive to their natural talents and abilities. This is true because under capitalism people are forced to pursue employment based largely on income considerations. Thus the old joke ‘what are you going to do with a degree in philosophy.’ Under direct democracy this is not a problem since remuneration is equalized allowing one to pursue productive activities without income concerns. This means that we would obtain more specializations in areas that currently are underdeveloped because they are not profitable in a market economy 100 Alperovitz, 2012; Wolff, 2012. 101 Schweickart, 2011: 61. 102 Azevedo and Gitaby, 2010.

126

Chapter 3

and thus provide few income opportunities. Direct democracy would provide for the development of greater specializations with societal value. For example, we would not have teacher shortages, and every neighborhood and individual could have their personal dietician, which today would be considered a luxury to be afforded only by the elite. Furthermore, fairness pays massive health and social dividends. For example, we could increase life expectancy, decrease infant mortality rates, and increase the minimum standard of living and overall levels of societal health far beyond those of the current hierarchical systems. According to Marmot, extensive studies, based on British civil servants, experiments on rhesus monkeys, Indian cigarette factory workers, and statistical analyses confirm social status impacts our health.103 Specifically, differences in status generate differences in health outcomes. For example, socioeconomic inequality, even more than poverty, results in a life expectancy for the poor nine years shorter than for the affluent.104 The argument goes beyond what can be explained by health consequences from the hardships of extreme poverty such as access to healthcare, diet, and lifestyle, which account for only one third of the disparity. Marmot demonstrates that the rest of the gap is better explained by the lack of control over one’s life among the poor, resulting in stress and poor health.105 This is referred to as the health gradient, a concept that has become accepted in public health circles outside of the United States. This explains why the richest country in the world has some of the lowest health outcomes ranking 34th in infant mortality rates and 36th in life expectancy.106 Even from a technical standpoint of dollars and cents, the United States spends more per person on healthcare than any other nation while receiving far worse outcomes.107 More so, research has found that a nation’s income gap between rich and poor is the most powerful indicator of a healthy society. In this sense, the Gini coefficient becomes a good quantitative measure of social inequality but also social health indirectly.108 America’s Gini coefficient of 0.477 is the highest in 103 Marmot, 2005. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 United Nations, nd. 107 World Health Organization, 2009. 108 The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality based on, for example, levels of income. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality where everyone has equal income. A Gini coefficient of one expresses maximum inequality, for example, where only one person or top income bracket has all the income.

Material Relations

127

the industrial world.109 Studies based on data from the Centers for Disease Control, who, and numerous scientific organizations found that societies with greater income inequality have increased social problems across the board.110 This was based on comparisons between the top and bottom 20 percent within the wealthiest countries in the world and among all u.s. states. Income inequality is linked with higher rates of homicide, obesity, drug use, mental illness, anxiety, teenage pregnancies, and high school dropouts. Interestingly, unequal societies negatively impact everyone within them including the rich and middle class due to stress and anxiety derived from status competition.111 Therefore, reducing income inequality improves life outcomes for everyone, not just the poor. These studies also identified economic growth driven by hyper-­consumerism as a contributing factor toward inequality and the associated stress with its negative impact on overall health. This happens because of competitive pressure in market economies to signal social status through conspicuous consumption. Therefore the emphasis is on consumption and growth rather than saving and sustainable economies.112 Inequality has even been scientifically proven to cause and result from unethical behavior.113 Accordingly, seven studies have shown upper class people behave more unethically than those in the lower class. For example, upper class people were more prone to break the law while driving, make unethical decisions, take valued goods from others, lie in negotiations, cheat for prizes, and endorse unethical behavior at work. The studies used naturalistic and experimental methods. As significant, the lead researcher explained in followup interviews that the studies indicate anyone, regardless of class, when in a position to gain or benefit from a clearly unfair, even rigged, situation starts to behave in the manner described above.114 According to the findings, this implies that inequality inherently produces self-deception to justify its continuance. A society based on egalitarianism, by extension, would reinforce a virtuous cycle of ethical behavior and serve to prevent the psycho-structural conditions that encourage unethical behavior. Finally, there are inefficiencies resulting from positive and negative externalities associated with capitalism such as environmental pollution. So long as 109 u.s. Census Bureau, 2012b. 110 Pickett and Wilkinson, 2011. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Piff et al., 2012. 114 pbs News Hour, 2013.

128

Chapter 3

one can profit at the expense of someone else’s clean air, water, or safety one will be incentivized to do so. But under direct democracy everyone is both an owner of production and a citizen breathing the same air and drinking the same water as everyone else. This removes the incentive to pollute one’s environment in order to profit from it. In addition, the exclusion principle does not apply to public goods, indicating that when these goods are produced anyone can enjoy them without paying. For example, if an individual obtains an education at their own expense, others including the government who did not pay for that tuition will benefit from this person’s higher income taxes and so will her neighbors in that it may make her a better person to live next to. Other typical examples of public goods are law enforcement and military defense. This leads to the free rider problem where no one is willing to produce the good or service. Here society’s governing bodies have a legitimate role to provide public goods given their ability to tax.

Can the System Adapt?

Systems can evolve. The question is at what cost and for whom. Few would disagree with capitalism's ability to morph into ever newer forms. However, its ability to adapt is distorted since it is based on the price mechanism combined with unequal incomes that are determined through class power. In addition, although capitalism does evolve, we need to consider at what cost to society at large. For example, Polanyi demonstrated the devastating effects of sudden radical change.115 Although he was writing about the disastrous effects of moving society toward capitalism, the work still provides insight as to the social cost of capitalism’s ‘evolution.’ Today, we are continuing to witness capitalism’s transformation into a neoliberal global system. However, the social costs are high for most of the planet’s population. Globally segmented labor markets and contingent labor carry equally high costs for individuals in terms of stress and alienation, and for society in terms of inadequate aggregate demand caused by insufficient purchasing power.116 Thus, although capitalism is capable of evolution and survival, it does so at the expense of the great majority. Therefore, the superior system is one that can be flexible without the socially devastating consequences needed to support it.

115 Polanyi, 2001 [1944]. 116 Asimakopoulos, 2009.

Material Relations

129

A society based on direct democracy would have a flexible economic system without the devastation of capitalist change. Economically, the new model will respond instantaneously to real-time changes in relative pricing of goods and services. Together with equal income shares this permits the most efficient allocation of resources in a manner that will maximize total societal utility rather than marginal utility for the rich alone. The employment model presented here also assures the efficient and equitable distribution of labor. Capitalism, on the other hand, is fantastically wasteful, as exemplified by high unemployment and underemployment rates (the flip side being production facilities operating below full capacity) and remuneration arbitrarily determined by class power. Politically, self-rule assures decision making that reflects peoples’ direct needs and beliefs without being filtered through unresponsive professional politicians and ossified institutions controlled by elite interests. The elimination of special interests by self-rule also assures that the economic system adapts according to social needs. Instead, today we have elite political involvement through, for example, lobbying that skews the economy to benefit corporations.117 In addition, there is greater acceptance of economic change when people know that their living standards will not be adversely affected. For example, workers of a buggy-whip factory would be more accepting of their plant closing due to obsolescence if they knew their livelihoods would be socially secured and alternative work (social contribution) would be provided. If people are not afraid of technological change negatively impacting them there will be greater acceptance of full productive automation that our existing technology already makes possible. Under capitalist production automation is resisted by workers because they rightfully fear it will eliminate their jobs, but, ironically capitalists resist it as well. The elite are woefully reluctant to fully automate society for a few reasons. First, there would be immediate resistance by the masses of the newly permanently unemployed. Second, deep down, they understand that a capitalist system is fundamentally a wage system without which aggregate demand, and, therefore, sales would collapse. This is the realization of Marx’s argument that existing relations of production, which are property relations, at some point turn into fetters for the productive forces. Now capitalist relations are fetters to fully implementing existing technology toward deeper automation and rationalization. A system where productive property is communally owned blows open the gates that are currently holding back society’s productive forces. Of course, the elite could erect a utopian automated society for themselves walled-off from the surplus population, leaving 117 Stiglitz, 2012; Zepezauer, 2004.

130

Chapter 3

them to fend for themselves as animals. However that is not capitalism nor do capitalists have the creative capacity to imagine such new dystopias. As mentioned, capitalism cannot change based on true need nor does it maximize a society’s total utility because of unequal income distribution. An efficient economy must produce those goods and services that yield the greatest total satisfaction (utility maximization). However, when income is concentrated, the economy produces unnecessary luxuries for the wealthy that do not provide as great a utility as, say, affordable housing to a homeless family. Basically, unequal incomes result in allocative inefficiencies. When incomes are equalized the economy is signaled to produce what is of most importance to all, thus increasing total utility. In the proposed model being specified here, resources are immediately allocated as needs develop, with luxuries being satisfied last. Finally, capitalism’s driving motivation is oppression and the desire to escape it through market success (the dominant ideology). Unfortunately, this is a statistical improbability for the majority of the population. Direct democracy’s driving force is creative pursuit since freedom from want and wage-slavery would be guaranteed for all.

Chapter 4

Social Structure

Culture and Social Integration

Every society has values that are reflected in its norms.1 A ‘community’ by defi­ nition requires common norms which are essential for social integration. In the Republic Plato argued that a functioning political system has to be based on a homogeneous demos, integrated by common customs, religion, norms, and so on—a sentiment shared by Aristotle in The Politics.2 Today many political theorists also believe that a homogeneous demos is required for direct and, what Lijphart called majoritarian, democratic systems. However, they consider direct democracy to be impractical when the demos is diverse as in developed nations. Therefore they claim pluralist political systems based on ‘consensus’ are structurally the best pragmatic choice. Lijphart, for example, writes “majori­ tarian democracy is especially appropriate for, and works best in, homoge­ neous societies, whereas consensus democracy is more suitable for plural societies.”3 It should be noted his consensus model is derived from Dahl’s polyarchies.4 Given the heterogeneity of modern nations, these theorists proceed to take great pains to derive processes and structures that protect minority rights from the so-called tyranny of the majority.5 Barber, however, rejects Dahl’s model as “deficient because it relies on the fictions of the free market and of the putative freedom and equality of bargaining agents.”6 He goes on to offer a model of ­pluralist democracy in terms of participatory process, what he calls strong democracy. Here he is advocating a form of discursive democracy, echoing Habermas, in reaching consensus which realistically will be at the lowest common denomi­ nator. Yet Barber avoids the obvious issue of conflict by arguing that when there are difficult questions without a consensus solution between a majority and minority the parties would agree to postpone the issue. Clearly, this is utopian as demonstrated by the political deadlocks of our times that are intensifying. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Norms are expected patterns of behavior backed by sanctions. Aristotle, 1981: 60; Plato, 1991. Lijphart, 1984: 3–4. Dahl, 1989. See, for example, Barber (1984), Dahl (1989), Lijphart (1984), Lipset (1994 [1960]). Barber, 1984: 144.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_006

132

Chapter 4

Lipset acknowledged the need for consensus and conflict for a healthy dem­ ocratic system.7 Conflict would be the mechanism through which change occurs, releasing pressure points thus maintaining the democratic structure. He argues that through conflict, consensus can be reached on the norms of tolerance for a society or organization. However, he too assumes this can hap­ pen in pluralist market-based societies. These and most theorists since have directly or indirectly acknowledged the problem for democracies arising from conflict over fundamental disagreements between a majority and minority, at least in real-world terms. Worse, they fear a possible situation with a perma­ nent minority such as, for example, blacks in a society where a white majority votes to keep them enslaved. Even some on the radical Left fear direct democ­ racy would be tyrannical, referring to it as ‘death by plebiscite.’ Marxists and anarchists would also point out that there can be no resolution of conflict in a system like capitalism which is built on the logic of domination. In this case there is no negotiation or discursive process that would resolve the structural conflict that forms the foundation of the system, thus making a political reso­ lution impossible. What many political theorists forget is that democracy is by definition rule by the majority. In addition, it is here where a society’s overall organizing prin­ ciple reveals itself. When these theorists debate situations like a permanent majority voting to remove rights or protections from other groups they make a fundamental mistake. Specifically, the idea of removing or denying rights or protections for others can only be considered viable options in systems based on inequality and hierarchy to begin with. Those are hardly democracies in the substantive sense including all existing political systems. This is why our poor theorists run into such voting problems. A democracy constitutionally founded on universal equality would not generate situations of permanent minorities having their rights trampled on. Let us not confuse here the issue of not getting what one wants, for example, confusing the difference between restricting abortion rights for others with that of limiting their own rights. Therefore, in practice, representative systems turn democracy on its head leading to the ­tyranny of the minorities. Unfortunately, this ruling minority is typically the elite who can purchase and manipulate representative systems to their advantage rather than impoverished racial minorities. In fact, it was represen­ tative democracy that denied blacks political rights. It was through insurrec­ tion over generations that people wrestled all rights from representative democracy. Therefore, violating the concept of majority rule is a violation of democracy itself. 7 Lipset, 1994 [1960].

Social Structure

133

Another complication is that political boundaries based on nation-states are fictitious. The only natural or organic social units are communities based on cultural boundaries. Germany, France, the United States, and Canada, as well as others can be seen as belonging to the same broad cultural unit or boundary. Countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan form another broad cultural unit. These are broad cultural units because the parts have similar fun­ damental norms and values.8 Cultural units can join and combine with ‘like’ units such as the nations of the European Union or the states of the u.s. but not with those that have fundamental differences. To do so would result in structural conflict. The idea is shared today by theorists like Alperovitz who argues his “regionalization” model is more democratic because it is based on a particular region’s culture.9 A stable society requires a certain level of shared beliefs and values. For example, the Western liberal democracies addressed by pluralist theorists include immigrant cultural minorities. The problem exposes itself clearly with anger on the Left and Right in cases such as Germany’s. Specifically Germany developed what is referred to as ‘the Muslim test’ consisting of 30 questions for citizenship applicants, intended for its large Turkish community.10 The official reason was to verify that the immigrants shared Germany’s democratic values. One question read “How do you view the statement that a woman should obey her husband, and that he can beat her if she doesn’t?”11 Although such tests include other inappropriate lines of questioning the fundamental point is made clear. Can you realistically expect a Taliban tribesman or Islamists who believe in Sharia law to function in accordance with Western cultural norms let alone laws? These cultures are at fundamental odds making a political union or conflict resolution difficult if not impossible. What this means for direct democracy, and democracy in general, is that it cannot work unless practiced by a relatively culturally homogenous demos, especially one that accepts the basic democratic value of universal equality. To force fundamen­ tally different cultures into a common political unit can only result in suppres­ sion and conflict as one or the other group will feel their own cherished principles under attack by the other. What we are, therefore, really talking about are cultural boundaries or ­communities rather than political boundaries or nations. This is a fact also 8

Values are the collective conceptions of what is considered good, desirable, and proper or bad, undesirable, and improper in a culture. 9 Alperovitz, 2012. 10 See bbc (February 10, 2006). 11 Ibid.

134

Chapter 4

made clear by the arbitrary drawing of former colonies’ national borders by their colonial centers, with a case in point being those straight borderlines on the maps of Africa and the Arabian territories. These boundaries have been drawn with complete disregard for cultural and even tribal geographic reali­ ties, resulting in artificial states, often with historic enemies being thrown together along Britain’s divide and conquer tactics which evolved into postco­ lonial divide and control. For example, colonial powers carved out Nigeria from multiple ethnolinguistic tribes consisting of 21 percent Yoruba, 18 percent Ibo, 12 percent Fulani, 10 percent Ijaw, 4.1 percent Kanuri, 3.6 percent Ibibio, 2.5 percent Tiv, and 18.7 percent additional groups.12 Nevertheless, direct democracy in pluralist societies is possible. If the cul­ tures involved are congruent, then integration becomes possible with fewer conflicts or points of cultural friction. The European Union is possible given a general homogenization of cultural values. Specifically, Germans, Greeks, French, and British have some cultural differences but they all accept legal and cultural equality between men and women, sexual and reproductive free­ dom, and freedom of expression and assembly. In many parts of the world— Africa, Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Islamist theocracies like Afghan territories—the cultural contrasts with the West could not be more stark. In fact, from this perspective, Cold War America had far more in common cul­ turally with the Soviet Union than with any of its Islamist allies. In short, Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld and Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations are now a global reality:13 It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.14 12 13

14

See Encyclopedia of the Nations, nd. Jihad vs. McWorld (1992) is the title of an article by Benjamin Barber arguing a post-Cold War world would be one where Western culture and market forces clash with tribal cul­ tures. The Clash of Civilizations? (1993) is the title of an article by Samuel Huntington similarly arguing that cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of con­ flict in the post-Cold War world. Huntington, 1993: 22; cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations -cite_note-FAarticle-2.

Social Structure

135

Neoliberalism has evolved into a global culture based on the organizing prin­ ciple of inequality expressed through private ownership of resources and mar­ ket ideology. This transformation has included various processes, such as Ritzer’s MacDonaldization, that are presented by pro capitalists as development.15 In fact, it is to this commercial cultural hegemony that many societies have reacted to with radical counter movements such as that of the Taliban seeking a return to ‘traditional’ local cultures.16 Neoliberalism, therefore, is a culture competing for dominance along the lines described by Barber and Huntington rather than an economic system doomed to irrelevance as their theses posited. Why? First, every economic and political system is cultural in that it reflects the values of those who develop it ideologically and enforce its practice. Second, historically, economic systems were subordinated to other social systems as in, for example, to religious institutions such as the Catholic Church in Medieval times, which to one degree or another shaped the econ­ omy. For example, the Catholic Church forbade Christians from charging inter­ est on grounds of unethical usury, explaining the wide involvement of Jews in early European banking whose religion did not impose such limitations. Neoliberalism reflects a qualitative historical transformation in that it subordi­ nated all social systems, modifying them to fit its world view. Therefore, the cult of capitalism that reflects the global elite’s ideas, values, and beliefs has emerged to be not an economic contender but a cultural one no different than the corresponding Taliban counterculture that is itself a holistic socioeco­ nomic vision of society.

Organizing Principles of Social Structure

The whole of history consists not of dates and events but social relations based on either equality or inequality regardless of their historically contingent man­ ifestations that are simply the clothes in which these systems drape themselves. Furthermore, all social structures contain varying cleavage points, an observa­ tion made by Max Weber in his classic essay “class, status, party.”17 Many of these are typically the dying remnants of historically contingent social rela­ tionships. For example, the concept of an executive branch represents a cleav­ age point within a democratic system as a remnant of feudal relations (a king). However, societies are founded on organizing principles regardless of whether 15 16 17

Ritzer, 2008. McMichael, 2012. Weber, 1946.

136

Chapter 4

these match up neatly with all social relationships. For example, capitalism is based on the principle of inequality which manifests itself as an unequal distri­ bution of resources, authority, and power. That the relative rankings of social groups change in these categories over time is a reflection of historical contin­ gencies rather than a change of history or epoch; or, what is the same, a change in social structure. The organizing principle remains that of inequality personi­ fied by the slave master or feudal lord or capitalist. This is a conception of his­ tory Gerhard Lenski presented in his theories of stratification arguing change and social evolution can be better conceptualized as derived by growth in information and technology generally.18 The struggling German aristocrats who inspired Weber had status rather than class (meaning wealth) compared to capitalists and, in turn, lived better and ranked higher in authority relative to workers. The mistake here is to think of class, status, or party as distinct orga­ nizing principles leading Weber to conclude it is not a single variable such as wealth that determines stratification in a capitalist or any other system. In Marxist terms I would argue it is not even one’s relation toward the means of production that organizes a social structure. For example, peasants can ‘own’ their fields but be forced by militaristic strongmen such as a king to fork over most of their harvests. Today, I can ‘own’ my house but be forced to pay prop­ erty taxes otherwise the tax collector will auction off the house. The same organizing principle is true of society where inequality may mani­ fest itself in varying forms according to different historical periods. These vari­ ations are in form but not substance. Feudalism and capitalism share the same organizing principle, namely inequality. How this inequality expressed itself depended on the historical era including the corresponding level of knowledge and technological development. Feudal lords did not have factories but they nevertheless enriched themselves through the fundamental process of exploi­ tation as did capitalists. An alternative organizing principle of society is that of equality which can also take different forms. To find communities based on an egalitarian social structure, one would have to look at prehistoric hunting-andgathering societies. This book has attempted to formulate a vision and a form of equality for modern large-scale societies inspired by the historical continu­ ity of Athenian democracy that in turn inspired the creation of works councils in the 19th and 20th centuries. As history changes so does the form but the substance is still there, namely the organizing principle of equality. The basis of equality or inequality for many theorists such as Dahrendorf is ‘authority’ broadly speaking.19 It is the distribution of authority throughout all 18 19

Collins, 1994: 81. Dahrendorf, 1959.

Social Structure

137

elements of the social structure that creates the conditions of equality or inequality. For example, we cannot be equal political sovereigns, but accept the right of a husband to beat his wife. This is why anarchists such as Bakunin, Debord, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Guillaume and Proudhon conceptualize revolution as a process rather than an event at a specific moment in time or change in specific relations of domination (for example, gender), to the exclusion of others.20 Rather, the process includes changing all hierarchical relations of domination and, or exploitation just as much as ending hierarchi­ cal distribution of resources and consumption. The idea of democracy as pro­ cess reflects this notion, namely, that a traditional political revolution does not cure all ills any more than a radical revolution in ownership of resources. This is where we can appreciate the fundamental role performed by paideia accord­ ing to Plato and Aristotle. Paideia is what can lead to political revolutions, but, as important, to the continuation of revolution as process in everyday life. Regardless of the social structure that it manifests itself through, equality will be an ongoing project of maintenance and transformation. Perhaps this is why a number of classical philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, contemporary political economists like Alperovitz, Schweickart, and Wolff,21 and political theorists like Barber, Castoriadis, Dahl, and Lijphart;22 all recognize democracy as process. I must note here, equality of authority also means not having executive positions in any institutions like that of, for example, a vice president of academic affairs. These should all be replaced either by specialized workers with no added privileges or if these positions truly require executive decision making they should be filled by a randomly selected council derived from all directly involved parties. What then are the basic elements of social struc­ ture which would have to incorporate the principle of equality and what does that mean? Social Statuses Social statuses are a major element of every social structure. These can be ­categorized as achieved, ascribed, and one’s master status.23 Under direct 20 21 22 23

See, for example, Debord (1994 [1967]), Guillaume (1971), Malatesta (1984), Proudhon (1994 [1840]). Alperovitz, 2012; Schweickart, 2011; Wolff, 2012. Barber, 1984; Castoriadis, 1991; Dahl, 1989; Lijphart, 1984. Social statuses are socially defined positions within a group or society e.g., the status of student or of sibling. Achieved statuses are those that one has to work for, obtain through their own efforts e.g., becoming a certified teacher or licensed plumber. Ascribed statuses are those we are born with or into without our consent and over which we have no power

138

Chapter 4

democracy only one status should matter, that of citizen. There should be no hierarchies or rankings of ascribed statuses such as race, gender, and (dis)abili­ ties. Realistically, though, there will be differences in achieved status. For example, someone will earn a reputation as an exceptional singer, philosopher, or master craftsperson. Some will be considered to have more pleasant disposi­ tions than others. What should be lacking is a quantitative ranking linked to differential remuneration or authority. Last, a master status is the one that dominates all other statuses in that it determines an individual’s general posi­ tion within society. As many Marxists and anarchists have argued since Plato and Aristotle, problems arise when the public and private spheres of life are separated—a condition where the interests of civil society are not aligned with those of the private citizen. In this sense, everybody’s master status should be that of citizen. This conception of citizenship fuses the interests of the com­ mons with those of the individual. As the ancient Greeks understood it, the polis (State) is the demos, the community. Of course, in reality people will see their master status as parent, or artist, and so on. But, to explain the Greek meaning, under a direct democracy the demos decides the education of chil­ dren and so on, decisions that will include all citizens and all parents. The demos decides to fund the arts or not, and if so at what level. Here, the decision-making process will include all citizens and all artists. From these examples it becomes clearer that a direct democracy makes possible the iden­ tification of personal interests with those of the commons and not just in the economic or political sense. Social Roles Social roles are another major element of social structure. These are a set of expectations that are attached to a specific status e.g., the status of ‘mother’ carries with it social roles including that of caregiver, educator, role model, etc.24 Under capitalism most people relate to each other through a narrow set of social roles limited to market transactions. For example, we know Carol the postal carrier, Mike the barber, Karen our coworker but do we really know who they are? Specifically, market relations have grown to engulf most of our time making us relate to others through them to the detriment of all other roles. We simply do not see the richness of each other’s lives because our social interac­ tions are delimitated by markets. As discussed throughout this book, one of direct democracy’s gifts is that of free time. When we do not have to spend

24

to change e.g., one’s race or the royal status of a baby born into a royal family. See Merton (1968: 422–438). See Merton (1968: 422–438).

Social Structure

139

more than three hours interacting through our roles determined by our share of socially necessary labor time, then we can truly develop as individuals. We can devote more time for our paideia, spend more time in our social roles as parents engaged in actual parenting, more time as neighbors developing com­ munity, and so on. Now Mike, who cuts my hair, is that great neighbor who also throws a mean barbeque; he is also very deliberative before he chooses a posi­ tion or casts his vote; he is an average father who means well; and, he knows a lot about the history of personal grooming especially in medieval France. Now we do not see or interact with a barber called Mike. Rather we would be interacting with Mike as a whole person because we would have the time to do so. We know about his barbeques because we have the time and resources to break bread with neighbors. We know he is well versed on the historical aspects of grooming because we have had time to talk with him in a public or private space about substantive matters other than pleasantries as we pass by each other. We have an understanding of Mike as a parent because we observed him interacting with his children on the playground or noticed his absence from it, and we see him at the parent-teacher conferences. We know Mike is delibera­ tive because we observe his behavior at the local assemblies. As a result, people will not be defined primarily by what ‘job’ they do but by who they are as indi­ viduals when necessary work time is reduced to a minuscule portion of our lives with all authority being shared. Virtual Worlds An element of modern social structures often cited in college textbooks are virtual worlds and their vast social networks, Facebook being a major exam­ ple.25 These are an element of postmodern societies that are technologically sophisticated and preoccupied not only with consumer goods and services but media images. This was the basis of Guy Debord’s observations leading him to found the Situationist International, a political and artistic movement. The group developed a series of strategies for engaging in class struggle by reclaim­ ing individual autonomy from what Debord called the spectacle, an evolved version of what Marx had referred to as commodity fetishism.26 He describes the spectacle through a series of theses: 25 26

See, for example, Schaefer (2013). “As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material [dinglich] relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fan­ tastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy we must

140

Chapter 4

1. THE WHOLE LIFE of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spec­ tacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation. 2. IMAGES DETACHED FROM every aspect of life merge into a common stream, and the former unity of life is lost forever. Apprehended in a par­ tial way, reality unfolds in a new generality as a pseudo-world apart, solely as an object of contemplation. The tendency toward the specialization of images-of-the-world finds its highest expression in the world of the autonomous image, where deceit deceives itself. The spectacle in its gen­ erality is a concrete inversion of life, and, as such, the autonomous move­ ment of non-life. 4. THE SPECTACLE IS NOT a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images. 6. UNDERSTOOD IN ITS TOTALITY, the spectacle is both the outcome and the goal of the dominant mode of production. It is not something added to the real world—not a decorative element, so to speak. On the contrary, it is the very heart of society’s real unreality. In all its specific manifestations—news or propaganda, advertising or the actual con­ sumption of entertainment—the spectacle epitomizes the prevailing model of social life. It is the omnipresent celebration of a choice already made in the sphere of production, and the consummate result of that choice. In form as in content the spectacle serves as total justification for the conditions and aims of the existing system. It further ensures the ­permanent presence of that justification, for it governs almost all time spent outside the production process itself.27 As Debord explained, advanced capitalist societies are driven by images gener­ ally, not just in the media. This is why for him images, as ingredients of the spectacle, are significant tools of class war. The strategies Debord developed are focused on attacking hegemonic images as a process of transforming one’s thought. These strategies include détournement.28 Détournement, originally

27 28

take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.” (Marx, 1977 [1867]: 165) Debord, 1994 [1967] (online). Knabb, 2007.

Social Structure

141

developed in the 1950s by the Letterist International, is turning expressions of the capitalist system against itself, like turning slogans and logos against the advertisers or the political status quo.29 A contemporary example would include the British street artist Banksy. According to Debord minor détournements are détournements of elements that in themselves are of no real impor­ tance such as a snapshot, a press clipping, an everyday object which draw all their meaning from being placed in a new context. Deceptive détournements occur when significant elements such as a major political or philosophical texts, great artwork or work of literature take on new meanings or scope by being placed in a new context that challenges the status quo. Therefore, Debord conceives revolutionary change as process, including challenging hegemonic images and symbols. Symbols such as an eagle repre­ sent empire, a dove peace. If we value peace why is an eagle our national symbol? Images and symbols represent power relations throughout the entire social structure. Undermining the hegemonic image is a postmodern exten­ sion of attacking dominant social relations. The value of such groups is in raising public awareness of dominant relations. Helping an actor identify power relations is a required step for action and social movement building. Much of the work performed by the Situationists and similar contemporary groups is fundamentally educational in character. By utilizing play and art as part of their direct action methods they build broad societal support for movement building, as suggested by Emma Goldman.30 In fact, the civil rights and labor movements in the United States utilized participatory techniques including art, literature and poetry, dance, theatre, song, and paintings.31 These were the available and equivalent forms of images in that historical era that accompanied other forms of direct action like strikes and voter registra­ tion drives. Groups like the Situationists are the contemporary artistic wing of an overall social justice movement. More so, these groups constitute an integral element to resistance in Gramscian terms in that they are producing a working-class counterculture. As such, working-class cultural production aims at exposing existing social relations and providing alternatives through a hands-on approach.

29

30 31

The Letterist International (1952–1957) was a Paris-based collective of radical artists and theorists founded by Guy Debord and predecessor to the Situationist International. The Letterist International was formed in a break from Isidore Isou’s Letterist disavowing most of their ideas. Shepard, 2011. Asimakopoulos, 2011: 73–102.

142

Chapter 4

Institutions and Socialization

Social institutions are another major element of social structure that formalize power relations shaped by the overall organizing principle of a society. In addi­ tion, institutions reproduce and reinforce these dominant relations through socialization. For example, Gramsci wrote that cultural hegemony in advanced capitalist societies uses compulsory schooling, the mass media, and popular culture to indoctrinate people within the dominant ideology.32 Key institu­ tions include the political, economic, religious, educational, military, family, and the news media. In a system of direct democracy, these fundamental insti­ tutions would have to reflect the dominant principle of equality. Otherwise, the result would be democracy in form but not substance. For example, mod­ ern life centers on institutions. But, if we spend most of our time interacting within hierarchical non-democratic spaces including work, school, church, and the family, can we still claim to be living in a democracy? Can equality be checked at the door from 9 am to 5 pm and resume thereafter? No. We cannot be either part-time slaves or part-time citizens. It is one or the other. I have addressed the importance of political and economic institutions. Now we turn to the others. Religion One problem with religion is that it is always right and others who disagree with its tenets are always wrong. This claim to the one and only truth has been a key component of all organized religions. Moreover, religion dictates its own norms of behavior as the sole road to salvation. Now, what if a Muslim family living in a Christian community wishes to have four wives, as is allowed by Islam? Theoretically, in an equal society such as a direct democracy we would all learn to accept difference. Practically the problem is that if the Muslim wishes to practice polygamy it will offend the Christian monogamists who see him as a non-believer who either needs to convert or face eternity in Hell. His religion goes a step further declaring the Christian monogamists as non-­ believers that either need to be converted (including by force) or will suffer spiritual punishments. Now we have the birth of religious conflict and hierar­ chy as one group will desire or attempt to impose its own correct values upon the other. Direct democracy is based on equality and reason making it incompatible with religion which is typically a legitimizing mechanism for stratification. Marx famously referred to religion as the opium of the masses in that it 32

Gramsci, 1971.

Social Structure

143

pacifies them with promises of afterlife rewards while legitimizing the rule of this world’s masters. Debord put it succinctly in thesis 25: “Religious con­ templation in its earliest form was the outcome of the establishment of the social division of labor and the formation of classes. Power draped itself in the outward garb of a mythical order from the beginning. In former times the category of the sacred justified the cosmic and ontological ordering of things that best served the interests of the masters…”33 Thus, inequality begins with the division between secular and non-secular or humans and God (or his ­representative, the king), a dichotomy based on irrational beliefs—also a main component of hierarchical systems including neoliberalism. Organized religion adds more layers of hierarchy by distinguishing between lay people and the priesthood which itself is further stratified e.g., the parish priest versus bishops or pope. Yet religion, in the spiritual sense, need not be based on supernatural or hierarchical beliefs for at its core religion is communion, meaning a spiritual joining with others. Communion generates a sense of togetherness, solidarity, or ecstasy. This emotional high can be generated by religious fervor, but also a number of ideologies, for example, political such as the ecstasy generated by Hitler during Nazi gatherings. It is the same sense of fervor and communion experienced by participating fans during live music concerts and competitive sports finals like the tremendous passions experienced by patrons through­ out  Spanish cafés and restaurants when their national team won the 2010 World Cup Final in soccer. Debord makes this observation arguing the spec­ tacle of postmodern societies has displaced religion, “The spectacle is the material reconstruction of the religious illusion.”34 Specifically, consumerism has replaced the functions of religion in generating ecstasy; “what this means for the consumer is an outpouring of religious zeal in honor of the commod­ ity’s sovereign freedom. Waves of enthusiasm for particular products, fueled and boosted by the communications media, are propagated with lightning speed.”35 In fact, Marx using the concept of commodity fetishism had identi­ fied the birth of what Debord refers to as the ecstatic function of the spectacle.36 In his Totemic studies Durkheim argued that religion in its elementary form is a representation of the community that constructed it. The Gods are a metaphor, an embodiment of the people who invented them. Marx in the 33 34 35 36

Debord, 1994 [1967] (online). Ibid., Thesis 20 (online). Ibid., Thesis 67 (online). Marx, 1977 [1867]: 165.

144

Chapter 4

German Ideology reviewed the construction of religion and how it shaped social relations throughout history including its various transformations.37 Debord, picking up from Marx, argues postmodern God is the embodiment of consumerism generated by and reflecting the interests of capitalist elites. However, a society based on egalitarian values cannot perpetuate beliefs founded on the legitimization of inequality. That is a cultural cleavage point contrary to the spirit of communion. Rather, egalitarian societies can satisfy their spiritual needs through a union, a communion, of equals in public gath­ erings. Such an ideology of equality can serve as the spiritual focus or represen­ tation of God. Direct democracy represents political communion of equals and as such can be substituted for religion. The ancient Greeks of Crete and Sparta acknowledged the value of ‘communion’ through their practice of com­ mon meals or tables (syssitia). Common meals were ceremonial, religious in nature. According to Aristotle, their purpose was to cultivate social and military solidarity to com­ bat social divisions, especially along class lines.38 This transformed common meals into a political act between equals. For example, no one was excluded based on their ability to contribute. Participation was open to all on the basis of citizenship. The banquet meat was divided into equal parts because, “To  eat  equal shares is to produce and reproduce civic equality.”39 Cretans funded the meals from State revenues so as not to exclude or stigmatize citizens who could not afford their share.40 In contrast, Spartans who could not afford to contribute their mandatory quota were excluded from the con­ stitution no longer being equals or homoioi.41 This is why “Charity does not belong in a democracy as it creates first- and second-class citizens and fosters the sense of superiority of the rich and the sense of shame and envy of the poor, thus opening the door to strife and instability. ‘Nourishment’ is thus inte­ gral to civic engagement.”42 Versions of the common meals exist to this day. Under capitalism these are soup kitchens changing the character of the common meals into charity, thus transforming the practice into a symbol of individual failure and legitimized inequality. A system of direct democracy at its core is process, starting at the local level. What better way to build a secular civic religion than to reintroduce 37 Marx, 1978c [1845–1846]. 38 Aristotle, 1981: 1271a26. 39 Loraux, 1981: 620. 40 Aristotle, 1981: II.1272a. 41 Ibid. 42 Longo, 2013: 54–55.

Social Structure

145

publicly funded common meals during the regularly scheduled meetings of the demos turning them into symposia. This represents communion with the body politic and its celebration. The idea of a common National Wage also represents the equality of common meals in that we all receive equal shares of  consumption—the same slice of bread. All this can form the basis of a ­common civic religion. Furthermore, religion cannot coexist with diversity upon which modern large-scale societies are founded. Practically, short of establishing a new secu­ lar religion celebrating the community through individual equality, for a plu­ ralist society to function it must enforce strict separation of civil society and religion. Although religion was considered a great cultural unifier by classical sociologists like Émile Durkheim, it has proven historically to divide rather than embrace, exclude rather than include, dictate rather than discuss, and act on superstition rather than reality let alone science.43 For all these reasons, the separation of civil society from organized religion should be total. Therefore, as per a modified First Amendment there should be no law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise in private thereof.’ This includes prohibition of religious references in public settings by people serving on governing bodies or public institutions; and removing all non-secular refer­ ences from formal public documents and instruments, including the constitu­ tion and on currency (the words ‘in God we trust’ can be found on the u.s. dollar). Religious affiliation would have to be regulated such as prohibiting any public religious displays from front yards to neck jewelry. In this sense, the French prohibition on women wearing full veils in public is both relevant and indicative of the argument here.44 This also means not providing special privi­ leges for religious institutions, such as tax exempt status, nor exempting them from labor or other laws. For example, the Catholic and other non-secular institutions are free to discriminate against gays in their canonical beliefs, but they must not be free as employers to discriminate against them in labor prac­ tices. As important, religious proselytizing, advertising, or any type of market­ ing and promotion should be prohibited. In short, religion in the traditional sense needs to wither away so that love and logic may flourish. Family and Sexuality The family as an institution is perhaps the greatest agent of socialization, and the most contentious in the writings of many philosophers and political econ­ omists. Plato, Marx, Castoriadis, and many anarchists hold society as the true 43 44

Durkheim, 1995 [1912]. Erlanger, 2011.

146

Chapter 4

family unit. For them, the nuclear family is a relic of dominant social relations. As such, they advocate abolishing the ‘institution’ of the family. Still, others consider the nuclear family the basic unit of society, including Auguste Comte, founder of Western sociology. Plato understood that social integration is required for a stable community. Therefore, society, would socialize children in place of a biological family to assure together with the social control over edu­ cational curriculum that the desired character of the citizen is cultivated. Anyone today would agree that Plato’s scheme regarding family structure is utopian, a point made by Aristotle. However, if a society’s organizing principle is equality, it must also permeate the structure of the family. This need not mean the abolition of the family per se which is often falsely attributed as a Marxist position. Instead, equality must be reflected in the relations of any institution that a society will designate as a ‘family’, whether nuclear, commu­ nal, or otherwise. In practical terms this means all family members are treated equally in the eyes of the law. We see now why for anarchists and Marxists the anti-capitalist struggle is synonymous with the struggle against all hierarchical relations. This includes gender, ethnic, racial, ageist and all other social rela­ tions of domination. Interestingly, it is a fight against both patriarchy and matriarchy or any other archy (rule). Consequently, to obtain equal family ­relations, equal gender socialization starts at birth and continues through education. Another sensitive question is demographics. Assuming the demos captured the corporation and shared in its wealth, a major condition for the success of such a system, or any system of production and consumption, would have to be managing population levels. In this regard, only adult citizens should receive shares of distribution in a society based on direct democracy. This helps discourage having large families for increased resource shares had distri­ bution been based on a per capita basis. More so, population size must be within the confines of sustainable development otherwise living standards will decline resulting in social problems and environmental degradation. In this regard, gender equality has been found to be as effective as development in reducing family size.45 Gender equality is itself correlated with education on family planning.46 In addition, many of the world’s poor have high birthrates because of high infant and child mortality rates coupled with cultural prac­ tices where children are seen as safety nets for old age. Providing social services reduces infant mortality rates and the dependency of the elderly on their children for survival. Therefore, as Schweickart argued, equality limits 45 Schweickart, 2011: 140. 46 Ibid.

Social Structure

147

birthrates even in the absence of Western levels of development.47 In the pro­ posed model, families are free to prioritize what is most important to them on equal footing with everyone else given a common National Wage. If a family values more children, it is free to expend as much of its National Wage permits to have and raise them but only within socially permissible living standards. For example, a family should not be allowed to have so many children as to live in squalor, nor is it anyone else’s obligation to pay for some ideologues to ­procreate endlessly. Since the National Wage represents each citizen’s fair share of sustainable resources, the National Wage determines the maximum limit to sustainable family size. In comparison, under capitalism population growth is encouraged and rein­ forced by organized religion even in the face of guaranteed poverty while admonishing family planning. Why? Because the elite need future laborers while population growth drives down wages resulting in poverty and a docile labor force. People become a commodity akin to chattel reproduced as a slave owner would breed his slaves. Continuous procreation is also a logical exten­ sion of capitalism’s doctrine of perpetual growth; that is, it is a structural con­ tradiction given limited resources. Indirectly, the logic of increasing profits dictates an increasing population as a source of additional consumer demand. It would be a form of resistance, if not environmental responsibility, if the exploited limited the size of their families. What is related, populations must also share compatible sexual norms. This includes tolerance toward, for example, diverse orientations. There are a num­ ber of countries that have statutes against homosexuality as does Pakistan, or insulting God as does Kuwait where the legal punishment is death. In other cases, a government may legally protect people of diverse sexual orientations but the population itself may be so conservative as to ignore law. This is often the case as, for example, in Jordan and other Middle Eastern or traditional soci­ eties where families may execute female members because of premarital inter­ course even though the laws prohibit this type of honor killing.48 Formal marriage patterns such as monogamy versus polygamy are impor­ tant not just from a religious, but cultural perspective as well. For example, 47 Ibid. 48 Honor killing is the execution of a family or group member by other members due to the belief that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. The perceived dishonor is typically the result of the following behaviors, or the suspicion of such behav­ iors: engaging in premarital sex or in homosexual acts, dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community, wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice—especially if to a member of a social group considered inappropriate.

148

Chapter 4

most Western nations explicitly prohibit polygamy. This would present a major problem for sub-Saharan Africans (many of whom are Christian polygamists) and Muslims around the world who practice polygamy. Additional consider­ ations include who is considered a legitimate partner and who makes that decision. For example, Muslims and others accept, if not encourage, intermar­ riage between first cousins. Often the choice is prearranged by family members as in India while in other countries individuals are allowed to select their own partners. Sexual norms are also relevant here. For example, in many parts of the world it is acceptable for men to marry twelve-year-olds. In the West, that would constitute child rape. Cultural attitudes toward sexual repertoires mat­ ter as well, such as the acceptability of engaging in fellatio or group sex. Again, in some nations those types of acts are punishable while in Hollywood these are everyday fare. Education The realization that an individual is a product of society and institutions are created by people led Greek thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to emphasize paideia (pedagogy) as the basis of a society’s political system or, as we would understand it today, the foundation of the overall social structure.49 Education in this sense was understood in a broader context than in modern societies. For one, paideia meant the training of a citizen’s moral character. It is a way of life with personal decisions and actions that have consequences or, as understood by ancient Greeks, participation in the commons through politics. We see therefore the morphing of education and political participation into one con­ tinuous process. As Castoriadis explains, “This paideia is not primarily a matter of books and academic credits. First and foremost, it involves becoming con­ scious that the polis [city-state] is also oneself and that its fate also depends upon one’s mind, behavior, and decisions; in other words, it is participation in political life.”50 Here we are reminded that democratic pedagogy socializes people to identify the interests of the commons with their own fusing, in Marxist terms, private and public interests. Aristotle further argued that since education (in the ancient Greek sense) is designed to produce critical citizens that can govern, the curriculum becomes a public concern.51 As such, public education was traditionally designed to promote cultural unity or social integration. This is why standardization of the educational curriculum has been a principle of modern France. In contrast, 49 50 51

Castoriadis, 1991: 161–162. Ibid., 1991: 113. Aristotle, 1981: 452.

Social Structure

149

nations with fractured educational systems result in cultural divisions. In industrial societies the fissure usually runs down class-lines, or along private versus public ones. Typical examples include public schools versus private, faith-based, and home-schooling. In addition, the public curriculum in the United States is itself highly fractured across towns and states. Education under the proposed model should serve as a cultural unifier. This could be accomplished by nationalizing all educational institutions at every level. Realworld policy precedents include modern Greece where students can attend K–12 either at public or accredited private schools. However, there is a nation­ ally set standardized curriculum. But, according to the nation’s constitution, accredited institutions of higher learning can only be public. It also means the only degrees recognized for government employment are those from the public sector and foreign institutions that have formal articulation agree­ ments. If equality is the goal, there can be no private versus public, faith-based, or otherwise different curricula beyond that socially agreed upon. More so, common values instilled through education will reduce levels of value-based conflicts, although it would never eliminate them. Plato’s vision of equality was based in large part on public education provid­ ing equal opportunities to all children. The savage educational inequalities K–12 in the United States bear witness to corresponding class inequalities.52 This is a structural system of inequality using deferential education (deliber­ ately generated by the structure e.g., financing school districts through local property taxes) to legitimize unequal material and social opportunities.53 The extension of this educational class weapon are the private Ivy Leagues such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale that serve primarily two functions. One is to cre­ ate and reinforce an elite class consciousness54 whose intent is to promote class cohesion through social clubs and corporate boardrooms.55 The second is to serve as a signaling mechanism.56 If ceo Smith needs to hire for a fast-track career opening would he offer it to a working-class candidate or a child from his social class? Of course Smith does not trust the working class in positions of actual authority and privilege plus this denies the ‘rightful’ opportunities to 52 Kozol, 1991. 53 Ibid. 54 See, for example, Domhoff (2010: 51–54), Mills (2000 [1956]: 62–68, 106–107). 55 Domhoff, 1975; 2010. 56 In economics, signaling occurs when one sends information about themselves to another actor. For example, job applicants signal their ability to employers through educational credentials e.g., a Bachelor’s degree. Here, upper-class applicants signal their class mem­ bership to perspective employers by obtaining degrees from elite educational institu­ tions. See Domhoff (2010: 51–54), Mills (2000 [1956]: 62–68, 106–107).

150

Chapter 4

the young of his own class. What to do? It is perfectly legal in the United States for employers to recruit for certain positions from specific colleges. The answer to the question of where they will recruit from to fill the best versus dead end jobs is obvious. A personal example is illustrative. When I was completing state college at the Newark campus of Rutgers (located in a historically black city) a friend who worked at Prudential (a major employer in New Jersey) informed me the company was recruiting on-campus and I should apply. I did and never heard back. When my friend at Prudential quietly inquired why I was not offered an interview the truth came out. Prudential specifically recruited minorities from Rutgers Newark to fill racial quotas—I am white. Moreover, those were profes­ sionally dead-end jobs reserved for ‘token’ minority hires. Later at a social event, a coworker of my friend’s shared that she was hired on a management fast-track which was baffling given she had a fraction of my qualifications. But, she had the qualification that mattered most. She was a graduate of Smith College, a private liberal arts college for women located in Northampton, ma charging more for tuition per year than the average annual salary of most peo­ ple. Of course, should some working-class ‘riff-raff’ (a term used by one of Harvard’s presidents to describe working-class World War II veterans entering Harvard with g.i. Bill money) find a way to afford those colleges they are bla­ tantly rejected in favor of inferior applicants with the proper ‘social’ creden­ tials. The work of Daniel Golden is indicative of this blatant corruption.57 It also turns out, Prudential only hired from those schools for the fast track. For this reason, equality starts with equal educational opportunities that can only be offered by the demos. Plato’s ideas on educational equality were very radical for his times, particu­ larly his argument that capable women should be given the same academic and military training as men. He held that class was not a signifier of intelli­ gence, leading him to state a farmer’s daughter could become a philosopher queen. It is hard to find a more democratic view point on education. The con­ cept of free public education did not reemerge until the 20th century. And when it did, it was mostly to provide illiterate workers basic skills to operate industrial era machinery. One of the arguments at the time in support of legis­ lation to establish public education was that it would prepare a docile labor force for factory life. Today, public schools continue to function as indoctrina­ tion camps into the dominant ideology reinforcing the legitimization of inequality rather than providing critical thinking skills.58 57 58

Golden, 2006. Giroux, 2007; McLaren, 2006.

Social Structure

151

Neoliberalism has now transformed universities (at least those for the middle and working classes) into publicly funded vocational schools for cor­ porate needs, basically job training centers.59 The goal is to produce skilled workers, which defines what professionals are. The means are mostly through applied programs where critical thinking is understood as work-related problem-solving.60 Such programs are non-threatening to the system unlike the social sciences and humanities which happen to be the first on the pol­ icy chopping-block when financial crises occur. The colonization of the edu­ cational system by capitalist relations is designed to reproduce obedient nationalistic consumers as capitalism’s transformation has engulfed the political process equating it with market consumption. Accordingly, every­ thing should be provided by markets where freedom is expressed by pur­ chasing goods and services, students are customers, teachers are workers, and schools are businesses (literally as in the case of for-profit educational corporations in the United States). Critical theorists point out that this delib­ erate separation of critical thinking and political participation from educa­ tion is a requisite for hierarchical systems.61 Only elites can be afforded such an education because doing so for the oppressed would lead to their articu­ lation of a counter-ideology therefore resistance. This was exemplified by u.s. laws prior to the Civil War that prohibited whites from teaching slaves to read and write. But, if we are to educate for citizenship, critical thinking must be the orga­ nizing principle of the curriculum.62 More so, critical pedagogy is not based on any particular orthodox ideology. According to McLaren and Jaramillo it is “not about engaging in specific modes of criticism but about the ­practice—and praxis—of critique.”63 For how can we take a position on mat­ ters without the capacity to think abstractly, analyze, and evaluate from among potential positions and actions? However, education in its elementary form is a process as is the project of direct democracy. It is these key aspects of paideia that are deliberately stripped away from all modern systems of ­public education as Giroux argues.64 For many critical pedagogists the Marxist approach offers an example of critical thinking that is simultaneously political praxis: 59 Giroux, 2011. 60 Ibid. 61 Giroux, 2007, 2011; McLaren, 2006. 62 Giroux, 2011. 63 McLaren and Jaramillo, 2010: 10. 64 Giroux, 2011.

152

Chapter 4

Marxist theory and critical pedagogy have been dismissed as a senseless and antiquated utopianism, with little relevance to contemporary incar­ nations of critical social theory, cultural contestation, or oppositional praxis. Yet we believe Marxism can, and should, be grounded in a con­ crete utopian praxis (connected to everyday material social relations of struggle) as distinct from an abstract utopian praxis (whose idealist/ metaphysical nature distances itself from the real world of everyday struggle).65 Critical education exposes misconceptions and propaganda. Often, people accept the dominant ideology because they have been exposed to false facts. For example, studies have found Americans believed the richest 20 percent owned 60 percent of all wealth rather than the actual 85 percent.66 In the ideal world of the respondents that group would receive 30 percent indicating a natural instinct for fairness.67 In practical terms: Critical pedagogical approaches support progressive initiatives, such as smaller class sizes; improved low environmental impact school buildings; an end to school tracking; schools created on a human scale within or as local to communities as possible; cooperation between schools and local authorities rather than competition within the marketplace; vastly increased funding for education; increased powers for local governments to redistribute resources and participate in the development of anti-­ racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic policies and practices; egalitar­ ian policies designed to assist in more equal educational outcomes, irrespective of social class, gender, race, sexuality, or disability; and a cur­ riculum geared toward social cooperation and ecological justice.68 It is important to point out that spatially, critical education would take place in the traditional classroom setting but also at libraries, cultural centers, the workplace, and other relevant social institutions. Thus, education becomes a component of everyday life, a practice, rather than a stand-alone institution in the exclusive service of commerce.

65 McLaren and Jaramillo, 2010: 2. 66 Stiglitz, 2012: 147. 67 Ibid. 68 McLaren and Jaramillo, 2010: 9–10.

Social Structure

153

What’s more, critical education develops spatial and historical awareness between an individual and wider society, what C.W. Mills called our sociological imagination.69 Placing ourselves within the broader historical context of society enables us to better understand reality and identify how individuals shape society and vice versa. Situating the individual in historical context unmasks the origins of existing systems of stratification and their correspond­ ing social relationships. The capability to identify sources of domination better positions us to affect change demonstrating education is a political praxis for social justice. For example, divorce is a personal trouble and the divorce rate a social problem in Mills’s terms.70 Most people identify the cause for their divorce to be growing apart, constantly arguing, not spending enough time together, abuse, and so on. Yet, how could these causes that have existed since the conception of marriage lead to a 50 percent divorce rate in modern times (or more accurately industrial societies), far above historical rates? Women’s liberation and equal gender rights can only explain a portion of the higher divorce rate; therefore, there must be other social forces at play. By situating this couple historically within a capitalist society where production overrides social life we find the true cause of this family’s personal troubles. When the economy reduces both spouses into machines working long stressful hours for scraps, five to seven days a week, coupled with increased job insecurity and alienation, the pressures manifest into a variety of social problems including substance abuse and high divorce rates. In the short run, locating the cause of the problem allows us to develop personal coping strategies such as ‘let’s agree not to talk for an hour after coming home from work to decompress and avoid bickering.’ More importantly, by placing the problem in the historical context of capitalist society we are able to identify the root cause and therefore more effective long-term responses. Thus, critical education forms the basis for col­ lective action. For example, divorce, as a social problem, confronts many fami­ lies not just the select few. This realization can lead to collective action and a social movement to address the problem including a demand for effective laws limiting the length of the workweek combined with living wages rather than minimum wages. Critical education according to McLaren and Jaramillo is “a social process, a social product, and a social movement that is both grounded in a philosophy of praxis and democratic forms of organization.”71 Just as important, critical education allows us to create and identify our own

69 70 71

Mills, 2000a. Ibid., 2000a: 3–24. McLaren and Jaramillo, 2010: 10.

154

Chapter 4

alternatives to what the dominant ideology claims as the only realistic form of social organization. Education is theory in practice for Plato as well but also in the service of jus­ tice. In the Republic, he recounts the allegory of the cave.72 Captives are born and raised in a cave (representing the ignorance of our minds) without any knowledge of the outside world. They are chained facing the walls unable to turn their heads around toward the exit. A fire burns behind the captives casting shadows upon the walls in front of them of things carried by people unseen and with whom they never communicate. For the captives, reality consists not of the actual material items, which they never see, but their shadows cast upon the cave walls. They compete to identify the most shapes as an indication of ‘­wisdom.’ One day a captive breaks free from his chains and stumbles outside the cave for the first time only to realize the true nature of reality. When he returns to the cave he shares this revelation with his fellows but, because the news of their false reality is too shocking to bear, they try to rip him apart limb from limb, only to be prevented by the chains that bind them. The enlightened captive barely escapes with his life. However, as Plato wrote, it is a matter of time before the freed captive (representing the philosopher) returns to enlighten the others for knowledge generates a fire within to share this truth at all costs. Knowledge presupposes activism, for an educator is an advocate of truth. In the spirit of ancient Greek storytelling let me present you with the alle­ gory of the computer. A woman is told by a voice that death can be scientifi­ cally ‘cured.’ She is told that in order to crack the code of death, X number of computers will be needed to be networked together for Y period of time. Unfortunately, that is a very large number of computers requiring most of that society’s stock. For her each computer is precious as she frantically tries to gather them together. The problem is that people in her society think of com­ puters as something outdated, worthless and, in fact, an environmental prob­ lem. So, government authorities who view her as a deranged woman keep raiding her land where she is trying to assemble the computers, destroying some in the process while sending others to recycling centers. These comput­ ers are analogous to human brains that social structures of inequality waste through war, poverty, environmental destruction, and individualistic competi­ tion. Therefore, it is also the role of educators to reiterate the equal value that every person has and the contribution they can make to society. More gener­ ally, the educator’s role is, by definition, to promote social justice. Critical ped­ agogy is built on social justice through the application of critical thinking: 72

Plato, 1991.

Social Structure

155

Marxist humanist approach to critical pedagogy assumes the position that critical pedagogical principles are not dead letters but open pages in the book of social and economic justice yet to be written or rewritten by people struggling to build a truly egalitarian social order. Through ideol­ ogy critique, de-naturalizating what is assumed to be unchangeable, and de-objectifying the commodity culture of contemporary capitalism, edu­ cators have been challenged to create spaces where students can more fully comprehend how new social relationships can be wrought that can supersede those given birth in the underbelly of capitalist havoc—a dark underbelly disguised inside a miasma of couth that floats over the coun­ try as a banner of democracy.73 In a substantive democracy, education should be treated as the paideia of the citizen. This is why a revolution in the traditional sense is typically no guaran­ tee of structural transformation as it leaves the mode of thinking (therefore most social relations) unchanged. It is, however, in this mode of thinking, found within the average citizen’s mind, where the dominant ideology of inequality resides as a specter of the past. Eventually, the specter will manifest itself in all social relations, rendering revolution little more than a change of guard. New democratic regimes based on the organizing principle of equality would have to alter the mode of thought crafted by past hierarchical societies through the educational system. Freire was explicit, proper education is required so that people do not reproduce existing hierarchical relations of domination: But almost always, during the initial stage of the struggle, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.” The very structure of their thought has been condi­ tioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped. Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity. This phenomenon derives from the fact that the oppressed, at a certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of “adhesion” to the oppressor. Under these circumstances they cannot “consider” him sufficiently clearly to objectivize him—to discover him “outside” themselves. This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression. At this level, 73

McLaren and Jaramillo, 2010: 2.

156

Chapter 4

their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole aspires not to liberation, but identification with its opposite pole.74 A public educational system based on equality should begin as soon as a child forms thoughts through language, typically from age two. As various develop­ mental theorists have argued, notably Jean Piaget (Theory of Cognitive Development), Lev Vygotsky (Zone of Proximal Development), and George Herbert Mead (Stages of the Self), we construct meaning through language and social interaction. Using the language of the dominant ideology serves to reproduce a hierarchical schema in the child’s mind. Simple examples would include explaining why a child should or should not do something rather than ‘because I said so.’ Moreover, using language like ‘ours’ versus ‘mine’ shapes how we perceive the world according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.75 Referring to a police officer as a ‘policeman’ conditions our mind to think the profession requires male traits because the word is male. In contrast, the gender-neutral language ‘police officer’ permits us to conceptualize a man or woman as hav­ ing the ability to perform the task. Thus education begins as soon as children are capable of forming thoughts, and differentiating right from wrong, equality from inequality, and justice from injustice. Given the importance of early childhood education we should be handing this important responsibility to the most qualified and experienced Ph.D.’s rather than, as current practice dic­ tates, to minimally qualified educators. Learning through interaction, including play and dialogue, has been a key­ stone of critical education from Socrates and Plato to Freire but also a basis for organizing popular social movements.76 All of this comprises the Socratic Method to which Freire gives a modern voice. Specifically, the idea is that edu­ cation cannot be forced from external sources. It must be a process of self-­ discovery. The role of the teacher is to guide learning as conceptualized by Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Accordingly, for Freire, education includes critical dialogue that transforms reality toward equality instead of learning to accommodate to the given. Furthermore, critical dialogue requires a transformation in the student-teacher relationship: “Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a 74 75

76

Freire, 2000: 45–46. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis because we conceptualize the world through language, language precedes thought. Therefore, language shapes the way we perceive the world (Schaefer, 2013). Shepard, 2011.

Social Structure

157

new term emerges: teacher-student and students-teachers.”77 It is important to note that for Freire, equality begins at the point of educational structure. For example, he argues the traditional banking model of education represents hierarchical social structures. There is the knowledgeable teacher confronted by students’ empty brains into which she will ‘deposit’ estranged information. This model is based on passive rather than reflexive learning and is thus void of critical thinking which, incidentally, bodes well for the elite. In an egalitar­ ian society, vertical competitive learning is replaced with horizontal coopera­ tive learning. Accordingly, the educator is not the all-knowing authority figure. Rather, the teachers’ authority is derived through process, as guides of learn­ ing, where students are given the tools to form their own thoughts and views of their social condition and reality. The Means of Violence In ancient Greek city-states, citizenship implied access to the means of vio­ lence and the dual obligation-privilege to serve when called. Thus, even phi­ losophers such as Socrates had served in the Athenian army, with distinction. In his vision of equality, Plato made military service mandatory for men and women of the Republic.78 Athenian democracy was ideologically based on the military emancipation of the common citizen to hold arms, a privilege that had been reserved for the aristocracy. Themistocles, who had the support of the working class, was elected archon (president) in 493 bc. He persuaded the Athenians that theirs was a seafaring nation thus the need for military ships— namely a fleet of 200 triremes. Because Athens had gone through an unstable period of rule by tyrants and oligarchic families, the new political system would base its military on the emancipated demos. This became possible because the triremes (literally three-oarers) required large numbers of rowers. It was decided that the rowers would not be slaves creating the dependence on common citizens. The total complement of the ship was about 200 comprised of 170 rowers, the deck crew, and a marine detachment.79 Interestingly, the population of citizens was estimated to be between 30 and 60 thousand. If we multiply a crew of 200 by 200 ships it requires 40,000 men to operate them, a figure approximating the size of the voting demos at the time. Some broader historical context is relevant here. Access to weapons and the right to carry them has been historically limited within caste societies. During both the European and Japanese feudal era an aristocracy ruled over peasants 77 78 79

Freire, 2000: 80. Plato, 1991. See Hanson (2006).

158

Chapter 4

with the persuasion of long blades. The poor peasants typically had access to no more than wooden farm tools. In 2010 alone, China experienced 180,000 revolts often over land grabs with peasants yielding machetes to be confronted by thugs with machine guns.80 During the 19th and 20th centuries the United States erected armories located at the heart of major cities. As Brecher observed, had the intention been to defend from external enemies the armor­ ies should have been located near ports and national borders.81 Instead, they were located in central urban centers for the government and merchant class to control local working-class populations given to regular revolts and insur­ rections during the bloody era of labor agitation. We also see the notion of citizenship tied to military service in contempo­ rary times. For example, many blacks during most u.s. wars tied their political emancipation to service. It began with the opportunity to join the Revolutionary War in exchange for freedom and property—promises that were eventually broken. The Civil War was a repeat with the same outcomes, beyond nominal emancipation. During World War I and later World War II the civil rights move­ ment considered it a matter of equal citizenship to be permitted active and meaningful combat duty. Of course, we understand the critique of a dominant ideology convincing oppressed blacks to fight for Uncle Sam. But, to be fair, let us remember it was Uncle Sam that refused this opportunity to blacks. To some measure, whites feared armed black men obtaining confidence with military training and service. To another extent, discrimination has social dimensions that can and have defied military and economic logic. In 2011, the gay commu­ nity considered it a sign of formal social acceptance when the u.s. military announced they could serve openly. Women who had been permitted to join the u.s. military in the 21st century were denied combat duty, considered vital for one’s career advancement. It was intense lobbying and legal actions that eventually forced the military to allow combat duty for women. We see, there­ fore, that participation in a community’s armed forces has been historically a symbol of equality and citizenship. In a utopian world there is no need for violence let alone standing armies. In the current neorealist international system a military is unavoidable. However, there is a difference between imperial and defensive forces as between merce­ nary and citizen armies. Armed forces in a democracy should be tasked with defending the community within its national borders from external hostile actors. Therefore military expenditures need not be so high as, for example, to  maintain bases across the world. For example, the United States spent 80 81

Bloomberg News, 2011. Brecher, 1997 [1972].

Social Structure

159

$682  ­billion for defense in 2012 alone.82 That was more than the next ten ­countries combined (China, Russia, u.k., Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy, and Brazil).83 This represents 20 percent of all federal spend­ ing. Dismantling the Pentagon military apparatus would free up resources for improved public well-being including housing, food security, healthcare, and education. In addition, troop levels will not be as high as those required for imperial endeavors and occupations. The army should basically function as an organized and regulated militia. The Swiss army offers an example. Plato considered the defense of the community a common obligation which is why all citizens had to train and fight side-by-side, including women, while children would be kept at safe distances from the battlefield to expose them to the realities of war.84 In this vein, service in a citizen army is a universal obliga­ tion through conscription of all citizens including genders, races and sexual identities, (dis)abilities, ideologies, and beliefs in appropriate roles. The com­ munity should set the age of conscription and length and format of service. Instead, the poor in the United States are disproportionately represented in the imperial forces as a means of escaping poverty. In other nations, conscrip­ tion forces the poor to defend the interests of elites whose children avoid ser­ vice (or danger when serving) through various strategies of avoidance. Universal service assures some important outcomes. For one, we would think harder as a society before choosing to go to war if all families had mem­ bers in harm’s way. In recent times, for example, only 22 percent of congres­ sional members had served, a historic low.85 Even fewer had children serving. Thus people who have not trained for, experienced, or are directly affected by war decide when other’s lives will be put at risk and at what material cost to the community. Another function of universal service is to further develop a ­common civic culture. In this regard, militaries have functioned as forces of ­modernization and homogenization. In addition, universal access to the legitimate means of violence (perversely) constitutes the democratization of violence. Almost all critical theorists con­ sider the monopolization of the means of violence a distinguishing character­ istic of the State. Ideally, we wish a withering of violence from our lives. But, since legally ‘abolishing’ violence does not prevent its practice we have to address who should control its dispensation. Here the answer is all of us. Governments and groups from the far Right to the far Left that claim a 82 Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 2013. 83 Ibid. 84 Plato, 1991. 85 Korte, 2011.

160

Chapter 4

­ onopoly over legitimate violence or access to weapons have consistently m used it to dominate others. When we all have equal access, no one group domi­ nates or if one attempts to do so they would be met with the armed resistance of the people who, incidentally, would have military training given universal service. Does this mean we should all own military-issued bazookas and tanks as the American far Right would have it? No, a civilized society does not permit weap­ ons to enter public space which is what individual private gun ownership rep­ resents. A system of direct democracy, as described here, represents the societal, not governmental or private, ownership of weapons through orga­ nized institutions such as a military and peace (police) force, as was the intended spirit of the Second Amendment that the American Right has suc­ cessfully usurped and misrepresented to mean individual ownership. The Swiss army offers a real-world example that can be modified. In essence, the Swiss army is a citizen militia based on conscription of males 20 to 30.86 The men go through basic training and serve in the active reserves three to four weeks per year up to a total of 260 days or the age of 34.87 During that time they are required to take home their military-issued guns and, until recently, some ammunition as well. The guns and ammunition would be locked and audited on a regular basis to assure no unauthorized use. In our model, citizens serving as peacekeepers should store their weapons at neighborhood armories. The purpose is to keep public means of violence in the ‘guardianship’ of trained citizens as a line of defense against, say, a coup d’état. At the same time, these weapons are not placed in private ownership nor should anyone following pre­ scribed service be allowed to own or possess them, contrary to Switzerland. Since organizing principles permeate an entire social structure, military institutions should also be organized based on egalitarian relations. As was proposed by Trotsky for the Red Army, but not ultimately implemented, the troops should bear no rank other than insignia of function such as cook, doc­ tor, and radio operator. In ancient Greek societies ruled by the demos, democ­ racy was reflected in the military through voting-in citizens as generals who then had to hold on to the position by merit.88 According to Castoriadis, “War is, of course, a specific field entailing a proper techne, and thus the war chiefs, the strategoi, are elected—as are the technicians in other fields charged by the polis with a particular task.”89 In that spirit, the officers should be elected 86 International Service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, 2007. 87 Ibid. 88 Aristotle, 1984. 89 Castoriadis, 1991: 108.

Social Structure

161

directly by their troops. If I am being asked to put my life on the line for my society, I should also be free to decide who I trust to lead me into the battle. But, at the appropriate level and above, there would have to be a group of pro­ fessionals with training in the academies rising through the ranks on merit as in most militaries. These professional military people, however, are in charge of a citizen army and are thus servants of the demos, not the legislatures or courts. This means war can only be declared by the demos through a national referendum. It is relevant here to address the issue of law enforcement and criminal jus­ tice. Utopians typically assume that a communal society would not need ‘laws’ or law enforcement. This is practically impossible for communities of a certain size and up. The pertinent question is who should be law enforcers and what policing would mean. Again, Plato considers law enforcement as one of the highest functions and honors to be carried out by the best trained and edu­ cated citizens. As such, he views law enforcers as affectionate peacekeepers or guardians as he called them. In a postmodern direct democracy citizens should also be tasked with peacekeeping. This could be a component of one’s overall military service. For example, one year of military service followed by another year as a peacekeeper. In my vision, there would still be a professional corps, complete with inves­ tigators and so on. However, community policing would be performed either exclusively by the conscripted citizens (who store their militia issue arms at neighborhood armories but do not carry them) or have them paired with pro­ fessional peacekeepers (police) who do not carry arms either, as in the British model. It is self-evident that professionals will be required with, for example, the required skills to investigate a murder. However, those who patrol are not an occupation force. Instead, their charge is to maintain the peace. Today, we have police forces who do not reflect the socioeconomic demographics of the communities they serve. This creates mistrust on both sides and a police mentality of ‘us versus them’ or the ‘thin blue line.’ But, if the police force is constituted by members of the community, then the attitudes change dramatically. The proposed hybrid professional-civil law enforcement system incorpo­ rates equality in policing authority thereby making it a form of community self-regulation. If everyone must serve in the armed military-civil forces, then almost all citizens will have been law enforcers at some point in their lives. Here, every citizen can reasonably expect that they will occupy positions of authority in a predictable time frame.90 Qualitatively, it also helps if we all 90

As argued by Dahrendorf (1959).

162

Chapter 4

experience what it means to keep the peace when it comes to human affairs. This increases our understanding of both the police and the policed. In the same respect, a criminal justice system must reflect the values of equality. For example, if we are all equals, we cannot remove that equality from anyone even a felon or convict. Of course, there will be times individuals will have to be restrained for their own or the public’s safety, as in the case of the criminally insane. Revoking their political rights though is incompatible with a system of equality because it automatically creates inequality. Once a loop­ hole to inequality is established, others will attempt to exploit it as a label with which to justify further encroachments into another’s equality. In the United States, felons lose their voting rights. The United States also has the largest prison population in the world that is disproportionately black and other peo­ ple of color. By disenfranchising felons, elites in a historically racist nation have found a label through which to reestablish Jim Crow. Here is why even the incarcerated, including the mentally ill, must maintain their status as equals. Their infractions cannot serve as grounds for loss of citizenship rights. Say blacks in u.s. prisons and their families had the right to vote. At some point the system that incarcerates ever more people becomes self-destructive as those on the inside will start outvoting those on the outside. With hierarchy, the logi­ cal extreme permits one person on the outside owning everything and every­ one else on the inside under his or her control. An egalitarian criminal justice system would also offer respect to the con­ victed, as does the Japanese criminal system. This is shown through personal respect, proper accommodations, quality of food, health and metal care, social services, family collaborations, community partnerships, and the over­ all goal of re-socialization and assistance. In the United States and most nations, the convicted are stigmatized, disrespected, crammed into unsani­ tary cells like animals, given industrial foods, brutalized by the system and other inmates, denied access to their families and needed health and social services, exploited by for profit companies where prisoners working in prison factories are a source of slave labor, and, finally, sometimes thrown back against all odds into a brutal world where they are now certified pariahs. The cycle of crime is thus assured to increase profits and limit the legitimate means of resistance such as voting by the victims. Under an egalitarian system punishment is in the form of constraining harmful behavior rather than limit­ ing one’s movement or political rights, and social acceptance of the person combined with disapproval for their offense. In short, a humanistic health­ care approach to criminal justice is more effective than a military one as evi­ denced by the futile ‘war on drugs.’

Social Structure



163

Compulsion and Discipline

All societies exercise various forms of social control referring to the techniques and strategies for preventing deviant behavior. Adherence and violation of social norms are met by positive and negative sanctions respectively in soci­ ety’s efforts to regulate behavior.91 Utopians can be found both to support some form of social regulation, typically based on informal social control, while others reject it altogether.92 Realistically, if a group of people wish to live as a community there will have to be formal regulatory norms, including compul­ sion to respect them and discipline when they are violated. This is why plural­ ist society with fundamentally incongruent values among its subcultures would result in structural conflict and possible dissolution of the political unit or its preservation by force. Regulation by definition implies compulsion and, therefore, discipline. Capitalism claims markets are self-regulating, absent government interven­ tion, thanks to the invisible hand.93 Theoretically, this means buyers and sellers are not compelled by some arbitrary bureaucrat or all powerful individual, but societal forces operating through markets. In reality that is a myth as all exist­ ing systems include some form of regulation. In this case a very small fraction of the population that owns capital ‘captures’ regulatory agencies to benefit their interest over that of the public.94 Most anarchists and almost all utopians consider compulsion to work as the keystone of capitalism. Therefore they strive for societies organized around the values of free consumption and freedom from the compulsion to work. It is assumed that in such a system people will develop their natural talents given a 91 92

93

94

Sanctions are penalties (negative sanctions) and rewards (positive sanctions) for conduct concerning a social norm. Informal social control is a form of ‘self-policing’ performed by members of the commu­ nity itself. Examples include using persuasion, ridicule, and gossip to change a person’s actions or behaviors. In contrast, formal social control is performed by official agents such as police officers and company managers, based on formal rules and procedures. Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations that economic regulation was unnecessary because of the invisible hand referring to the belief that consumers and producers seeking to further their own self-interests in competitive markets also promote the interest of society as a whole. Ironically, Adam Smith also wrote that “People of the same trade sel­ dom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” (Quoted in Stiglitz, 2012: 33). Stiglitz, 2012.

164

Chapter 4

significant increase in leisure time or, what is its flip side, a reduction in neces­ sary labor time. This leads to a natural division of labor and an economy with greater productivity and innovation. In practice, the main criticism has been how to get from here to there. In another section I have addressed why free consumption would not work in the initial stages of structural transformation although it may be possible at some point. Here I address the issue of compulsion. Castoriadis observed that capitalism has two sources of compulsion and discipline.95 One is the hierarchical structure of the firm. The second, where formal disciplinary agents are absent, are the producers themselves through informal social controls. Castoriadis writes, Human groups have never been and never are chaotic conglomerates of individuals moved solely by egoism and engaged in war with each other, as the ideologues of capitalism and of the bureaucracy…would have us believe. In groups, and in particular those occupied with an ongoing shared task, norms of behavior and collective pressure to win respect for these norms always arise.96 We could also add the structural aspects of compulsion; for example, how can one survive in a market economy without remuneration? Here, unemploy­ ment is the infamous disciplinary device in capitalist systems. Moreover, social structures based on inequality are ‘forced.’ People do jobs they hate because of compulsion, based on a technical division of labor. Social structures based on equality are ‘organic’ in that the division of labor is natural which would indi­ cate that work is not primarily based on compulsion. In the proposed model, political regulation will be performed by the demos through the randomly selected legislatures and courts representing self-rule. For example, citizens who are themselves the producers, not the employers, will determine the standard work arrangements such as number of work hours. Second, there will be economic regulation of work by the workers through selfmanagement at the point of production through corporate boards randomly constituted by workers and citizens. And third, there will be compulsion of the sort already practiced by fellow workers. Castoriadis explains, “A self-managed collectivity is not a collectivity without discipline, but a collectivity that decides itself how to organize its self-discipline and, should the case arise, the

95 Castoriadis, 1993: 219–220. 96 Ibid.

Social Structure

165

sanctions against those who deliberately violate the discipline.”97 It is here that utopians fail to address some realities. True, workers engage in informal selfmanagement within the workplace, but what if someone refuses to contribute his or her share of socially necessary labor altogether? Although most people are creative and industrious, not all are. Given the current psychological state of individuality, many would opt to consume freely without contributing any work—except if they were compelled—especially if the nature of the work is unsatisfactory to their ego. If enough people become ‘free riders’ then the ­system collapses. Logically there would have to be compulsion to contribute, especially in an egalitarian society. The new system however would allow those  who do not wish to work to do so. In that case they simply do not receive the National Wage or access to social programs. Therefore the proposed model would retain various aspects of compulsion, namely mandatory work of one’s own choosing (from what is available and needed by society) as a social contribution in exchange for the National Wage and participation in social benefit programs. Furthermore, if we follow the logic to its ultimate end, a problem with guar­ anteed employment is that it leads to the government as employer of last resort. For example, if someone could not find employment, who secures it for them? The down side in practice is that guaranteed employment—as demon­ strated by the Soviet Union and contemporary Greek public sector workers— results in various inefficiencies and extremely low productivity. Another question utopians fail to address is, if everyone were allowed to choose their work contribution who would want to pick up the garbage or, what if someone who sings horribly wants to work as a singer? Here, again, the logical conclu­ sion is one of society as employer of last resort—in this case for something no one wants or appreciates. This is demonstrated in real-world socialist econo­ mies where the public sector has been woefully bloated either due to corrup­ tion like patronage or as a de facto jobs program. Greece is a notorious case in point. However, this creates an unfair dichotomy between good, often redun­ dant if not blatantly ridiculous, public sector jobs at the expense of everyone else who subsidizes them through their taxes. The answer in the proposed model is that everyone does what someone else (a household, firm, or society through public voting on projects) is willing to hire them for. If someone is unable to contribute as they wish (for example, they sing poorly and no one wants to employ them) they will be compelled to take whatever else someone is willing to hire them for through hiring halls. If the bad singer cannot find work as such, they would be compelled to go through the list of available jobs 97

Castoriadis, 1993: 219.

166

Chapter 4

to fulfill the minimum work-hour requirements of the system. Perhaps, our bad singer is a competent baker, song-writer, or garbage collector. Don’t feel bad for our poor singer though. He would only have to spend a small fraction of his time at an undesirable task in exchange for time and resources to spend the rest of the day singing for anyone willing to hear or make and share YouTube videos. It must be made clear though that rather than utilizing the fear of unem­ ployment—as is the case under capitalism which extracts the maximum surplus labor at a minimum cost while disciplining militant workers— ­ unemployment would be no more than compulsion to contribute at the aver­ age skill and intensity required for a task in return for an equal share of overall social output. In this regard, unemployment rather than guaranteed full employment is retained as a disciplinary device. Note, no one is dictating per­ sons do anything they do not wish to. The deal is simple: one can be part of the system and receive from its output, or choose to live outside the system in which case survival and livelihood become the sole responsibility of the indi­ vidual. One can eat from the common tables only if one contributes, given allowances or special arrangements for retirement and other exceptional cir­ cumstances. There is no welfare. Every citizen receives social benefits only if they contribute their fair share. As soon as anyone can be exempted from work on grounds other than retirement or total incapacity, corruption will set in with free riders that will try to game the system. This is why even the mentally or physically incapacitated should not be exempted from military service or work requirements even if it is in a minimalist capacity as per their abilities. I would personally go a step further and argue everyone should serve full terms even if confined to an onsite hospital bed to drive home the point of inescap­ able universal service and contribution. Authority over productive property is democratized too. The new system will enforce social control over investment rather than by individuals, corpora­ tions, or the State. It has the potential to evolve into collectivization of produc­ tive resources, including labor, through equal individual shares of wealth, a National Wage, and equal work-hour obligations. Journalism Regimes based on inequality are inherently unjust. Therefore, in hierarchical systems elites must regulate their populations to preempt resistance. Overt control such as chaining the slaves has its limits as it makes no pretense of the situation nor is it productively efficient. Developed nations realize

Social Structure

167

­long-term control is best maintained covertly as through the use of a domi­ nant ideology that is reinforced by media propaganda intended to ‘manufac­ ture’ consent.98 Media control also serves to hide from public view all that could undermine the system’s legitimacy. For example, government abuses, historic inequality, corruption, incompetence, and so on are conspicuously absent from reporting. What is prominently reported instead are the new product lines for attire, celebrity film releases, society gossip, and the good deeds of the rich and high government officials. Suppression of dissent in reporting truth has been and remains rampant in totalitarian regimes. The  Soviet Union would literally remove mention of descendants from official records and printed textbooks, wiping them clean out of history as George  Orwell was inspired to write in his novel 1984. Today ‘communist’ China routinely rounds-up reporters and protesters in the middle of the day in plain sight. Sadly, this is increasingly the state of affairs in the neoliberal democracies of the West. In 2013 media reports revealed an increasing disre­ gard for civil liberties and constitutional guarantees by the United States and Britain. Using the attacks of 9/11 as a pretext these governments proceeded to build an unprecedented security apparatus which was revealed to be spying on global telecommunications including internet traffic. The audacity of these agencies reached a new post–World War II high with whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning (a u.s. soldier), Edward Snowden (a National Security Agency contractor), and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks literally being hunted down across the globe by these ‘democratic’ empires. The brazen attack on truth reached new heights when u.s. and British intelligence ille­ gally detained David Miranda at Heathrow airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000. He is a long-term professional and life partner of Glenn Greenwald, a reporter with the Guardian newspaper, who Edward Snowden trusted with documents exposing surveillance abuses. The intimi­ dation of the media escalated when British intelligence agents entered the Guardian’s offices to destroy hard drives containing copies of Snowden’s documents. What all this teaches us is that systems of inequality are substantively the same when it comes to shielding their crimes. The United States and Britain, bastions of liberal democracy, acted no differently than China. Yet, democracy is possible only on the basis of factual information. This is the job of journal­ ists. A concurrent function of investigative journalism is to check the abuses of power. Unfortunately, corporate, State-owned, and publicly supported media are biased and wide-open to corruption. Many may not realize that publicly 98

Chomsky, 1989.

168

Chapter 4

supported media, as pbs in the United States, will be biased in favor of what its major financial supporters, typically corporations and moneyed interests, desire to air.99 As for corporate or State controlled media the problems are obvious.100 Many a reporter has been fired or harassed for exposing powerful interests and their shenanigans.101 The Fox network also demonstrates that such media can devolve into pure propaganda machines.102 For example, the Program on International Policy (pipa)/Knowledge Networks Poll found Fox network viewers were far more likely to have inaccurate beliefs regarding basic facts related to economics, foreign policy, and more, which reflected Republican propaganda aired on the network, and that they, not surprisingly, were more likely to support Republican policies.103 No one would expect North Korean or Chinese State television to air anything other than government propaganda. How then do we obtain information that is objective and necessary for a dem­ ocratic process as water for the fields? To start, we must remove the pretense of any news function from all outlets except the ones charged with this public service. News media must be treated as an independent public utility that cannot be privatized or controlled by other institutions, including governmental. To privatize news service in a democracy is as absurd as privatizing law enforcement. Who are the journal­ ists then? Society should establish autonomous independent news agencies with bureaus covering the local, state, federal, and global levels. These organi­ zations should be based on the highest journalistic standards as set forth by both practitioners and schools of professional journalism. Their governing bodies should be composed of practicing journalists and academics in equal portion as with legislatures. All rulings should be made collectively by large committees and simple majority vote as with the proposed court system. Financial support must be based on an iron-clad endowment that cannot be manipulated by any individual or institution. Practicing journalists would obtain formal education, followed by an apprenticeship, culminating in licen­ sure with an academic form of tenure. A tenure system for journalists is the only way to assure the profession’s free speech and protections against harass­ ment and undue influence. Only tenured journalists should hold the title and report on news. Removal or reprimand of any journalist would have to follow a formal process with multiple levels of appeals. In short this and the academy 99 See, for example, fair (September 8, 2010). 100 Greenwald, 2004. 101 Achbar and Abbott, 2004. 102 Greenwald, 2004. 103 Ibid.

Social Structure

169

are the only institutions that deserve the ultimate protections currently assigned to the u.s. Supreme Court and federal judges. Such a journalistic ­system would be far more effective than any regulatory agency devised for all spheres of life.

The Social Network: The Future That Can Be Now

Malthus had argued population growth outstrips technological innovation leading to stagnation and decline. This is where economics got its nickname as the ‘dismal science.’ Accordingly: Thomas Malthus argued convincingly that the low and generally rather stationary level of world per capita incomes prior to his time (the end of the 18th century) was causally related to the very slight rates of growth in population. According to the Mathusian model, the causation went in both directions. Higher incomes increased population by stimulating earlier marriages and higher birth rates, and by cutting down mortality from malnutrition and other factors. But higher population also depressed incomes per capita through diminishing marginal productivity. This dynamic interaction between population and the economy is the heart of the Malthusian model of income and population determination.104 In contrast, modern studies such as that of Boserup, found greater population stimulates technological advances that remediate the handicaps of a rising population, leading to economic growth.105 According to Becker: These Malthusian effects would be much weaker in modem urban econ­ omies with small agricultural and natural-resource sectors. In these econ­ omies, the increased density that comes with higher population and greater urbanization promotes specialization and greater investment in human capital, and also more rapid accumulation of new knowledge. These ‘increasing returns’ from specialization and accumulation of knowledge would raise per capita incomes as population grew and are likely to be far more important than diminishing returns in resource-­ constrained sectors.106 104 Becker et al., 1999: 145. 105 Boserup, 1981. 106 Becker et al., 1999: 146.

170

Chapter 4

Michael Kremer combined the models of Malthus and Boserup allowing him to predict the empirical relationship between population growth and techno­ logical progress and income, from early to modern times.107 Galor and Weil refined that model arguing population and human capital growth increase the rate of technological progress.108 A study by Stephan Klasen and Thorsten Nest­ mann supported earlier findings by Boserup; Aghion and Howitt; Grossman and Helpman; and Becker et al.109 Klasen and Nestmann found that in addition to population and human capital growth, population density also contributes to rapid technological innovation: “As population density facilitates communi­ cation and exchange, increases the size of markets and the scope for specializa­ tion and creates the required demands for innovation, all of which should spur the creation and diffusion of new technologies.”110 Obviously population growth needs to be managed relative to available resources. However, the point here is that large populations in modern times can be a resource rather than an impediment. For example, these studies indi­ cate a society’s rate of technological development increases geometrically, even exponentially, with population growth. This occurs with increasing con­ centration, such as urban centers, and connectedness referring to the flow and availability of information. The proposed model of society would further the extent and depth of rationalization of not only national but global production (for example, there would be an optimal number of light-bulb plants). Most important, scientific rationalization would require a massive administrative body, a bureaucracy. But in this new model we would be automating deeper and further the workings of the bureaucracy too, creating in a sense an objec­ tive computerized mega bureaucracy with which to manage large populations at the regional if not global level. Of course, growing bureaucratization has been lampooned in most academic circles since the writings of Max Weber with many books and movies like Brazil describing dystopias. But, as Weber and Dahrendorf recognized, modern society is destined to rely on bureaucratic apparatuses for their ability to process massive quantities of information. This is precisely when bureaucracies become something to be feared: when they are working for the benefit of a government or private hierarchical insti­ tutions rather than for the benefit of all citizens. Imagine a society of collaborators rather than competitors, one based on trust given the safeguards of direct democracy. In this case, society’s 107 108 109 110

Kremer, 1993. Galor and Weil, 2000. Aghion and Howitt, 1992; Grossman and Helpman, 1991; Klasen and Nestmann, 2006. Klasen and Nestmann, 2006: 612.

Social Structure

171

a­ dministrative apparatus is utilized for the public good including things like departments of education, agriculture, and so on. Currently, there is also a massive automated bureaucracy that is part of mega corporations. These cor­ porations are obtaining ever greater amounts of public and private informa­ tion about us so as to target ads and sales. This is what permits these companies to offer rather accurate suggestions. For example, online video streaming com­ panies such as Netflix can make movie recommendations that the customer actually likes. Google or Facebook know which ads to pop up on the user’s computer monitor. Better yet, think of Amazon.com. Corporations have amassed all this data about our lives and habits so that they can fine tune the algorithms (formulas) that run these systems targeting us for what we might most likely be interested in. Of course most of us are not aware of the extent to which our privacy is violated and many would still accept this so long as it delivers the desired type of products and content. All this has moved toward cloud computing where a company has stored data at some remote server accessible through an internet connection. What if all this information and the powerful algorithmic formulas about our habits and preferences were all centralized on a single cloud? Combined with all other public data, including data from hiring halls, we would achieve a level of efficiency with socially desirable outcomes that would be considered science fiction by today’s standards, although the technology is available now. Envision this. The community has a master digitized account for each citizen. Our sub-accounts for movies, libraries, medical and employment records, and place of residence are all concentrated in one place managed by the mega algorithm. Now, a refrigerator can inform the owner of items that need replen­ ishing as well as suggestions on food to try. It could even order the groceries (in consultation with medical records and customized nutritional plans) and have them delivered and stocked without the owner’s presence being required. The super bureaucracy would be used to gauge what and how much to produce, and also to aid individuals in their discovery of what they desire or consider useful. There would also be real-time data on everything, including how many people are visiting a medical specialist and for what symptoms, making it faster to spot changes or trends that need be addressed such as viral outbreaks, cancer clusters, and food contaminations. We can implement real-time pricing as well to better reflect changing demand and our use of resources. The power of the social cloud becomes exponentially higher when all data, including age, gender, and race, is incorporated and cross-referenced. The proposed super cloud constitutes the software side of the administra­ tive bureaucracy in a fully automated society. The cloud functions based on algorithms thus avoiding human subjectivity or arbitrariness when human

172

Chapter 4

decision makers are involved. This is a system that is an objective ‘iron cage’ of rationality based on an all-encompassing and overlapping mega-algorithm. Many that fear who controls this apparatus can put their minds at ease because the algorithmic formulas will be constructed based on public discourse. The demos decides what the algorithms are designed to accomplish and techni­ cians implement them. This represents a flattening of bureaucratic hierarchi­ cal organizational structure. Everyone in the community has input as to what this bureaucracy is designed to accomplish. Once the gears are set in motion the system governs itself free of human interference and therefore error or cor­ ruption. Let us not forget that versions of these are already utilized today by corporations and governments without any public input, so it is not as if we are creating a new Frankenstein. Instead, we are talking about harnessing the monster for public good rather than for private profit. Just like the economic utilities of markets and prices, these are technological tools that can be employed for good or evil depending on the user: “The inhumanity of the oppressors and revolutionary humanism both make use of science. But sci­ ence and technology at the service of the former are used to reduce the oppressed to the status of ‘things’; at the service of the latter, they are used to promote humanization.”111 There are many benefits derived from the gift of time that automation and limited necessary work give us. For example, a three-hour workday permits us to devote more time interacting through social rather than market relations. Many people feel they are bad parents or spouses because of the unreasonable constraints and demands required by their jobs (I have already noted above that Americans work the longest in the industrialized world). Now parents can dedicate the time required to raise children and sustain a relationship as opposed to simply engaging in feel-good ‘quality time’ shortcuts aimed at keeping the fabric of society from becoming undone. Furthermore, the relief from stress caused by wage slavery, status competition, and inequality gener­ ally would improve quality of life and increase longevity according to studies that have been reviewed in chapter 3, Material Relations.112 In such an egalitar­ ian system crime and many destructive behaviors like alcoholism, drug addic­ tion, and teenage pregnancies would also be reduced significantly. Just as important, and according to the medical findings, equalizing authority, which the automated bureaucracy enables, has beneficial effects including reduc­ tions in stress. And last, automation will enable the demos to be the sole arbi­ ter deciding the proper balance between work, consumption, and leisure. 111 Freire, 2000: 133. 112 Marmot, 2005; Pickett and Wilkinson, 2011.

Social Structure

173

If people decide in favor of increased consumption they will consciously be choosing to work more or vice versa. Currently this is not a realistic option because capitalist firms are structurally designed to demand long hours from workers. The choice presented is between high levels of consumption at the expense of leisure or all the leisure an unemployed person wants without income to consume—there is no happy in-between or some other balance.113 The proposed vision allows the demos to make that decision collectively. By increasing leisure time people will be able to participate in governance, educational development, social ties, and creative pursuits. 113 Schweickart, 2011.

Conclusion

No Islands of Egalitarianism in a Sea of Inequality

Marx understood that hegemony builds intricate national and world structures based on its organizing principles therefore assuring its institutional reproduction and maintenance rendering alternatives as impractical utopias: Only when commerce has become world commerce, and has as its basis large-scale industry, when all nations are drawn into the competitive struggle, is the permanence of the acquired productive forces assured. … Big industry universalised competition…established means of communication and the modern world market, subordinated trade to itself, transformed all capital into industrial capital, and thus produced the rapid circulation…and the centralisation of capital. …It destroyed as far as possible ideology, religion, morality, etc., and where it could not do this, made them into a palpable lie. It produced world history for the first time, insofar as it made all civilised nations and every individual member of them dependent for the satisfaction of their wants on the whole world, thus destroying the former natural exclusiveness of separate nations. … [it] resolved all natural relationships into money relationships. In the place of naturally grown towns it created the modern, large industrial cities which have sprung up overnight. Wherever it penetrated, it destroyed the crafts and all earlier stages of industry. It completed the victory of the commercial town over the countryside. …from the conception of history we have sketched we obtain these further conclusions: [the working class] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.1 Reading the above quote, one notices that it could have been referring to 21st century neoliberalism just as much as to the early stages of capitalist development in the 19th century. Marx points out two significant facts here. First, capitalism is a global structure with legs in most nations. As such, an egalitarian nation would in fact be an island in a capitalist sea. Also, an egalitarian nation cannot maintain its current standard of living in isolation because of capitalism’s rationalization of global resources. For example, think of the global production chains. In addition, natural resources are not evenly distributed across nations. For example, there are few global locations where certain materials 1 Marx, 1978c: 180; 185; 192–193.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_007

NO ISLANDS OF EGALITARIANISM IN A SEA OF INEQUALITY

175

such as rare earth elements like yttrium, scandium, and the lanthanide series can be mined. Many of these are key elements for most technologies from tvs to cell phones. Therefore, a nation isolated from global capitalism that lacks these resources would be unable to produce most of its own electronics. Japan has very limited farm land forcing it to import much of its food. In isolation, much of its population would starve as would happen in many nations. All this will force nations to trade. But, that means operating within the global capitalist framework resulting in the problems discussed here shortly. Therefore, change would have to be global. This leads to the second point made by Marx in the previous passage. Namely, a change in global structure requires a global revolution. More to the point, assuming workers established an egalitarian society, it would not survive in a capitalist world. Isolated or not its fate would be the same, failure. Even if not attacked by reactionary forces, such a system will always be outcompeted economically. If one nation is producing goods and services with slave labor and or abominable living standards as under capitalism, there will be no way for free people to compete. This is why under global capitalism labor costs always gravitate toward the lowest common denominator as capital treads the earth seeking the next impoverished souls to exploit. The outcome will be identical to that experienced by nations with significant social programs, protections, and high living standards: the so-called socialist democracies of Scandinavia and Western Europe when they entered the era of global capitalism in the mid-1990s as the World Trade Organization took effect. These economies have become bankrupt due to free trade competition with cheap labor from the Chinas of the world and American, now global, capital. In 2008 the hourly compensation in manufacturing for China has been estimated to be $1.36 including wages, benefits, and social insurance.2 This does not take into account the roughly 700 million Chinese, let alone Indians, who live as subsistence peasants in the countryside. By contrast, in 2011 the total hourly compensation in manufacturing for Japan was $35.71, $35.53 in the United States, $42.12 in France, $30.77 in the United Kingdom, and $47.38 in Germany.3 It should be noted that hourly compensation in these nations has been declining over the past years with the rise of free trade agreements. Ironically, external competition from cheap labor and imported goods, which undermine domestic wages and living standards, is a major factor behind the decline of great empires and the final death knell to any semblance 2 Banister and Cook, 2011. 3 U.S. Department of Labor, 2012.

176

CONCLUSION

of democracy. When looking at Rome, history shows it was cheap imported grain from conquered provinces that gutted that society’s agrarian social base. Average Romans who could not compete where reduced to abject poverty. Thus Rome was divided into the mob on the one hand and patricians on the other. Soon, the door opened to dictators, signaling the end of the Republic. As Marx predicted for capitalism, I have argued any system of structural inequality will eventually lead to a two-class society of haves and have-nots. This is lost on both elite and average citizens when justifying such imports on the basis of affordability. Their argument ignores that consumers are also producers and in order to consume they need the income which cheap imports destroy. The historic post-war unemployment rates since 2008 across the industrialized world and dramatic decline in aggregate demand coincided with the globalization of neoliberalism indicating a repeat of what happened in Rome. Consequently, to paraphrase Marx, every system of inequality carries its own seeds of destruction as ruling elites annihilate aggregate demand. The result is economic stagnation and poverty in the midst of plenty, a precursor to revolution. With booming budget deficits and resistance to tax hikes for the rich the solution becomes singular: more neoliberalization by gutting social programs and safety nets. During 2010–12 peripheral European Union nations, like the socialist government of Greece, were forced to slash wages and pensions, increase taxes on all but the hyper-rich, and gut public spending. Spain, Portugal, and Ireland followed with their own austerity measures to ‘prevent’ economic meltdown. Core European Union nations were not spared either, as France increased the hard-won retirement age from 60 to 62 on the path toward neoliberalism and had its bond rating downgraded by 2012. In order to reduce its deficits, the conservative government of England in 2010 ripped apart welfare programs and trebled university fees. Ironically, governments were slashing spending in the depths of a depression when according to Keynesian (classical capitalist) economics increased, rather than decreased, government expenditures were required. Furthermore, by participating in the global capitalist structure, all of these countries can be easily forced into submission. Because these nations cannot compete internationally, coupled with perpetual tax breaks for the rich and corporations, social spending inevitably results in budget shortfalls. Even if politicians did not wish to slash social spending they are forced to by the dynamics of the global capitalist structure—which also indicates the problem of co-opted ‘revolutionary’ or ‘workers’ movements when engaging in formal political structures. Markets consider nations that do not wish to cut social spending to balance budget deficits to be in danger of default and as riskier

NO ISLANDS OF EGALITARIANISM IN A SEA OF INEQUALITY

177

investments must demand higher returns.4 In turn, as governments try to borrow on the international capital markets to finance their expenditures they see borrowing rates increase dramatically for their sovereign debt. This has been demonstrated by many European economies which were targeted by speculators in global capital markets with devastating outcomes. In April 2010 Greek ten-year bonds reached 11.24 percent, the highest since the introduction of the euro, compared to Germany’s 3.02 percent, a core European Union economy.5 This prompted the European Union and imf to intervene with additional pressure to tax the masses while cutting services to save ironically other capitalists who had caused the economic collapse started in the United States in 2008. In November of 2010 Ireland experienced the same attacks on its economy raising its borrowing costs for ten-year bonds to 8 percent compared to 3.627 percent in August prompting yet another intervention by the European Union and imf.6 In comparison, u.s. five-year Treasuries made history on October 25, 2010 selling for the first time at a negative yield of 0.55 percent.7 This means investors were willing to pay the United States to borrow their money while punishing other nations with high yields. The imf and World Bank, which are governed predominantly by the United States, with Europe as a junior partner, serve as global disciplining institutions. When nations are forced to seek help from the imf, as lender of last resort, they must agree to neoliberal reorganization of their economy—especially privatization—before obtaining assistance from the World Bank or transnational banks. In addition to privatization of State resources, these measures include deregulation, free trade and capital flows, severe reductions in public spending, tax increases on the masses, currency devaluations, and wage reductions to reduce budget deficits and attract foreign investment as a result of decreased export prices.8 As of February 21, 2012, Greece marked another historic event. As a condition of the European Union–imf bailouts, Greece was required to concede to the humiliating loss of fiscal sovereignty by accepting permanent monitors on the ground with the power to intervene in the nation’s budget and spending decisions! Of course in the end there is the safe-stop of representative democracy. Who do you think refuses to tax capital at levels necessary to fund social expenditures including in the socialist countries? Politicians simply reflect capital’s 4 5 6 7 8

Stiglitz, 2012: 139. Smith, 2010. Bartha and Fottrell, 2010; Pogatchnik and Steinhauser, 2010. Hauser, 2010. Black, 2003; McMichael, 2012.

178

CONCLUSION

interests and “starve the beast” as the conservatives like to say in the United States meaning deny government the funds it needs to function. A good example would be the over 41 congressional votes by Republicans (and still counting) to de-fund Obamacare even though it became the law of the land after two acrimonious presidential elections. By definition, all deficits are therefore manufactured. This is a backdoor to undermine workers’ gains and disciplining labor, breaking its militancy where it exists. For example, given that the national debt as a percentage of gdp is not all that different between countries like Greece and the United States one wonders why the discrepancy in yields? The obvious formal answer is the United States can print money, as it has at historic levels, to get out of trouble, coupled with the fact that its is the international reserve currency.9 Upon closer look, one notices that the United States is a Disneyland of capitalist rule, exploitation, and non-existent or decorative social protections and programs with declining living standards compared to the socialist nations—all with a thoroughly controlled population indoctrinated by media and institutional propaganda (through schools, for example). Thus, the true impetus behind all this is to subdue the last bastions of resistance to wild capitalism and prevent it from spreading to the American “peasants.”10 In addition to the global workings of the invisible hand described above there are human hands to assure compliance with corporate hegemony.11 John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man describes through his own experiences the process of submitting nations to neoliberal capitalism.12 At first, national elites are ‘advised’ by Washington economic hit men how it would benefit their nations to adopt, in essence, u.s. pro-capital policies. If there is resistance the next step is bribery. If this were to fail, then assassination attempts, as the one on Saddam Hussein, would follow. If that also fails it escalates to American engineered coup d’états.13 The Chilean coup d’état of 1973 against Salvador Allende, a democratically elected president, is a classic example of the cia’s work. More recently, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez was also targeted by the cia with a failed coup d’état for resisting American oil interests. 9

10 11 12 13

For example, the Federal Reserve has been propping government expenditures by purchasing $85 billion worth of government ‘paper’ meaning bonds per month indefinitely. This and other measures since 2008 have increased the Fed’s securities holdings to over $4 trillion (Hilsenrath and McGrane, 2013). Corporations have taken out secret life insurance policies on their workers calling it “dead peasants” insurance (Moore, 2009). Zepezauer, 2012. Perkins, 2004. Zepezauer, 2012.

NO ISLANDS OF EGALITARIANISM IN A SEA OF INEQUALITY

179

Then there are puppet governments such as Egypt’s Mubarak, the Saudi Royal family, Indonesia’s Suharto, Philippines’ Marcos, Iran’s Shah and puppet States such as Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Ultimately, invasion becomes the final option to discipline undesirable or uncooperative regimes, with Iraq as one example in a long list. This list also included Russia in 1918 to support the Tsar’s medieval regime against the, at the time, peoples’ revolution. When one looks at the nations involved in that invasion it quickly becomes apparent that it was capitalist countries ganging up on the Reds. Another lesson from past experience is that capitalist nations would rather choose to side with totalitarian regimes than support forms of societal organization that challenge authoritarian structures, fearing their own populations would develop a taste for equality. Things could hardly be otherwise since governments are by definition authoritarian. The difference between a capitalist democracy and totalitarianism of the Left or Right persuasion is only a matter of degree. Both have elites that dominate the majority to their own advantage. This explains why the so-called democracies of Europe and the United States turned a blind eye to the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War. Here we had a coup d’état against a democratically elected government by fascist forces. In fact, they were backed by Hitler’s Nazi regime with 12,000 men, 1000 artillery pieces, 200 tanks, and 600 planes and Italy’s Mussolini with 50,000 men 1000 artillery pieces, 150 tanks, and 660 planes.14 The Spanish fascists were also assisted by American corporations such as Texaco, General Motors, Ford Motor, and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company with fuel, trucks, tires, and machine tools.15 Shockingly, American enterprises including families of present day Washington political elites aided and abetted Hitler even after formal hostilities because of their hatred of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. This included Prescott Bush, father of Bush 41, and grandfather of Bush 43. Prescott helped Fritz Thyssen, a German coal and steel magnate and early backer of Hitler, to protect his global wealth through the Brown Brothers Harriman investment firm using a holding company, Union Banking Corporation, an account managed by Prescott.16 In 1942 the U.S. government seized Union Banking Corpo­ ration with four other Thyssen accounts managed by Bush with the money being returned to shareholders, including Bush, after the war. ibm’s founder Thomas Watson using a German subsidiary knowingly supplied Hitler with punch card machines, an early computing system, that made possible the 14 15 16

Hugh, 2001: 944. Tierney, 2007: 67–68. Stone and Kuznick, 2012.

180

CONCLUSION

tracking and recording of Holocaust victims and kept the trains running on time.17 Alfred Sloan of General Motors, through his German subsidiary Opel, built cars and transport vehicles for the German army. When Poland was invaded, Sloan stated “his company was too big to be affected by a petty international squabble.”18 Ford founder Henry, who accepted the Nazi Iron Cross of Honor (Hitler and Ford were mutual admirers), used his German subsidiary to provide vehicles. Both General Motors and Ford refused to divest their German holdings at the request of the U.S. government even after the war was declared.19 More so, the companies retooled for war production in Germany when requested, while resisting similar requests from the U.S. government.20 Other u.s. companies who collaborated with the enemy included Standard Oil Company, alcoa, itt, General Electric, DuPont, Kodak, Westinghouse, Pratt & Whitney, Douglas Aircraft, United Fruit, Singer, and International Harvester.21 These companies continued to trade with Germany up to 1941 thanks to collaboration with international banking and law firms. These included the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell llp whose managing director was John Foster Dulles, who later became secretary of state.22 Dulles also managed the account for the Bank for International Settlements established to manage World War I reparations. When World War II broke out, the bank offered financial services to the Nazis including accepting deposits of looted gold.23 Chase, JP Morgan, and Union Bank also collaborated with the enemy for profit.24 That fascist and representative democratic regimes are equally anti-egalitarian is further demonstrated by their willingness to cooperate when profit is at hand. During the Cold War the American and Russian people were served healthy dosages of propaganda by their rulers regarding the evils of each other’s systems. Yet, at the same time, the U.S. and Soviet governments routinely traded with each other especially in American grain, all while fighting proxy wars around the world knowing neither of the cold war empires could or even wanted to conquer the other’s homelands. This was clearly demonstrated by the American policy of containment and Soviet documents made public after its collapse. Basically, we saw in real life two literary classics by the visionary 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.

NO ISLANDS OF EGALITARIANISM IN A SEA OF INEQUALITY

181

George Orwell being played out: Animal Farm and 1984. Both empires had their set of pigs and waged perpetual unwinnable wars over colonies with ever changing alliances as they traded with each other. Of course this raises the need to justify trading with the enemy since some in the population are bound to learn of it and question why. The propaganda used to justify trading with a so-called evil enemy is exemplified by the United States’ and other Western nations’ eagerness to do business with the Chinese fascists. Although China is branded and claims to be ‘communist’, American, European, and Japanese corporations seem to be doing well producing with cheap Chinese labor and exporting finished goods to their homelands for consumption. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy because he gassed his own people, the Kurds. Of course the Kurds were not his own tribe, revolted to create their own country, and attempted to assassinate him. But when the Chinese dictators massacred their own students for protesting in favor of democracy in Tiananmen Square the West turned a blind eye. In fact, China has no civil liberties, routinely violates human rights openly, has erected the Great Firewall with the assistance of u.s. technology firms to cyberimprison its population, occupies foreign nations like Tibet, and is increasingly hostile to its neighbors. Why is the West doing business with China rather than invading to ‘free’ the Chinese people as it did in Iraq, or at least isolate and contain China as it did with the Soviet Union or with Castro’s Cuba? ‘Because by engaging them it will help open up that society and lead to democratic change!’ Then why not engage Saddam or Castro? The hypocrisy deserves no further analysis. Money is authoritarian and will do business with anyone and anywhere profit is to be made. Therefore, because of the reality of being under constant direct and indirect attack by authoritarian or capitalist regimes, this new society needs to consider what Marxists and early believers in the Russian revolution argued. For such a system to survive it must defeat the existing global structure and its institutions. In fact, “Marx rejected the notion that communism could or should be wielded by states, perhaps most fundamentally, because he understood that capitalism was already global, already beyond the reach of any one nation-state, and that therefore any revolution against capitalism must also be global (in principle and in practice beyond the borders of nationstates).”25 Consequently, it is not sufficient to resist external attacks as these will be never ending. Instead, a new ‘class’-versus ‘nation’-based hegemonic structure 25

Gilman-Opalsky, 2012: 28.

182

CONCLUSION

must emerge with its own tenets and global rules, what Robert Cox called a new transnational historic bloc based on Gramscian principles.26 This means that unlike the old theories regarding so-called democracies, true egalitarian societies (not nations) must predominate over all the rest. This includes authoritarian or hierarchical democracies, capitalist, socialist or any other systems in which some will have advantage over others. Defeating these regimes should only have the purpose of replacing them with egalitarian systems designed by the people involved. No occupying forces, no forced trade or exploitative arrangements. These would have to be purely liberatory wars. Here it also becomes quickly apparent that without certain educational levels this is all a moot point. Introducing an ideology of equality to nations such as Afghanistan that are predominantly illiterate with tribal cultures based on hierarchy and domination of women and other groups would be futile. This is an even greater obstacle than defeating an advanced authoritarian State. If capitalist armies can be successfully defeated, then it would not take that long to re-socialize their highly educated populations as the United States did in World War II with defeated Germany and Japan. This is especially true since educated people can understand the new values of egalitarianism compared to the dominant ideology of their national overlords. It is also easier to change the minds of populations when they do not see armies of liberation turning into occupation forces. With illiterate or traditional societies that do not have egalitarian cultures it would be easier to ask a man to cut off his hand than see and treat his wife as a true equal or to withdraw his faith from spirits. If such a global revolution were to succeed the only possible solution would be to isolate these societies and provide as many educational resources to them as possible in hopes that their culture might catch-up to modernity and its egalitarian principles. Here is perhaps one of the few instances where media propaganda could play a positive role. For example, studies such as Jensen and Oster’s have found that rural Indian households with television sets are more likely to exhibit egalitarian attitudes toward women and more progressive beliefs in general.27 This is not a correlation with, say, richer thus more educated households having televisions. Rather, this was an observed change in the same households before and after acquiring a television. Either way, these traditional societies would surely appreciate being left alone, a current demand shared by many of them like Afghani tribes. However, the ultimate reason, beyond survival, why such a societal system must go global is shared humanity. If all people are equal, then all people on 26 27

Cox, 1987. Jensen and Oster, 2009.

NO ISLANDS OF EGALITARIANISM IN A SEA OF INEQUALITY

183

the planet must be treated equally. There is no reason for an Ethiopian or Indian child to have less than a British or American child. The nation-state and national borders are a recent historical creation. These also happen to be the precursors to capitalism and increased exploitation. Nations are in fact artificial constructs, a macro-enclosure of resources and people. It is communities that are real and although there can be distinct cultures such as Greek or Persian, these should be understood as global subcultures because there is only one culture, that of humanity. A second practical reason this must be a global system is resources. Global food supply would dwindle if we were to revert to national self-dependence causing famine and death. Current population levels are supported because of industrial farming techniques. Also, global resources must be managed collectively for developed nations to maintain the living standards their populations are accustomed to while assisting developing regions. Say what you will of global capitalism (as distinct from neoliberalism), it was responsible for much of the material development seen in industrialized and developing nations. This was primarily due to the economic notion of comparative advantage, global specialization and management of scarce resources including dreaded export monoculture. The drawback is that it also led to underdevelopment of colonized regions through global enclosures of indigenous resources by corporations and the destruction of the planet through unsustainable development practices. A new system would still rely on the global management of resources in order to maintain current living standards. The only difference would be that international specialization would not lead to a core-periphery divide. Instead, resources would be managed to every person’s benefit with sustainable practices. For example, the United States cannot grow coffee like Jamaica or Colombia. Many African regions would require centuries to catch up to German levels of industrial production. This opens the opportunity for societies to specialize and engage not in free or even fair trade but in just and equitable distribution.

Afterword

What Can Grow in the Graveyard for Orthodoxies?

In the social theory, political philosophy, and revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, certain orthodoxies made good sense. The stakes of world affairs seemed to hinge upon choosing one ideology or another. In the political debates of the late 19th century and early 20th, there was a palpable sense that the prevailing worldview would shape the future. This was true in the debates of thinkers who sought to throw the world of capital into question. Within European radicalism was the idea that following the influence of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Karl Marx could lead to hell or heaven on Earth, depending on one’s point of view. Everything was submitted as evidence for one side or the other, from the Paris Commune and its catastrophic fate to debates between Paul Lafargue and the anarchists, and between Lafargue and the Marxists too. The notion that there should be a decisive ideology for world affairs did not die easily, although one might have seen a possibly final embodiment in the reactionary discourses of the Cold War. But alas, as the current phase of neoliberal ideology meets with the materiality of capitalist crisis, and governments struggle for enduring relevance in transnational politics, all the old ideologies have come back again, like zombies hungry for life. But in the 21st century, good work is a graveyard for orthodoxies. This means that good works today don’t contribute to the revitalization of the dead language of ideological purity. This does not mean that we cannot call ourselves “anarchists” or “communists,” or that there are no longer “capitalists” in the world. Such conclusions would be absurd. We do not live in a “post-capitalist” world, since most of the whole of human relations is governed by exchange relations according to the logic of capital. What it means to insist on a graveyard for orthodoxies is that we must rethink old traditions and trajectories against their calcified and vilified forms, burying zombified ideologies for good. A less ideological and more philosophical conversation has become necessary. Indeed, one of the many places where Marx got it wrong was in his conceit in the poverty of philosophy. To be fair, Marx had good reasons at the time of The German Ideology and Theses on Feuerbach (1845–1846) to worry about the prominence of philosophers and to oppose Berlin’s youth culture of a Hegelian contemplation floating above the real world of human suffering. However, times have changed, the world is not overly philosophical, and philosophy is not ideology (and, arguably, never was). Philosophy is the process of open questioning that comes to an end in the rigid worldviews of ideology. Philosophy is

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004262751_008

What Can Grow in the Graveyard for Orthodoxies?

185

more practical than ideology. If we have learned anything from the failures and frustrations of 170 years of revolutionary theory and practice, it should be that ideological narrowness prevents an open approach to available resources, and is a dangerous dead end. Perhaps the first thing to appreciate in John Asimakopoulos’s new book is how he makes good use of multifarious and divergent sources. His reach is far and wide because it needs to be. It is important to find references in this book to the work of Anton Pannekoek, a left communist and fierce critic of Lenin and other socialist derailments in the Soviet Union. Asimakopoulos understands that communists like Pannekoek (and also, for example, Sylvia Pankhurst, Herman Gorter, Amadeo Bordiga, and Jacques Camatte) have long been critical of what was/has been called “communism.” Today, there are influential theoretical movements operating under the rubric of “communization,” which misleadingly make communist anti-statism appear as if it were a new thing. The very existence of a long history of anti-“communist” communists, along with a real reckoning with Marx’s own complex theory of the state, helps to expose the false pretenses of ideological orthodoxy. When I teach my course on Marxist Philosophy, students are always surprised to learn that Marx was not an enthusiastic statist, that he wrote so much about the problems of state power, and so little about alternative forms of government. These facts are hard to see when we only consult ideological narratives about Marx, instead of Marx directly. A few weeks into the semester, students can no longer make use of the ideological apparatus they brought with them on the first day. Things are not as simple as ideology makes them out to be. Ideology has also held hostage many streams of anarchist thought. There are still anarchist journals, magazines, and publishers that get squeamish around any serious consideration of Marxism, as if an affirmation of a single Marxist idea is tantamount to ideological betrayal. Asimakopoulos has no such allergies, and knows well that Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Malatesta, Goldman, and so many other anarchists, have shared much in common with Marx and used his critique of capitalism as a basis for their own work. While Emma Goldman wrote about her disillusionment in Russia, so too did many communists, like Antonio Gramsci and Cornelius Castoriadis and critical theorists in the decades following World War II. Despite real common ground, there has been insufficient cross-pollination (and contamination) across the cleavages of different radical currents. What revolutionary theory needs to find out—what is being explored in this book and elsewhere in the world—is what can grow in the graveyard for orthodoxies. Unlike a lot of research that draws on the primary sources of this book, Asimakopoulos’s work is empirically rich, always grounded in non­controversial

186

AFTERWORD BY GILMAN-OPALSKY

macroeconomic facts that no serious reader can refute. One of the uses that can be made of this book is as an accessible reference to evidence for the claim that capital governs the world against the interests of most of us. The book is full of concrete examples, vindicated in multiple and mainstream statistical sources, and follows the imperative to always historicize. In Chapters 2 and 3 especially, Asimakopoulos provides one picture after another of the problems of a world organized by the anti-democratic logic of capital. The good news is that there are directly democratic alternatives to the logic of capital. Asimakopoulos reviews and articulates multiple alternative logics of social and political organization, and makes use of analytical Marxist trajectories, including the ideas of David Schweikart, Richard Wolff, and Gar Alperovitz in an analysis that clearly agrees with many of the arguments of the late, great G.A. Cohen. At the same time, the book makes use of Guy Debord, Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukács, Cornelius Castoriadis, and critical theory. I emphasize this fact with those stubborn old disputes in mind about Continental versus analytical theory. These are disputes for which Asimakopoulos has become a determined gravedigger. Such ambitions and achievements notwithstanding, two related concerns have haunted my reading of this book. (1) The text opens with a claim: “The elite own everything.” Yes, but only if “everything” is defined as the infrastructure and fruits of capitalism. The so-called “elite” would like to own everything, including our very desires (which is not difficult to prove empirically and historically), but they cannot quite manage to make the totality of the capitalist dream-world into a reality. Repressed desires can and do unpredictably explode, and insubordination is never totally foreclosed. Riot and revolt are never in permanent abeyance, and the “elite” are never as safe as they would like to be from the many ways we can unsettle the order of this world. What we have seen in recent years is that the “elite” in Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, Greece, the u.s., the uk, Tunisia, Spain, and elsewhere are not beyond being taken by surprise by everyday people at various breaking points around the world. What takes power by surprise is what power does not own. No matter how repressed, disintegrated, manipulated, or exploited, human beings possess real desires for a life defined by something other than the precarity of capitalist work and unemployment. And there are many good examples, just over the last twenty years (1994–2014), which demonstrate that revolutionary desires come alive even after they’re considered extinguished. Asimakopoulos does not disagree with this. He finds cause for hope in every outbreak of revolt. But there is a deeper point to sharpen, and it is

What Can Grow in the Graveyard for Orthodoxies?

187

this: Public expressions of disaffection (including riot and revolt) frequently take radical thinkers by surprise, not only the so-called “elite.” Insurrections do not ask for academic guidance in any coherent or cohesive way. We do not teach social movements. At our best, we learn from them, for they test and reveal the limits of possibility within the contexts in which they occur. To take one of my favorite examples, the 1994 uprising of the Mexican Zapatistas revealed and recommended to theorists—and especially to anarchists and communists—certain possibilities that were not grasped until that point. And it is clear that recent insurrectionary activity in the Middle Eastern and North African (mena) countries south of the Mediterranean Sea, as well as in Greece, Spain, Turkey, and Brazil is once again forcing analysis to consider (a) its own limitations and (b) new emancipatory possibilities. (2) Closely related to this is a second concern: Asimakopoulos proves that there are practicable alternatives to the capitalist organization of life. His work is full of good ideas for other ways of being-in-the-world (in Chapter 4 of this book, and throughout his other published scholarship). In general, whenever we get to discussions of concrete possibilities for workable alternatives, that is, of recommendations from Richard Wolff or Gar Alperovitz, or discussions of the cooperative example of Mondragón, Spain, we are supposed to have shifted from theory to the practical side of things. But I want to suggest that such apparently practical recommendations and examples remain on the level of theory, and that what is truly practical is the form and content of actual and ongoing revolt in the world. Here, Marx’s famous line comes to mind: The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.1 It is the last clause of this quote that formed a recurring question for me throughout the reading of this book: Are the people participating in the many states of uprising actually looking for or demanding any single alternative program? More practically: Is there an alternative program capable of answering the heterogeneous and often contradictory demands of global revolt? Many critics and onlookers from outside insisted that movements like “Occupy Wall Street” needed to adopt a platform for some alternative program, and today, many of the same people point to the absence of such a program as the reason 1 Marx, Karl. 1970 [1843]. Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right.’ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 133.

188

AFTERWORD BY GILMAN-OPALSKY

for the dissolution of Occupy X activities. Of course, there are many possible programs to choose from, but none of them were practical from the mutifarious perspective of the many minds of Occupy X. The range of radical criticism found in Tahrir Square, Gezi Park and Taksim Square, or in any occupation from 1968 to the present, cannot be resolved in a good plan. At their best, such social upheavals are ungovernable. The more they specify, the more they shrink. From the point of view of “governmentality,” this may sound hopeless. But riot, revolt, and insurrection do not proceed from or with a “govern” mentality, and from a different perspective, social upheaval is the very location—the very eventuality—of radical hope. The uprising itself is the most important achievement. In a world where uprisings are too few and far between, and where each insurrection is separated from the next by indefinite periods of relative quiescence, such upheaval always makes a critique and breaks the veneers of everyday life. Revolt shows the world that there are people who want a different world, and that real revolutionary desires are available to be discussed, debated, and developed. Revolt shows us that the world can still be thrown into question, and that we need not let existing conditions decide what is practical. In some ways, writing is a more desperate act than insurrection. After all, text needs to find committed readers, and that is no easy thing, as any honest author will tell you. Authors who have truly impacted world events are fewer in number than the bourgeoisie and its heirs. But revolt is another kind of writing, and proposals do frequently come from it. Perhaps revolt is the writing that matters most. We do not know what any given insurrection will say, what it will demand, what theory will “grip the masses” and become material reality. But we do know something all the more clearly and sharply from the journey of this book: Despite all the resources the elite own, we have other resources to make use of, and in between every insurrection, there is another one on the horizon. Richard Gilman-Opalsky 8/19/2013

Bibliography Achbar, Mark and Jennifer Abbott (Directors). 2004. The Corporation. New York: Zeitgeist Films. Adamic, Luis. 2008. Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America. Oakland, ca: AK Press. Aghion, Philippe and Peter Howitt. 1992. A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60(2): 323–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2951599. Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel. 1991. The Political Economy of Participatory Economics. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. Alperovitz, Gar. 2012. America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy. Wiley. Althusser, Louis. 2001. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press. Anarcho. The Economics of Anarchy. Available at: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/ anarcho/the-economics-of-anarchy. Aristotle. 1981. The Politics. Penguin Classics. Aristotle. 1984. The Athenian Constitution. Penguin Classics. Aronowitz, Stanley. 1992. False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Consciousness. Durham: Duke University Press. Asimakopoulos, John. 2000. Comparative Analysis of European and American Working Class Attainments: Equality, Living Standards, and Social Structures of Accumulation. New York, ny: City University of New York. Asimakopoulos, John. 2009. Globally Segmented Labor Markets. Critical Sociology, 35(2): 175–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0896920508099191. Asimakopoulos, John. 2011. Revolt! The Next Great Transformation from Kleptocracy Capitalism to Libertarian Socialism through Counter Ideology, Societal Education, and Direct Action. Fair Lawn, New Jersey: Transformative Studies Institute. Associated Press. January 25, 2011–September 10, 2013 (various reports). Available at: http://www.ap.org/. Azevedo, Alessandra and Leda Gitaby. March 2010. The Cooperative Movement, SelfManagement, and Competitiveness: The Case of Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa. Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society, 13(1): 5–29. Bakunin, Mikhail. nd. The Capitalist System. Anarchy Archives. Available at: http:// dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/capstate.html. Banister, Judith, and George Cook. March 2011. China’s Employment and Compensation Costs in Manufacturing through 2008. Monthly Labor Review. Accessed on September 25, 2013. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/03/art4full.pdf. Baran, Paul A. and Sweezy, Paul M. 1966. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks.

190

Bibliography

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy. Berkeley, California: California University Press. Barber, Benjamin. March 1992. Jihad vs. McWorld. The Atlantic. Bartel, Larry. 2005. Economic Inequality and Political Representation. Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. Accessed on September 6, 2013. Available at: http://www.princeton .edu/~bartels/economic.pdf. Bartha, Emese and Fottrell, Quentin. 2010. Ireland Paces Solid Day of EU Debt Sales. Wall Street Journal, September 22. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100 01424052748704129204575505354238557086.html. BBC. February 10, 2006. German ‘Muslim test’ Stirs Anger. Available at: http://news .bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4655240.stm. Bebchuk, Lucian and Jesse Fried. 2006. Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation. Harvard University Press. Becker, Gary S., Edward L. Glaeser, and Kevin M. Murphy. 1999. Population and Economic Growth. American Economic Review, 89(2): 145–149. http://dx.doi .org/10.1257/aer.89.2.145. Behrouzi, Majid. 2005. Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the Citizen: DirectDeliberative e-Democracy. Lexington Books. Black, Stephanie (Producer/Director). 2003. Life and Debt. New Yorker Video. Blackmon, Douglas A. 2008. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America from the Civil War to World War II. Doubleday. Blau, Peter. 1986. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Jersey, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Bloomberg News. March 6, 2011. China’s Spending on Internal Police Force in 2010 Outstrips Defense Budget. Accessed on October 20, 2013. Available at: http://www .bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-06/china-s-spending-on-internal-police-force-in -2010-outstrips-defense-budget.html. Blumenthal, Paul. 2012. The Huffington Post, November 5. Available at: http://www .huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/forbes-400-campaign-contributions_n_2047750.html. Boserup, Ester. 1981. Population and Technological Change: A Study of Long-Term Trends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Boudette, Neal. September 13, 2013. UAW Edges Toward First Toehold in South. The Wall Street Journal. Accessed on September 14, 2013. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB10001424127887323846504579072783244916094.html. Bouton, Terry. 2007. Taming Democracy: “The People,” the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution. Oxford University Press. Braverman, Harry. 1998[1974]. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Brecher, Jeremy. 1997[1972]. Strike! Cambridge, ma: South End Press.

Bibliography

191

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Table 4. Covered Establishments, Employment, and Wages by State, Fourth Quarter 2009. Available at: http://www .bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewqtr.pdf. Burnheim, John. 2006. Is Democracy Possible? Sydney University Press. Burton, John Alexander and Christian E. Weller. 2005. Supersize This: How CEO Pay Took off While America’s Middle Class Struggled. Washington, dc: Center for American Progress. Carson, Lyn and Brian Martin. 1999. Random Selection in Politics. Praeger. Cassidy, John. 2010. What Good Is Wall Street? Much of What Investment Bankers Do Is Socially Worthless. The New Yorker, November 29. Available at: http://www .newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy#ixzz17LTgV0kP. Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1988. Political and Social Writings: Volume 1, 1946–1955. University of Minnesota Press. Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1991. Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy: Essays in Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1993. Political and Social Writings: Volume 3, 1961–1979. University of Minnesota Press. Center for Responsive Politics. Average Wealth of Members of Congress. Accessed on September 6, 2013. Available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages .php. Chaudhuri, Shubham, Pinelopi K. Goldberg, and Panle Jia. 2006 December. Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India. The American Economic Review, 96(5): 1477–1514. http://dx.doi .org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1477. Chomsky, Noam. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Boston: South End Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2006. Imperial Grand Strategy: The Conquest of Iraq and the Assault on Democracy (DVD). Oakland, ca: AK Press. Chomsky, Noam. August 9, 2013. Noam Chomsky on Revolutionary Violence, Communism and the American Left (interview with Christopher Helali). Pax Marx. Accessed on August 20, 2013. Available at: http://paxmarxista.org/noam-chomsky -on-revolutionary-violence-communism-and-the-american-left/. Chomsky, Noam and Barry Pateman (eds.). 2005. Chomsky on Anarchism. Oakland, ca: AK Press. Churchill, Ward and Jim V. Wall. 2002. The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars against Dissent in the United States. Cambridge, ma: South End Press. Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Common Cause. Facts on Media in America: Did You Know? Available at: http://www .commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923173. Cox, Robert. 1987. Production Power and World Order. Columbia University Press.

192

Bibliography

Creswell, Julie. April 15, 2013. Hedge Fund Titans’ Pay Stretching to 10 Figures. New York Times. Available at: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/pay-stretching-to-10 -figures/. Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Dahl, Robert. 2003. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Yale University Press. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, ca: Stanford University Press. Debord, Guy. 1994 [1967]. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books. Accessed on July 25, 2013. Available at: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/tsots00.html. De Santillán, Diego Abad. 1937. After The Revolution: Economic Reconstruction in Spain Today. Greenberg Publisher. Dolgoff, Sam. 1971. Bakunin on Anarchy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Domhoff, G. William. 1975. The Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in RulingClass Cohesiveness. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Domhoff, G. William. 2010. Who Rules America? Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance. Sixth edition. McGraw Hill: Boston. Domhoff, G. William. 2013. Wealth, Income, and Power. Accessed on September 28, 2013. Available at: http://whorulesamerica.net/power/wealth.html. Durkheim, Émile. 1995[1912]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The Free Press. Ellerman, David P. 1990. Democratic Worker-Owned Firm: A New Model for the East and West. Unwin Hyman. Encyclopedia of the Nations. Available at: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ Africa/Nigeria-ETHNIC-GROUPS.html. Engler, Allan. 2010. Economic Democracy: The Working Class Alternative to Capitalism. Fernwood Publishing. Erlanger, Steven. April 11, 2011. France Enforces Ban on Full-Face Veils in Public. New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/europe/ 12france.html?_r=0. EUR-Lex. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the Establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-Scale Undertakings and Community-Scale Groups of Undertakings for the Purposes of Informing and Consulting Employees. Accessed on October 25, 2013. Available at: http://eur-lex .europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN &numdoc=31994L0045&model=guichett. EUR-Lex. Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the Establishment of a European Works Council or a Procedure in Community-Scale Undertakings and Community-Scale Groups of Undertakings for the Purposes of Informing and Consulting Employees. Accessed on October 25, 2013. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:3 2009L0038:EN:NOT.

Bibliography

193

FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. September 8, 2010. Is Nova Catering to Its Anti-Science Sugar Daddy? Available at: http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/09/08/ is-nova-catering-to-its-anti-science-sugar-daddy/. Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press. Forbes.com. The Richest People in America. Accessed September 25, 2013. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2013/09/16/inside-the-2013-forbes-400 -facts-and-figures-on-americas-richest/. Fotopoulos, Takis. 1998. Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project. Continuum. Foucault, Michel. 1971. Human Nature: Justice versus Power. Noam Chomsky Debates with Michel Foucault. Available at: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/ 1971xxxx.htm. Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, 30th Anniversary edition. Friedman, Matt. 2010. President Obama Arrives in Cresskill for Fundraising Dinner. NJ.com, October 06. Available at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/­ president_obama_arrives_in_cre.html. Galor, Oded and David Weil. 2000. Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond. The American Economic Review, 90(4): 806–828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.806. Gilman-Opalsky, Richard. 2008. Guy Debord and Ideology Materialized: Reconsidering Situationist Praxis. Theory in Action, 1(4): 18–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3798/ tia.1937-0237.08017. Gilman-Opalsky, Richard. 2012. The Eternal Recurrence of Insurrection. Left Curve, 36: 30. Gilman-Opalsky, Richard. 2013. Unjamming the Insurrectionary Imagination: Rescuing Détournement from the Liberal Complacencies of Culture Jamming. Theory in Action, 6(3): 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.13019. Giroux, Henry A. 2007. The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-IndustrialAcademic Complex. Paradigm Publishers. Giroux, Henry A. 2011. On Critical Pedagogy. Continuum International Publishing. Golden, Daniel. 2006. The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. New York : Crown Publishers. Goldman, Emma. Anarchism: What It Really Stands For. Anarchist Archives. Accessed June 21, 2013. Available at: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/ Anarchism/anarchism.html. Goldman, Emma. 1908. What I Believe. Anarchist Archives. Accessed June 21, 2013. Available at: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/whatibelieve .html. Goodman, Barak and Rachel Dretzin (Producers/Directors). 2005. The Persuaders [Documentary]. Burbank, ca: PBS Home Video.

194

Bibliography

Gordon, Uri. Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary Problems. The Anarchist Library. Available at: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Uri_Gordon__Anarchism _and_Political_Theory__Contemporary_Problems.html. Graeber, David. August 17, 2013. On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs. Strike! Magazine. Accessed on August 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and G.N. Smith. New York: International Publishers. Greenhouse, Steven and David Leonhardt. August 28, 2006. Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity. New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/ business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all. Greenwald, Robert (Producer/Director). 2004. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. New York: The Disinformation Company. Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman. 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman. 2012. Koch Brothers Exposed. Brave New Films. Guérin, Daniel. 1970. Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (Mary Klopper trans.). New York: Monthly Review Press. Guillaume, James. 1971. 1876: On Building the New Social Order, in Bakunin on Anarchy. Sam Dolgoff (ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Polity Press. Hanson, Victor. 2006. A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. Random House. Harvey, David. 2010. The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford University Press. Hauser, Christine. 2010. Inflation Bonds Are Sold with Negative Yield for First Time. New York Times, October 25. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/ business/26markets.html. Hayes, Thomas. 2012. Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate. Political Research Quarterly, October 11. Heartfield, James. 2012. British Workers & the US Civil War: How Karl Marx and the Lancashire Weavers Joined Abraham Lincoln’s Fight against Slavery 150 Years Ago. London: Reverspective. Hilsenrath, Jon and Victoria McGrane. September 19, 2013. Fed Stays the Course on Easy Money. Wall Street Journal. Accessed on October 3, 2013. Available at: http:// online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579083243936441418.html. Holland, Joshua. August 27, 2013. A Plutocracy Ruled by Self-Centered Jerks? Accessed September 6, 2013. Available at: http://billmoyers.com/2013/08/27/a-plutocracy -ruled-by-self-centered-jerks/.

Bibliography

195

Howard, Michael W. 2000. Self-Management and the Crisis of Socialism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Hugh, Thomas. 2001. The Spanish Civil War. London: Penguin Books. p. 944. Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3): 22–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20045621. International Service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. September 27, 2007. Accessed on September 12. Available at: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/ Gun_debate/Background/Archives/Soldiers_can_keep_guns_at_home_but_not _ammo.html?cid=970614. Jensen, Robert and Emily Oster. 2009. The Power of TV: Cable Television and Women’s Status in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3): 1057–1094. http://dx.doi .org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1057. Kenner, Robert (Producer/Director). 2009. Food, Inc. Los Angeles, ca: Magnolia Home Entertainment. Kennett, David and Marc Lieberman. 1992. The Road to Capitalism: Economic Transformation in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Dryden Press. Kennickell, Arthur B. 2009–13. Ponds and Streams: Wealth and Income in the U.S., 1989 to 2007. Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, dc. Available at: http:// www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2009/200913/200913pap.pdf. Klasen, Stephan and Thorsten Nestmann. 2006. Population, Population Density and Technological Change. Journal of Population Economics, 19(3): 611–626. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/s00148-005-0031-1. Knabb, Ken. 2007. Situationist International Anthology. Bureau of Public Secrets. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2006. “Illegal Immigrants in the US: How Many Are There?” The Christian Science Monitor, May 16. Available at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/ 0516/p01s02-ussc.html. Kochhar, Rakesh. September 12, 2012. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www .pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/12/a-recovery-no-better-than-the-recession/. Korte, Gregory. 2011. Fewer Members of Congress Today also Served in Military. USA Today. Available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011 -11-10/congress-members-military-service/51159918/1. Kotz, David M., Terrence McDonough and Michael Reich (eds.). 1994. Social Structures of Accumulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511559501. Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. Broadway Books. Kremer, Michael. 1993. Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million BC to 1990. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 681–716. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/2118405.

196

Bibliography

Kropotkin, Peter. 2005 [1892]. The Conquest of Bread and Other Writings. Marshall S. Shatz (ed.). Cambridge University Press. Leicht, Kevin T. and Scott T. Fitzgerald. 2007. Post Industrial Peasants: The Illusion of Middle-Class Prosperity. Worth Publishers. Lemley, Mark. 2012. The Myth of the Sole Inventor. Michigan Law Review, 110: 709–760. Lerner, Josh and Megan Wade Antieau. April 20, 2010. Chicago’s $1.3 Million Experiment in Democracy. Strike! Magazine. Accessed on August 23, 2011. Available at: http:// www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/chicagos-1.3-million-experiment-in -democracy. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1994[1960]. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore: Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. London, Steven H. 1989/90. The New Industrial Relations Ideology and the Decline of labor. Policy Studies Journal, 18: 481–493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1989 .tb00850.x. Longo, Patrizia. 2013. Common Tables and Democratic Solidarity. Theory in Action, 6(3): 52–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.13021. Loraux, Nicole. 1981. La cite comme cuisine et comme partage. Annales ESC, 36: 614–622. Lynd, Staughton and Andrej Grubacic. 2008. Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism, and Radical History. Oakland: PM Press. Malatesta, Errico. 1984. Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas. Vernon Richards (ed.). London: Freedom Press. Marmot, Michael. 2005. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. Holt Paperbacks. Marx, Karl. 1977 [1867]. Capital, Volume One (translated by Ben Fowkes). New York: Vintage Books. Marx, Karl. 1978a [1862–63]. Theories of Surplus Value. R.C. Tucker (ed.). The MarxEngels Reader, pp. 443–465. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl. 1978b [1859]. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. R.C. Tucker (ed.). The Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 3–5. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl. 1978c [1845–1846]. The German Ideology. R.C. Tucker (ed.). The MarxEngels Reader, pp. 180, 185, 192–193. Norton: New York. McCarthy, George E. 1992. Marx and Aristotle: Nineteenth-Century German Social Theory and Classical. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. McElwee, Sean. 2013 July 19. Steve Jobs Didn’t Build That. Salon. Accessed on August 1, 2013. Available at: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/steve_jobs_didnt_build_that/ singleton/.

Bibliography

197

McLaren, Peter and Nathalia Jaramillo. 2010. Not Neo-Marxist, Not Post-Marxist, Not Marxian, Not Autonomist Marxism: Reflections on a Revolutionary (Marxist) Critical Pedagogy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, XX(X) 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/1532708609354317. McLaren, Peter. 2006. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. McMichael, Philip. 2012. Development and Social Change. Los Angeles: SAGE. Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press. Michels, Robert. 2010[1911]. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Kessinger Publishing. Mills, C. Wright. 1971. The New Men of Power: America’s Labor Leaders. New York: A.M. Kelley. Mills, C. Wright. 2000[1956]. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press. Mills, C. Wright. 2000a. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press. Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. Series 2003–2013. The State of Working America. Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press. Available at: http:// stateofworkingamerica.org/subjects/overview/?reader. Molyneux, John. 1987. Future Socialist Society. Socialist Workers Party. Molyneux, John. 2003[1978]. Marxism and the Party. Haymarket Books. Moore, Michael (Producer/Director). 2007. Sicko. The Weinstein Company. Moore, Michael (Producer/Director). 2009. Capitalism: A Love Story. Overture Films. Morgenson, Gretchen and Don Von Natta Jr. 2009. Paulson’s Calls to Goldman Tested Ethics. New York Times, August 8. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/ business/09paulson.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1. Nagourney, Adam. 2010. In California Bid, Whitman Spends Record But Struggles. The New York Times, October 1. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/us/ politics/02calif.html. National Science Board. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c6/c6s4 .htm. Nixon, Paul G. and Vassiliki N. Koutrakou. 2007. E-government in Europe: Re-booting the State. Routledge. Palast, Greg. 2004. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Plume. Palast, Greg. 2012. Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps. Seven Stories Press. Palmer, Griff and Michael Cooper. December 14, 2012. How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House. New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes .com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Pannekoek, Anton. 2002[1950]. Workers’ Councils. Oakland: AK Press.

198

Bibliography

PBS News Hour. Broadcast June 21, 2013. Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, ‘Pernicious’ Effects of Economic Inequality. Peniel, Joseph E. (ed.). 2006. The Black Power Movement: Rethinking the Civil RightsBlack Power Era. New York: Routledge. Perkins, John. 2004. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Perlman, Selig. 1966. The Theory of the Labor Movement. Harvard University Press. Peter G. Peterson Foundation. April 12, 2013. The U.S. Spent More on Defense in 2012 Than Did the Countries with the Next 10 Highest Defense Budgets Combined. Accessed on September 12, 2013. Available at: http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/ 0053_defense-comparison. Pickett, Kate and Richard Wilkinson. 2011. The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Press. Piff, Paul K. Daniel M. Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner. 2012. Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 109(11): 4086–4091. Plato. The Laws (trans. by Trevor J. Saunders). 1978. Penguin Books. Plato. The Republic of Plato (2nd edition, trans. by Allan Bloom). 1991. Basic Books. Pogatchnik, Shawn and Steinhauser, Gabriele. 2010. Ireland Going for International Bailout. Associated Press, November 21. Available at: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/ stories/E/EU_IRELAND_FINANCIAL_CRISIS?SITE=NJMOR&SECTION=HOME&T EMPLATE=DEFAULT. Polanyi, Karl. 2001 [1944]. The Great Transformation. Beacon Press: Boston. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. 1994 [1840]. What is Property? New York: Cambridge University Press. Rabinowitch, Alexander. 2008. The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd. Indiana University Press. Ritzer, George. 2008. The McDonaldization of Society. Pine Forge Press. Rocker, Rudolf. 2004 [1938]. Anarcho-Syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press. Rogers, Joel and Wolfgang Streeck. 1994. Workplace Representation Overseas: The Works Councils Story, in Richard B. Freeman (ed.). Working Under Different Rules. New York: Rusell Sage Foundation: 97–156. Roubini, Noureli. 2008, September 18. Public Losses for Private Gain. Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/market turmoil.creditcrunchian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/marketturmoil .creditcrunch. Schaefer, Richard T. 2013. Sociology. A Brief Introduction, 10th edition. McGraw-Hill & company.

Bibliography

199

Schulte, Fred and Protess, Ben. 2010. The New Tax Man: Big Banks and Hedge Funds. The Huffington Post, October 18. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost .com/2010/10/18/the-new-tax-man-big-banks_n_766169.html?igoogle=1. Schweickart, David. 2011. After Capitalism, 2nd edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Shannon, Deric, Anthony J. Nocella II, and John Asimakopoulos. 2012. The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics. Oakland, ca: AK Press. Shepard, Benjamin. 2011. Play, Creativity, and Social Movements: If I Can’t Dance Its Not My Revolution. New York: Routledge. Shils, Edward and Henry Finch (eds.). 1949[1903–17] The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press. Smith, Aaron. 2010. Greek Crisis Fears Deepen. CNNMoney.com, April 28. Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/28/news/international/greek_bonds/. Smith, Llewellyn M. (producer/director). 2004. Reconstruction: The Second Civil War. PBS: American Experience. Smith, Helena. Friday 20 September 2013. Greece Seized by New Sense of Foreboding as Violence Flares in Streets. The Guardian. Accessed on October 5, 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/greece-foreboding-violence-flares -streets. Smith, Scott B. 2011. Captives of Revolution: The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolshevik Dictatorship, 1918–1923. University of Pittsburgh Press. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2012. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton & Company. Stone, Oliver and Peter Kuznick. 2012. The Untold History of the United States. New York, ny: Gallery Books. Tierney, Dominic. 2007. FDR and the Spanish Civil War: Neutrality and Commitment in the Struggle That Divided America. Duke University Press. United Nations, Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. Available at: http://elections.gmu .edu/index.html. The United States Elections Project. Department of Public and International Affairs George Mason University. Available at: http://elections.gmu.edu/index.html. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012a. Historical Income Tables, Table H-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households, All Races: 1967 to 2012. Retrieved September 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/ www/income/data/historical/inequality/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012b. Historical Income Tables-Households. Table H-4. Gini Ratios for Households, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1967 to 2012. Retrieved September 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ income/data/historical/household/.

200

Bibliography

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. August 30, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi0713.pdf. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Table 1.2 Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, U.S. Dollars, 1996–2011. Accessed on September 25, 2013. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/web/ichcc/ichccaesuppt1_2.txt. U.S. Department of State. 2010. Accessed on August 11, 2013. Available at: http://www .state.gov/outofdate/bgn/egypt/180843.htm. Van Der Walt, Lucien and Michael Schmidt. 2009. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press. Veblen, Thorstein. 2012. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Renaissance Classics. Walmart Watch. Available at: http://walmartwatch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/ pdf/medicaid_factsheet.pdf. Wampler, Brian. 2009. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. Pennsylvania State University Press. Ward, Colin. 1982. Anarchy in Action. London: Freedom Press. Washington, George. 1796. Farewell Address. Available at: http://en.wikisource.org/ wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#20. Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber, translated and edited by Hans Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. New York: The Free Press. Weber, Max. 1978 [1922]. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Wing, Nick. 2012. Sheldon Adelson Vows To ‘Double’ Donations To GOP After Huge 2012 Election Failure. The Huffington Post, December 5. Available at: http://www .huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/sheldon-adelson-gop_n_2244070.html. Wolff, Richard D. 2012. Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Haymarket Books. Wolff, Edward N. March 2010. Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—An Update to 2007. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and Department of Economics, New York University. Accessed October 5, 2013. Available at: http://www.levyinstitute.org/ pubs/wp_589.pdf. Wolfson, Martin. 2003. Neoliberalism and the Social Structure of Accumulation. Review of Radical Political Economics, 35(3): 255–62. World Health Organization. May 2009. World Health Statistics 2009. Available at: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html. Zepezauer, Mark. 2004. Take the Rich off Welfare. Cambridge, ma: South End Press. Zepezauer, Mark. 2012. The CIA’s Greatest Hits. Soft Skull Press. Žižek, Slavoj. 2010 June 26. Slavoj Žižek: Interview. The Observer. Available at: http:// www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jun/27/slavoj-zizek-living-end-times.

Index accumulation  2, 108. See also savings Adelson, Sheldon  51 Affordable Care Act. See Obamacare Afghanistan  133, 134, 179, 182 African Americans  x, 55, 106, 119, 158, 162. See also civil rights movement age of military conscription  159 age of retirement. See retirement age age of sexual consent  68, 148 age of voters. See voting age aging and aged  104, 146 agriculture. See farming Albert, Michael  13, 86–87, 98, 119 alienation of labor  98, 121, 122, 128, 153 Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands (aaud)  74 allocative efficiency  86, 88, 89, 107, 112, 120, 130 Alperowitz, Gar  41–42, 66, 70–71, 78, 104, 122, 123, 133 American Indians. See Native Americans ‘anarchist-communism’  10–11, 13–15, 17 anarchists and anarchism  4–11 passim, 31, 32, 41, 61, 137, 185 anarcho-primitivism  41 ancient Greece. See Greece, ancient ancient Rome. See Roman Empire aristocracy  45, 114, 136, 157 Aristotle  45, 49, 69, 70, 81, 137, 144 Marx view  100–101 The Politics  47, 62, 131 view of education  148 view of family  146 armies  34, 160. See also military service arms. See weapons Asimakopoulos, John  150, 185–87 assassination  178, 181 Athens, ancient  4, 5, 44, 69, 77, 84 constitution  81 lottery systems  64 military  157 rotation of office in  62 Austria  74 authority  18, 23–25 passim, 43, 61, 136–39, 161

decentralized  6, 87 in education  157 equalization of  18, 172 extra-social  5n4 over productive property  93–94, 166. See also relations of authority automation  44, 70, 106, 108, 123, 124, 129, 171–72 bailouts, corporate. See corporate bailouts bailouts, national  177 Bakunin, Mikhail  7, 8, 12–13, 29, 32, 64, 137 Bank for International Settlements  180 banks and banking  85–91 passim, 135, 180 See also Federal Reserve Barber, Benjamin  134, 135 Strong Democracy  65, 131 Becker, Gary S.  169 Belgium  74 betrayal  29, 30, 32, 56–57 bias-free language  156 bias in media. See media bias billionaires and millionaires. See rich people birthrates  146–47, 169 bitcoins  90n17 black Americans. See African Americans Blau, Peter  90 Blinder, Alan  125 Bloomberg, Michael R.  52, 53 blue-collar work. See factory work boards of directors. See corporate boards Bolshevik Revolution. See Russian revolution of 1917 Boserup, Ester  169, 170 boundaries and borders  133–34, 183 bourgeoisie. See middle class bourgeois revolutions  30, 114 Brecher, Jeremy  158 Britain. See United Kingdom budgeting, participatory. See participatory budgeting bureaucracy  43–44, 57, 61, 170–72 passim Bush, George H. W.  53, 56

202 Bush, George W.  53, 56, 79 Bush, Prescott  179 campaign donations  51–52 Canada  109, 133 Capital (Marx)  19n37 career politicians  53, 59 caste  56, 111, 117, 157 Castoriadis, Cornelius  32, 44, 145–46, 185 on ecclesia  5 on elections  45 on interdependence of all work  101–102 on market inequality  89 on norms  164 on paideia  148 on political expertise  68–69 on rationing  90 on representative government  60 on self-management  47, 92, 164–65 view of constitutions  81–82 view of hierarchy and inequality  61, 92, 93, 98–99, 103, 120 view of Soviet Union  57 on war  160 Castro, Fidel  34, 181 Catholic Church  135, 145 censorship  167 Central Intelligence Agency (cia)  178 centralized planning. See planning, centralized ceo pay  99, 118, 123 change, social. See social change charity  144 charters, corporate. See corporate charters Chase (bank)  180 Chávez, Hugo  178 Cheney, Dick  53 child mortality. See infant and child mortality Chile  178 China  42, 158, 167, 175, 181 Chomsky, Noam  41 Christianity: relations with Islam  142. See also Catholic Church CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency (cia) cities  41, 66, 158, 174 Citigroup  1, 51 citizenship  50, 138 ancient Greece  5, 144, 148, 157

Index Aristotle definition  62 rights and obligations  82–83, 84, 157–59 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  51, 71 civil disobedience  27 civilization  41 civil rights movement  x, 65, 141, 158 class  9, 61, 105, 120, 149. See also caste class conflict  17, 19, 23, 92, 113. See also class war class consciousness  25, 30, 117, 149 class mobility  60n77 class power  99, 129 class struggle  139 class war  113, 118, 140 climate change  xii Clinton, Bill  53 closed shops  109 cloud computing  171–72 Cold War  134, 180, 184 collectivism  7–13 passim, 164. See also community colleges and universities. See higher education commodity fetishism  139, 143 common good  2, 57, 115, 128, 171 common meals  144–45 commons  97, 103, 104, 138, 148 enclosure  114 theft from  35, 112, 113. See also free rider problem communion  143, 144–45 communists and communism  9, 73, 74. See also ‘anarchist-communism’; ‘libertarian communism’ community  139, 163. See also communion community defense  159 community policing  161–62, 163 ‘communization’  185 compensation. See remuneration Comte, Auguste  146 compulsory military service  157, 159 compulsory schooling  142 compulsory voting  84 compulsory work  163, 164 computers  154, 171–72, 179–80. See also internet Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (Perkins)  178

203

Index conflict  132. See also cultural conflict; war conflict of interest  2, 52 conflict theory  15–18 Congress, U.S. See U.S. Congress conscription. See compulsory military service consensus  65, 82, 131–32 conspicuous consumption  119–20, 127 constitutions  81–84, 144, 149. See also U.S. Constitution consumer demand  120. See also supply and demand consumerism  127, 143, 144 consumers’ councils  87 consumption  22, 85, 97, 119–21 passim, 127, 151, 173. See also consumerism; rationing; relations of consumption; underconsumption cooperatives, worker. See worker cooperatives copyright  95, 114 Corzine, Jon  53 Corker, Bob  76–77 corporate bailouts  114, 122 corporate boards  18, 47, 62, 70, 73, 77, 94, 164 corporate charters  71 corporate personhood  51 corporate shareholders  70, 93 corporations  33, 35, 42, 60 lobbying  129 as patent holders  115 socialization  93–94 subsidies to  123 corruption, political  54–55, 58, 59, 78, 83 corruption in higher education  150 corruption in media  167 counterculture  135, 141 coups d’états  178, 179 court system. See judicial system Cox, Robert  182 Crash of 1929  xi–xii credit  90, 91. See also debt, household Cretans  144 crimes of passion  82 criminal justice  1, 161, 162. See also incarceration; judicial system critical pedagogy  29, 30, 69, 110, 151–55 passim critical thinking  117, 150–55 passim

Cuba  34, 181 cultural conflict  133, 134, 142 cultural diversity. See diversity currency  12, 14, 87, 89–91, 145, 178. See also e-currency; time-based currency Dahl, Robert  48, 57, 131 Dahrendorf, Ralf  17, 28, 30, 43, 58, 61–63 passim; view of authority  23, 60, 136 view of bureaucracy  44, 170 view of job stratification  98 view of power  22, 60 databases  171–72 ‘dead peasants’ insurance  1, 178n10 DeBord, Guy  57, 139–41, 143, 144 debt, household  48–49 debt, national  178 decision makers, random selection of. See random selection of decision makers decision makers, recall of. See recall of decision makers De Cleyre, Voltairine  10 defense, military. See military defense defense spending. See military spending democracy, economic. See self-management democracy, majoritarian. See majoritarian democracy democracy, representative. See representative democracy Democratic Party  x, xi, xii, 51 demonstrations. See protests depressions (economics)  xi, 19, 176 desires  97n30, 186. See also conspicuous consumption détournement  140–41 dictatorship  38, 53, 56, 67, 176, 181 distribution of goods  11, 13, 16, 85, 87, 96–97, 112–18. See also allocative efficiency diversity  41, 68, 131, 145, 147 division of labor  110–12, 122, 125, 143, 164 household  107 divorce  153 Dolgoff, Sam  12 drug industry. See pharmaceuticals industry Dulles, John Foster  180 Durkheim, Émile  15, 97n30, 122, 143, 145 early-childhood education  156 ecclesia  5, 62

204 economic crises  xi, 19, 99, 176 economic democracy. See self-management economic globalization. See globalization economic growth  2, 119, 127, 169 economic inequality. See inequality economic regulation  163 economic stagnation  19, 176 economic stimulus  xii e-currency  90–91 education  31, 69, 128, 146, 148–57 tracking in  110, 112. See also compulsory schooling; paideia efficiency, allocative. See allocative efficiency ego and egoism  15, 101, 164, 165 Egypt  35–40, 179 elections: Castoriadis on  45 elimination of  59 of military officers  160–61 United States  xi, 51–55 passim, 78, 84. See also campaign donations; voting Electoral College  54 electronic currency. See e-currency ‘Electronic Direct Democracy’. See internet voting elites and elitism  58, 65, 73, 129–30, 132, 186. See also rich people Ellerman, David P.  93 employment  19n37, 165–66 termination of  110. See also ­guaranteed employment; hiring halls; jobs; labor; self-employment; unemployment ends and means  95 Engels, Friedrich: The German Ideology  116n70, 143–44, 184 Engler, Allan  32–33 Enron Corporation  122 environment  xii, 119, 127–28, 147, 183 equality  23–24, 39, 61–64 passim, 82, 99, 101, 104, 182–83 as an absolute/universal  2, 17–18 critical pedagogy role  155, 156, 157 gender-related  146, 150, 153, 157, 182 historical  25, 136, 144 of income  18, 39, 89 in military service  158. See also inequality; National Wage ethics  127. See also moral education European Union  123, 134, 176, 177

Index European Works Council  74 ‘exchange value’ (Marx)  102n43 executive pay. See ceo pay expertise, political  69 exports and imports. See imports and exports externalities (economics)  107, 121 Facebook  35, 36 factors of production  4n1 factory work  98, 102, 150 family  145–48, 153, 172. See also political families family size  146, 147 farming  41 Federal Reserve  52, 178 federation  11, 15, 42 national  45 feudalism  33, 46, 49, 114, 135, 136, 157–58 financial crises  xi, 19, 176, 177 firearms. See weapons firing and layoff of workers. See termination of employment First Amendment  145 First International  8, 13 Fishkin, James S.  65, 66 Florida  55, 84 food supply  41 forces of production  20n41, 24, 113, 116–17, 124 Ford, Henry  180 Ford Motor Company  179, 180 foreign investment  42, 94, 177 Fotopoulos, Takis  89 Foucault, Michel  115 Fox Broadcasting Company  168 France  39, 76, 120, 133, 145, 148, 175, 176 Frankfurt School  16 fraud  122. See also voting: tampering freedoms. See rights free rider problem  17, 97, 128, 165, 166 Freire, Paulo  28, 29, 65, 155–57 passim, 172 garbage collection  101, 165, 166 gasoline prices  88 Gates, Bill  114, 115 gay and lesbian marriage  39 gay and lesbian military service  158 GDP. See Gross Domestic Product

205

Index Geithner, Tim  53 gender-neutral language  156 gender relations  137, 146, 150, 153 General Motors  179, 180 General Workers’ Union of Germany. See Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands (aaud) The German Ideology (Marx and Engels)  116n70, 143–44, 184 Germany  74, 75–76, 133, 175, 177, 182, 184. See also Nazis gerrymandering  54 Gilman-Opalsky, Richard  2, 9, 34, 57, 63, 181 afterword by  184–88 Gini coefficient  126–27 globalization  135, 183 curtailment  94 Marx view  174, 175, 181 God  5n4, 143, 144, 147 Golden, Daniel  150 Goldman, Emma  10, 14–15, 141, 185 Goldman Sachs  51, 52, 53, 118 Gompers, Samuel  59 Gore, Al  55 government spending. See military spending; social spending government subsidies  88, 123 government workers. See public workers Graeber, David  106–7, 120 Gramsci, Antonio  26, 31, 60–62 passim, 69, 141, 185 Great Britain. See United Kingdom Great Recession (2008–)  xi, 7, 49, 114, 176, 177 Greece  56, 58, 176 bonds  177 employment and unemployment  123, 165 European Union bailout  177 schooling  149 Greece, ancient  4, 5, 50, 138 communion in  144 constitutions  81, 144 courts  80 education  148 lottery systems  64 military  157, 160 slave-labor basis  100. See also Athens, ancient

Greenwald, Glenn  167 Gross Domestic Product  89, 116 growth, economic. See economic growth guaranteed employment  106, 125, 165 Guardian  167 Guerin, Daniel  7, 31 Guillaume, James  12, 13, 137 guns. See weapons Habermas, Jürgen  5, 16, 59, 65, 131 Hahnel, Robin  13, 86–87, 98, 119 Halliburton  53 Hamilton, Alexander  45, 56 Harvey, David  20 Haslam, Bill  76 health  126, 127 health insurance  xii–xiii, 1, 40, 92, 121, 178 hegemony (Gramsci theory)  29, 60–61 hierarchical organization  58, 61, 92, 143, 155. See also bureaucracy hierarchy, social. See class higher education  149–50 Hinduism  117 hiring halls  109–12, 165 Hispanics  42, 55, 106 home loans. See mortgages home ownership  49 homosexuality  39, 147, 158 ‘honor killing’  147 housing  91, 108, 120, 136 Horkheimer, Max  16 human desires. See desires human nature  80, 97 human needs. See need Hungary  74 Huntington, Samuel  134, 135 ibm  179 ‘ideal type’  63n82 images: Debord view  140–41 IMF. See International Monetary Fund (imf) immigrants  4–5, 101, 133 imports and exports  175, 176, 177, 181, 183 incarceration  46, 162 income. See remuneration India  148, 182 Indigenous Americans. See Native Americans indoctrination  142, 150, 178 industrial farming  41

206 inequality  ix, xii, 2, 22–25 passim, 96, 153, 164, 176 basis in religion  143 basis of capitalism  17, 136 Dahrendorf view  61 health effect  126, 127 as ideology  29, 93, 150, 155 Kropotkin on  14 Marx view  101 in military  158 Plato on  47–48 psychological effect  124 public views  152 in schooling  149 United States  2, 48–49, 72, 104–5, 117, 126–27, 149, 152. See also job stratification; oppressor and oppressed infant and child mortality  146 innovation  94–96, 99. See also inventors and invention inspection of work. See work inspection and evaluation insurance. See health insurance; life insurance insurrection  27–28, 70, 87, 132, 187, 188 Egypt  35–40 intellectual property  114 intellectuals, organic. See organic intellectuals interdependence  23, 26, 101–2, 174–75 International Monetary Fund (imf)   58, 177 International Socialist Tendency  73 International Workingmen’s Association. See First International internet hiring halls. See online hiring halls internet marketing  171 internet monitoring and spying  167, 171 internet social networking. See social media internet voting  66–67 interpersonal relations  172. See also marriage intervention, military. See military intervention inventors and invention  114–15 investment, foreign. See foreign investment Iraq  53, 179, 181 Ireland  176, 177 Islam  133, 142

Index Japan  157–58, 162, 175, 182 Jaramillo, Nathalia  151, 153, 155 job rotation. See rotation of jobs job stratification  98, 101, 103, 111 Johnson, Lyndon Baines  x Jones, Derik  125 journalists and journalism  166–69 passim J.P. Morgan & Company  180 jpmorgan Chase  51, 123 judicial system  6, 79–81. See also juries and jury selection juries and jury selection  xiv, 64, 80, 81 justice and injustice  117, 118, 154–56 passim. See also criminal justice Kempner, Michael  52 Keynes, John Maynard  xii, 120 Kinna, Ruth  40–41 Klasen, Stephan  170 knowledge  100, 103, 104, 116–17, 154 accumulation  169 Foucault on  115 privatization  114 knowledge theory of value  101 Koch, William  51 Koch family  55 Kremer, Michael  170 Kropotkin, Peter  7, 14, 15, 40–41 labor: education’s role in  150, 151 interdependence of  101–2 Marx view  98–103 passim, 122 relationship to consumption  173 socially necessary  99–100, 104, 106, 110–11, 124, 139, 165 unnecessary  123. See also alienation of labor; compulsory work; division of labor; prison labor; work avoidance and minimization labor costs  91, 104, 175 labor movement  58–59. See also unions labor oversupply  110–11 labor theory of value  100 Lafargue, Paul  184 language  156

Index large-scale vs. small-scale societies  33, 40–43 passim Latinos. See Hispanics law enforcement. See police and policing laws  27, 82, 83, 92, 161 on healthcare  xii–xiii, 178 racist  151. See also judicial system Lehman Brothers  53 leisure  111, 121, 138–39, 163–64, 173 fear of  106–7 Lemley, Mark  114–15 Lenin, Vladimir  7, 73, 185 Lenski, Gerhard  136 lesbian and gay marriage. See gay and lesbian marriage lesbian and gay military service. See gay and lesbian military service Letterist International  140–41 ‘libertarian communism’  8, 11, 13–14 life expectancy  3, 126 life insurance  1, 178n10 Lijphart, Arend  50, 131 Lipset, Seymour Martin  132 living standards. See standard of living living wage  77, 121, 153 lobbyists and lobbying  52, 122, 129 lottery systems to select decision makers. See random selection of decision makers Lukács, Georg  34 Luxembourg  74 luxury items  105, 107, 120, 121–22, 130 machines  24, 55, 103, 117, 150 humans as  153 Marx and Marxist views  19n37, 4n1, 103. See also computers Madison, James  56 mail-in ballots  55 majoritarian democracy  71–72, 80, 131, 132, 168 Malatesta, Errico  9, 10, 137 Malthus, Thomas  6, 169–70 mandatory military service. See compulsory military service mandatory schooling. See compulsory schooling mandatory voting. See compulsory voting mandatory work. See compulsory work

207 marginal utility  85, 122, 129 market clearing  22 marketing  119–20, 123, 171 markets  6, 12, 18, 87–88 ‘market socialism’  87, 88 Marmot, Michael  126 marriage  147–48, 153. See also gay and lesbian marriage Marx, Karl  6, 8, 16, 24, 64, 116nn69–70, 145–46, 176 Bakunin view  32 Capital  19n37 ‘commodity fetishism’  139, 143 The German Ideology  116n70, 143–44, 184 Gilman-Opalsky on  184, 185 view of epochs  25 view of globalization  174, 175, 181 view of labor  98–103 passim, 122 view of relations of production  20n41, 21, 116n69, 129 view of religion  142–43 view of theory  187 view of value  102 Marxists and Marxism  4n1, 6–8 passim, 15, 19, 24, 185 view of education  152–53, 155 view of State  31, 33, 34 McCarthy, George E.  102 ‘McDonaldization’ (Ritzer)  43, 135 McLaren, Peter  151, 153, 155 meals, common. See common meals means and ends. See ends and means means of production  4, 6, 11, 18–21 passim, 35, 104, 116n70, 136 media  59, 60, 77, 83, 118, 178, 182 Debord view  140–41. See also internet; journalists and journalism media bias  167–68 men-women relations. See gender relations; interpersonal relations meritocracy  110, 160, 161 Merton, Robert  17, 23, 26, 63, 97n30 Michels, Robert  58, 69 middle class  29, 33, 48–49, 127. See also bourgeois revolutions middle-range theory  63 military defense  128, 158–59 military intervention  38, 39, 179

208 military research  115 military service  157–61 passim military spending  158–59 militias  159, 160, 161 Mill, John Stuart  6, 78 millionaires and billionaires. See rich people Mills, C. Wright  16, 153 minimum wage  52, 94 minority tokenism in hiring. See tokenism in hiring Miranda, David  167 money  85, 86, 178. See also currency; savings monitoring of workplace. See workplace monitoring monopolies  95, 159–60 morale  124 moral education  148, 156 morality and ethics. See ethics mores  82 Morris, Robert  45 Morsi, Mohamed  37–38, 39 mortality of infants and children. See infant and child mortality mortgages  1 Mubarak, Hosni  35, 36, 53, 179 Muslim Brotherhood  36–39 passim Muslims  133, 142, 148 mutualism  8–12 passim, 99, 108 National Wage  18, 91–97 passim, 104, 106, 109, 145, 147 Native Americans  119 Nazis  143, 179–80 need  11, 13, 87, 97, 120, 121, 130 manufacture of  119–20 neoliberalism  135, 151, 176 Nestmann, Thorsten  170 Netherlands  74 news media  77, 142, 168 Nigeria  134 Nixon, Richard  x nonbiased language  156 nonviolent resistance  27 norms  30, 97n30, 131–33 passim, 164 constitution embodying  81 relationship to authority  61 relationship to job stratification  98

Index relationship to laws and sanctions  82, 163 relationship to religion  142 role of sanctions in enforcing  163. See also sexual norms nuclear family  146 Obama, Barack  51, 52 Obamacare  xii–xiii, 178 obligations, civic  5, 82, 84, 157, 159 Occupy movement  36, 72, 83, 187–88 office work. See white-collar work offshoring  94 oil industry  88, 178 old people. See aging and aged oligarchy  32, 35, 46, 47, 50, 51, 58, 157 online hiring halls  110 open shops  109 opinion polls  65, 66, 168 oppressor and oppressed: Freire on  155–56 organic intellectuals  26, 29 Orwell, George  167, 181 outsourcing  94 overproduction  19, 21 ownership  2, 11, 18, 85, 86 abolition of  14 by community  12, 13, 21–22, 72 of weapons  160. See also home ownership; possession; stock ownership paideia  81, 137, 139, 148, 151, 155. See also critical pedagogy Palast, Greg  54–55 Pannekoek, Anton  73, 185 Papandreou, George  56, 58 paperless voting  55 parecon. See participatory economics (parecon) parenting  172 parliamentary procedure  83n141 parliaments  xi, 25, 56, 58, 66, 67 Egypt  36, 37, 38 England  45, 64 Rudolf Rocker on  28 participatory budgeting  66–67 participatory economics (parecon)  13, 70–77, 86–87, 98

Index parties, political. See political parties patents  95, 114, 115 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See Obamacare Paulson, Henry  52–53 Paulson, John  51 pay. See remuneration peasants  157–58 pedagogy. See paideia pensions  48, 50, 91, 176 Perkins, John: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man  178 personal property. See private property personal savings. See savings petroleum industry. See oil industry pharmaceuticals industry  1, 95 philosophy: Gilman-Opalsky on  184–85 planned obsolescence  122 planning, centralized  72, 85–89 passim, 105 Plato  47–48, 57, 69, 145–46 The Republic  68, 154, 157 theory of forms  102–3 view of community defense  159 view of education  137, 149, 150, 154 view of law enforcement  161 plebiscites and referenda. See referenda plutocracy  46, 50–51, 118 Polanyi, Karl  98, 128 police and policing  83, 128, 156, 161–63 passim political boundaries. See boundaries and borders political corruption. See corruption, political political expertise. See expertise, political political families  56 political parties  55–60. See also Democratic Party; Republican Party The Politics (Aristotle)  47, 62, 131 polls. See opinion polls poll taxes  68 pollution  127–28 polygamy  148 population size  146–47, 169–70 possession  2, 14, 47, 100–101. See also accumulation poor people: effect of charity on  144 in military service  159 Portugal  176

209 poverty  47, 123, 159, 176. See also poor people; soup kitchens power  22, 23, 53, 60, 61, 186. See also class power presidential elections  51 primitivism, anarchist. See anarcho-primitivism prices  86–89 passim, 98, 104, 121, 128 prison labor  162 prisons and jails. See incarceration privacy invasion  171 private property: abolition  14 basis for neoliberalism  135 collectivization  7 with communal use  47, 70 expropriation  27, 72 with public authority  70. See also intellectual property; ownership private schools  149 privatization  1, 113, 115, 168, 177 production  4n1, 85, 86, 87, 88, 119–28. See also forces of production; means of production; relations of production productivity  117–18, 124 profit  19–22 passim, 70, 91, 94, 96, 104, 118–20 passim propaganda  6, 120, 168, 178–82 passim by media  167, 168 resistance to  69, 152 war-related  53 property, private. See private property property rights  95, 114 protests  36, 38 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph  6–11 passim, 31, 64, 99, 106, 112, 137, 184 psychology, social. See social psychology public good. See common good public health  126, 127 public spending. See social spending public views: of inequality  152 media-skewed  168. See also opinion polls public workers  123, 149, 165 punishment  147, 162 Putin, Vladimir  40 racism  132, 151, 162 random selection of decision makers  xiv, 60–70 passim, 79, 80, 137, 164

210 rationing  90, 98, 99 rebellion  27–28. See also insurrection recall of decision makers  62, 72, 73, 78 recession  9n39, 20. See also Great Recession (2008–) redistribution laws  27 referenda  xiv, 38, 62, 67, 83, 161 fear of  132 reformism  21, 58, 63 regulation  163–66 of journalism  168–69. See also laws relations of authority  23–24, 45–84 passim relations of consumption  96–105 relations of production  3, 20, 21, 24, 31, 116n69, 129 religion  39–40, 117, 135, 142–45. See also God remuneration  11–14 passim, 19–22 passim, 72, 98, 118, 169 China  175 cuts  124 equality in  18, 89, 108, 112, 125, 129 inequality in  92–93, 98–99, 103–4, 108, 120, 123, 128, 130 international comparison  175 rejection of  87 United States  52, 175 at worker-owned firms  91 works council role in determining  75. See also ceo pay; living wage; National Wage; voucher-based payment rent and renting  108 representative democracy  45–60 passim, 64, 67, 77–78, 83, 132 repression  117, 167 China  181 Egypt  36, 38 United States  83, 158 The Republic (Plato)  68, 154, 157 Republican Party  x–xi, xii, 51, 84, 168, 178 research  115 residency requirements  78 retirement age  176 retirement pensions. See pensions revolt. See insurrection revolution  13, 14, 15, 26–40 passim, 61, 137, 155 anarchist view  137

Index birth of  117 Debord view  141 Gilman-Opalsky on  63. See also bourgeois revolutions rich people  46, 58, 89, 114, 117, 118 campaign donations  51–53 passim charity of  144 inequality affect on  127 unethical behavior of  127 rights  28, 82–83, 132, 145, 160 so-called  84. See also civil rights movement; property rights; voting rights right to strike  58–59 riots  27–28, 187 risk  99 Ritzer, George  43, 135 Rocker, Rudolf  28–29 roles, social. See social roles Roman Empire  176 Roosevelt, Franklin D.  xii rotation of jobs  111 rotation of office  62, 71, 79 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques  45 Russia  40, 74 Russian revolution of 1917  30, 32, 56–57, 73, 160 sabbaticals  121 sanctions, social. See social sanctions Sapir-Whorf hypothesis  156 savings  22, 90, 91, 108 schooling, compulsory. See compulsory schooling Schweickart, David  5, 9, 87, 88, 119, 121 view of birthrates  146–47 view of self-management  71, 93, 94, 125 Seattle  66 Securities and Exchange Commission  52 self-employment  109, 112 self-interest  15, 29, 32, 163n93 self-management  11, 33, 47, 72–77 passim, 87, 91–96 passim, 164–65 self-policing. See community policing seniors. See aging and aged separation of church and civil society  145 September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks  80 sexual norms  147–48

Index shareholders, corporate. See corporate shareholders signaling (economics)  149 Simons, James  51 Situationist International  139–41 passim skill valuation  98, 101, 103–4 slavery  44, 147, 166 ancient Greece  50, 100, 157 prison labor as  162 United States  x , 82, 151 Sloan, Alfred  180 small business  94–96 small-scale vs. large-scale societies. See large-scale vs. small-scale societies Smith, Adam  100n39 The Wealth of Nations  6, 163n93 Snowden, Edward  167 social change  23–27 passim. See also revolution social class. See class social conflict. See conflict social institutions. See education; family; religion socialism  73, 77–78, 86. See also ‘market socialism’; state socialism socially necessary labor. See labor: socially necessary social media  35–36, 139 social mores. See mores social norms. See norms social psychology  97 social relations 131–73 passim. See also interpersonal relations social roles  138–39 social sanctions  163. See also punishment social spending  176, 177 social status  136, 137–38 Socrates  157 Socratic Method  156 solidarity  2, 15, 42, 86, 104, 143, 144 Sorel, George  60–61n77 Soros, George  51 soup kitchens  144 Soviet Union  40, 56–57, 73, 74, 88, 185 banks  85–86 Castoriadis view  32, 57 censorship  167 employment  165 remuneration in  108–9

211 structure of socialism in  86 United States compared to  134 us relations  179, 180–81 Spain  42, 74, 123, 176 Spanish Civil War  31, 98, 179 Spartans  144 spectacle  139–40, 143 stagnation (economics). See economic stagnation standard of living  3, 104, 124, 129, 174, 175, 183 falling  41, 178 guaranteed  124 population effect on  146, 147 rising  xii, 126 United States  105–6 State  5, 33, 44 anarchist view  7 Marxist view  31, 33 See also repression state capitalism  32, 57 ‘state communism’  12, 13 state socialism  73, 85 status. See social status steam engine  24 Stein’s Law  ix Stiglitz, Joseph  22, 52, 70, 99, 115, 122, 124 stimulus, economic. See economic stimulus stock ownership  48, 70, 96, 117 stratification of jobs. See job stratification stress  121–28 passim, 153, 172 strikes  58–59 Strong Democracy (Barber)  65, 131 student-teacher relationship  156–57 sub-prime loans  1 subsidies. See government subsidies supply and demand  88 supreme courts  66, 80. See also U.S. Supreme Court surplus labor  21, 106, 112, 166 Svejnar, Jan  125 Switzerland  4, 77, 159, 160 Taliban  133, 135 taxation  58, 93, 94, 128, 136, 145, 149, 177. See also poll taxes teacher and student. See student-teacher relationship

212 technology  24, 70, 76, 77 Freire view  172 Keynes forecast  120 rare earth elements in  174–75 relationship to population growth  169, 170. See also automation; computers; inventors and invention; machines; paperless voting; planned obsolescence; television television  182 Tennessee  76–77 termination of employment  110 Themistocles  157 Thyssen, Fritz  179 time-based currency  98, 100 Tocqueville, Alexis de  78 tokenism in hiring  150 tolerance  132, 147 tracking in education. See education: tracking in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (trips)  95 trials  80–81 Trotsky, Leon  160 Turkish immigrants  133 UAW. See United Auto Workers underconsumption  19, 21 unemployed and unemployment  92, 109, 112, 123, 129, 164, 166, 176 unethical behavior  127. See also corruption, political; corruption in higher education; corruption in media Union Banking Corporation  179, 180 unions  42 anarchist views  20–21 co-optation of  92 Europe  74–75 United States  xi, 58–59, 76 works councils compared  73 United Auto Workers  76 United Kingdom  70, 74, 120, 134, 167, 175, 176 United States  ix–xiii, 1–2, 40, 42, 70, 133, 178 bonds  177 Cold War  134 criminal justice system  162 cultural cleavage in  40, 149

Index education in  149–50 elected management in  125 elections  xi, 51–55 passim, 78, 84 hiring halls  109 inequality in  2, 48–49, 72, 117, 126–27, 149, 152 intellectual property in  115 Keynes forecast for  120 military spending  158–59 net worth in  118 Occupy movement  36 oil subsidies  88 public health  126 representative democracy in  45–56 passim rights in  82–83 Soviet relations 179, 180–81 structure of capitalism  86 works councils  76–77 World War II  179–80, 182. See also Federal Reserve; U.S. Congress; U.S. Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court universities and colleges. See higher education ‘unnecessary needs’. See need: manufacture of upper class. See rich people uprising. See insurrection urban budgeting initiatives  66 U.S. Congress: plutocracy in  46, 50 low percentage of veterans in  159 Senate ‘hold’ procedure  83n141 U.S. Constitution  45, 46, 82, 145, 167 use value  102, 103, 104 ussr. See Soviet Union U.S. Supreme Court  46, 51, 79 utopianism  2, 16, 17, 41, 43, 79–80, 86, 171–72 in Barber  131 Dahrendorf view  61 of distribution schemes 96–97 Merton on  26 view of constitutions and laws  81, 82, 161 view of voucher system  90 views of social regulation  163 vacation leave  75, 121 valuation of skill. See skill valuation

213

Index value  100–104 passim values  133, 135 vanguardism  73 violence  25, 34, 157–62. See also assassination; repression; war Volkswagen  76 voucher-based payment  89–90 voting  xiv, 6, 18, 46, 67, 68, 78, 132 tampering  54–55, 84. See also compulsory voting; elections voting age  46 voting rights: felons’ loss of  162 Vygotsky, Lev  156 wages. See remuneration Walmart  1 war  53, 160, 161. See also class war; World War II ‘war of position’ (Gramsci)  61 Washington, George  55–56 Watson, Tom  179 ‘wealthfare’  123 wealth gap. See inequality The Wealth of Nations (Smith)  6, 163n93 wealthy people. See rich people weapons  30, 34, 36, 113, 157–60 passim Weber, Max  15–17 passim, 22, 43, 63n82, 122, 135, 136, 170 welfare  166, 176 whistle-blowers  167 white-collar work  98 Whitman, Meg  52

Wolff, Richard D.  49–50 women’s equality. See equality: gender-related women’s military service  157, 158, 159 work avoidance and minimization  97, 163, 165 workday  107, 111, 121, 138–39, 172 worker cooperatives  11, 125 worker morale. See morale worker-owned firms  91–93 passim workers’ councils. See works councils Workers’ Councils (Pannekoek)  73 worker self-management. See self-management work hours  107, 111, 121, 124, 164. See also workday; workweek work inspection and evaluation  110 workload  18, 72, 77, 107, 111 workplace democracy. See self-management; works councils workplace monitoring  75–76 works councils  73–76, 87, 93 work time. See work hours workweek  106, 120, 121, 153 World Bank  177 World Trade Organization  95, 175 World War II  179–80, 182 Zapatistas  187 Zepezauer, Mark  ix–iv, 122–23 Žižek, Slavoj  114 Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky)  156