A Critique of Albert and Hahnel’s Thinking on the Division of Labour
By Mark Evans
August 4, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
This essay is the start of a discussion on the concept of Balanced Job Complexes. Response from Michael Albert can be found here.
Introduction: The Division of Labour, Job Complexes and Economic Justice
Like those who advocate for a participatory economy, I would like to live in a classless economy / society. However, unlike those who advocate for participatory economics – as conceived by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel – I am not convinced that this requires balanced job complexes (BJCs). For Albert, Hahnel and their followers, BJCs are essential for classlessness. Somewhat ironically, with regards to the division of labour, according to these thinkers there is no alternative! In this paper I offer a number of arguments, some of which overlap, that challenge the thinking that underpins this claim. My hope is that these arguments will help to open up a space for more critical and creative thinking around the issue of the division of labour (and participatory economics more generally) and with it more room for experimentation in the real world. After all, it is only within such conditions that participatory economics will become as popular as it needs to be if it is to have the impact its advocates desire.
The division of labour simply refers to the way in which work is shared out within the workplace and across the economy. In other words, it has to do with how jobs are conceived and formulated. Following the industrial revolution and with the rise of capitalism, we have seen the emergence of what Albert, Hahnel (and others) call the corporate division of labour (CDoL). According to their thinking, it is this feature of capitalist and 20th century socialist economics that facilitates the rise to dominance over the working class of what they referred to as the “coordinator class”, namely “planners, administrators, technocrats and other conceptual workers”. [1]
For Albert and Hahnel, what is typically understood, during the 20th century, as socialism is better understood as “coordinatorism”. This refers to an economy in which “a class of experts/technocrats/managers/conceptual workers monopolize decision-making authority while traditional workers carry out their orders”. [2]
A central feature of Albert and Hanel’s model for a participatory economy, therefore, is balanced job complexes (BJCs), which they present as an explicit alternative to the CDoL as a means of undermining coordinator class rule whilst also instituting classlessness. As Albert and Hahnel point out, “all economies have job complexes”, which refers to the “collection of tasks comprising an individual’s work assignment” or what is typically referred to as a job description. They then go on to state what they see as our options. Job complexes “may be unbalanced regarding desirability and empowerment, as in capitalism and coordinatorism, or balanced as in participatory economics”.
When presenting their argument for BJCs, Albert and Hahnel typically start with a scenario. For example, Hahnel presents the case for BJCs as follows:
“If some people sweep floors all week, year in year out, while others evaluate new technological options and attend planning meetings all week, year in year out, is it realistic to believe they have an equal opportunity to affect workplace decisions simply because they each have one vote in the worker council. Doesn’t taking participation seriously require balancing work for empowerment?” [3]
Similarly, Albert has argued:
“…even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do only engaging and empowering taks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality”. [4]
As we can see, for Albert and Hahnel, to desire classlessness without implementing BJCs is not “realistic” and/or constitutes a position that “denies reality”. But is this true? Are BJCs really the only way to arrive at a classless division of labour? Or are there other options available to those who desire to live in a classless economy/society? The following arguments are presented to reopen-up this important topic.
Argument One: Black-and-White Thinking
Following the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument, outlined above, it seems that we have two choices when it comes to the division of labour. We can choose the CDoL, which generates a class system. Or we can choose BJCs, which work to generate classlessness. For those of us who desire classlessness, it seems we only have one choice, which is the same as having no choice at all! The logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument seems to force those of us who would like to see an end to the class system into supporting BJCs as part of our position on post-capitalist economic vision. Rejecting BJC’s can, therefore, feel like rejecting logic.
The clarity and simplicity of this argument can be very seductive. However, are things really this straightforward? Are these really our only two choices? Is this a realistic way of thinking and talking about the division of labour? Before going on to suggest an alternative way of thinking and talking about the division of labour, a way that I think is much more realistic and open to experimentation, I would first like to argue that Albert and Hahnel’s thinking regarding the division of labour is actually unrealistic.
The basic problem with Albert and Hahnels thinking on the division of labour is their either/or formulation. This is an example of black-and-white thinking, which is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Black-and-white thinking tends to see the world as being made up of either entirely good things or entirely bad things. In Albert and Hahnel’s thinking it is the CDoL that is entirely bad and BJCs that are entirely good. This is an example of what is commonly understood to be a cognitive distortion that can often lead to emotional disturbances. In turn, emotional disturbance can lead to unnecessary conflict and divisiveness, which is not very in-keeping with the values that underpin participatory economics.
This kind of dichotomous thinking also tends to give the impression that the CDoL and BJCs are distinct things and that there isn’t really any middle ground or room for experimentation. But is this true? Consider, for example, BJCs. Let’s say we have a workplace that attempts to implement BJCs. Obviously, in the real world, BJCs would not be perfectly formulated. Given that we only have a choice between the CDoL and BJCs, does this mean that an imperfect BJC would actually be an example of the CDoL? How imperfect do BJC’s have to be before they would be better described as the CDoL? These are the kinds of ridiculous questions that can arise in response to black-and-white thinking.
It could, of course, be argued that when discussing the division of labour Albert and Hahnel are not talking in such absolute terms. Their thinking is more nuanced than the characterisation presented above makes out. For example, when describing the implications of BJCs on workers councils Hahnel has stated:
“So in a participatory economy every worker council is called upon to create a job balancing committee to distribute and combine tasks in ways that make jobs more “balanced” with regard to desirability and empowerment.” (emphasis added) [5]
The key word here, of course, is “more”. This definitely gives the impression of nuanced thinking. What, however, does it mean to talk about “more balanced jobs”? Obviously, we can have more balanced jobs whilst maintaining the CDoL. It seems, therefore, that whilst adding the word “more” may make Albert and Hahnel’s argument for BJCs appear less absolutist in character, and with it less divisive, it also renders their argument for BJCs, as a distinct alternative to the CDoL, meaningless.
It seems, therefore, that what is needed is a different way of thinking and talking about the division of labour, one that avoids these kinds of problems. We could, for example, think of the division of labour in terms of a sliding scale, where we have “hierarchical” at one end and “egalitarian” at the other. Clearly, advocates for a participatory economy would very much want to lean in the direction of an egalitarian division of labour. This, of course, would mean arguing and organising for more balanced jobs. However, there would be no need to insist on the necessity of BJCs as a distinct alternative to the CDoL.
Such an approach, I would suggest, would avoid the dichotomous, divisive and unrealistic thinking that informs Albert and Hahnel’s argument. It would also open up space for more experimentation, in the real world, with regards to where on the scale between a hierarchical and egalitarian division of labour we can move without creating a class system. It would transcend the either/or thinking that informs BJCs and the unrealistic and divisive language used by Albert and Hahnel when talking about the division of labour.
Argument Two: Unjustified Simplifying Assumption
Let’s take another look at the scenarios that Albert and Hahnel use as a premise for their argument for BJCs:
“If some people sweep floors all week, year in year out, while others evaluate new technological options and attend planning meetings all week, year in year out, is it realistic to believe they have an equal opportunity to affect workplace decisions simply because they each have one vote in the worker council. Doesn’t taking participation seriously require balancing work for empowerment?” [6]
“…even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do only engaging and empowering taks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality”. [7]
What is been suggested in their scenarios is that if we don’t institute BJCs we by definition maintain the CDoL and with that we have the all too familiar picture of a workplace found in both capitalist and 20th century socialist economies. But are these scenarios even relevant to the discussion of participatory economic vision? To explain why I think these scenarios are not relevant we will need to briefly explore some of Albert and Hahnel’s social theory.
According to Albert and Hahnel’s social theory, human societies are made up of a number of spheres. In no particular order they are; the cultural sphere, the political sphere, the kinship sphere and, of course, the economic sphere. Crucial to understanding Albert and Hahnel’s social theory are the notions of holism and complementary. By complementary they mean, “that the parts which compose wholes interrelate to help define one another, even though each appears often to have an independent and even contrary existence”. Holism, on the other hand, “informs us that reality’s many parts always act together to form an entwined whole.” [8]
It is for this reason that Albert and Hahnel argue:
“… since society itself is holistic, it is essential that we develop an intellectual framework specifically contoured to understanding an interconnected reality. [9]
However, it is impossible to explore the whole of reality all at once. It is for this reason that Albert and Hahnel add the following important consideration:
We should expect interdependence and only introduce simplifying assumptions that deny the importance of interconnections when such assumptions are carefully justified”. (Emphasis added) [10]
As this quote suggests, the introduction of “simplifying assumptions” is an important methodological consideration. In other words, we can only justify leaving something out of the picture if it is “careful justification”. Clearly, such considerations have important implications for the development of vision. If we get our simplifying assumptions wrong then our vision will be distorted.
The question that I would like to consider now is, are there any unjustified simplifying assumptions in the above scenarios that Albert and Hahnel present as part of their argument for BJCs? One way of testing for possible unjustified simplifying assumptions is to (re)introduce a factor that has been abstracted out of the picture. For example, we might consider the effect a participatory education system might have on the scenarios used by Albert and Hahnel as a starting point for their argument for BJCs.
It is safe to say that as part of the transition towards a participatory society there will need to be radical and progressive changes made to the education system. Rather than “educating” elites to own and/or control the economy and workplace whilst the majority are “educated” to sell themselves for a wage and follow orders from above – as in both a capitalist and 20th century socialist economy – a participatory education system would be geared towards a two-fold objective. First, it would function to help citizens reach their full potential. Second, it would empower them with the capacity – i.e. the knowledge and skill-set – to engage in participatory democratic processes (what, in the economic sphere, is referred to by Albert and Hannel and others as self-management).
With this in mind we may wonder how we could end up with some workers who “do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies” who “sweep floors all week, year in year out”. If we include the implications of a functioning participatory education system into our thinking about the division of labour then the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel seem irrelevant. The scenarios they present as the starting point for their argument for BJCs simply would not arise. It seems, therefore, that the simplifying assumptions that Albert and Hahnel make when presenting their argument for BJCs are misguided and unjustified.
What we would have instead is a very different scenario to that presented by Albert and Hahnel. What we would see, as a result of a participatory education system, is a workplace full of confident, competent and civilised workers able to engage in both the work of their chosen area of expertise and self-management. Clearly, this is a very different starting point for thinking about the division of labour and it is one that does not feed into the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument for BJCs, which as we have seen is already problematic for a number of reasons (see Argument One).
However, advocates of BJCs would undoubtedly still argue that even if the scenarios that Albert and Hahnel present are unlikely to emerge for the reasons given above, the reality of empowering / disempowering tasks would nevertheless still persist. In other words, even if we have a scenario in which we have confident, competent and civilised workers able to engage in both the work of their chosen area of expertise and self-management, somebody has still got to do those disempowering tasks. Therefore, BJCs are still relevant and necessary, they would argue. There are at least two points to consider with regards to this claim.
First, the claim seems to assume that no technological innovations regarding disempowering tasks will take place as part of the transition to a participatory economy / society. This, I think, is highly unlikely. As part of the transition to a participatory economy / society technology would be repurposed to serve the common good as opposed to elite interests. This holds out the hope that at least some of the disempowering and undesirable tasks could be removed from job descriptions for workers. Whilst nobody currently knows how many of these tasks could be removed, it seems unreasonable to operate from the assumption that no significant innovations will occur and therefore not have it as an important part of the conversation about economic vision.
Second, the claim also seems to assume that no psycho-social innovations with regards to attitudes to what today are considered disempower tasks will take place. Again, I think, this is highly unlikely. As part of the transition to a participatory economy / society attitude towards so called disempowering tasks would likely shift towards recognising the importance of many of these jobs. In turn this would lead to more respectful levels of investment and remuneration elevating these tasks / jobs to a more egalitarian relationship with other areas of expertise within the economy.
There is a broader point that also needs to be highlighted in response to the above claim. As we can see from the scenarios, Albert and Hahnel also argue that BJCs are necessary for self-management to function. Without BJCs we simply could not have self-management. But as we have also seen, Albert and Hahnel fail to consider the implications of participatory education on economic vision. In doing so, they fail to notice that there is a separation between the knowledge and skills for a worker’s chosen area of expertise and that of self-management. This means that in a functioning participatory economy everyone would need to be trained to engage fully and confidently in workplace decision making. This means that every individual and every branch of industry would have the capacity to participate in self-management regardless of the nature of the work undertaken by those individuals or branches of industry. The important point here is that having greater knowledge and confidence in a given area of work would translate to greater knowledge and confidence in self-management leading to the reemergence of elitist decision making, as Albert and Hahnel scenarios suggest.
Argument Three: Contradicting Their Own Theory
As discussed above, Albert and Hanel’s social theory is based upon the idea of complementary holism. One aspect of this theory highlights how the logic of each of the four social spheres that make up human societies not only interrelate but also codefine one another. As we have already seen, however, in the development of their vision for a participatory economy Albert and Hahnel failed to take into consideration important insights regarding the impact a participatory education system could have on a participatory economy (see argument two). In fact, if you look at the institutional features of their model you will find very little, if any, consideration of how any of the other three social spheres could help inform participatory economic vision. This is perhaps most noteworthy with regards to the political sphere.
As we have seen in the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel, the failure to implement BJCs would inevitably lead to a division of labour in which a class of coordinators would rule over the workers. According to the logic of their argument, this would result, not in liberation from class oppression, but in workers continuing in their traditional role of following orders from above. The logic of their argument typically continues to unfold from the relatively benign observation of following orders from above to full blown class exploitation, where the coordinators would use the positions of power to promote their own class interests at the expense of the working class. Furthermore, according to Albert and Hahnel analysis, this is precisely what occurred with what is typically called 20th century socialism. This is one of the main reasons why Albert and Hahnel prefer to refer to 20th century socialism as coordinatorism.
But what happens to the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument if we take their social theory seriously? More precisely, what happens to their argument if we take into consideration influences from the political sphere?
First of all, we might want to highlight the fact that in a participatory society there would be no political elite organised into a central committee with a monopoly on state violence, which was typically the case in 20th century socialist societies. This raises the question of whether the so-called coordinator class could have come to dominate the workers in 20th century socialist societies without the assistance and support of the political elite that made-up the central committees? Of course, no one knows the answer to questions like these with any real certainty. What we can say with some confidence, however, is that coordinator class dominance over the workers would be a lot less likely in the absence of a political elite backed by state violence. Nevertheless, Albert and Hanel use their analysis of 20th century socialism as a backdrop to their argument for BJCs without taking into consideration participatory transformations within the political sphere.
Another political factor that Albert and Hahnel fail to take into consideration when developing their economic vision is the development and implementation of legislation for the economy. As we know from Albert and Hahnel’s writings, the political sphere is the domain in which law and order are maintained via the development and implementation of systems of legislation and adjudication. As Albert has stated regarding political vision for a participatory society:
“To have social success […] we need political structures. Roles certainly eliminate some options, but they also fantastically facilitate others. When options that are precluded are all harshly harmful, and options that we gain are all desirable, the limitations and facilitations of institutional roles benefit us.” [11]
Albert’s language here is designed to appeal to a leftwing audience who, he seems to believe, will baulk at the idea of law and order. However, when he talks about “roles” that “eliminate some options” he is talking about laws that maintain social order. Whether Albert is right or wrong about this communication issue is of no concern here. Rather, what is concerning is that, despite their social theory, Albert and Hahnel fail to discuss possible laws that could impact on the economy. More precisely, and more relevant here, they do not include the possibility of legislation that could be developed and implemented to “eliminate some options” and “facilitate others” with regards to their concerns about the division of labour. However, if such legislation were to be developed within a complementary and holistic framework as part of a vision for a participatory economic system then the logic for BJCs, as presented in Albert and Hahnels arguments, could be undermined and it may prove more difficult for them and their followers to insist that BJCs are an essential component of the participatory economic model.
Conclusion: Questions and Further Explorations
Three arguments have been presented that together represent a critique of Albert and Hahnel’s thinking on the division of labour. The first argues that Albert and Hahnel frame the discussion on the division of labour using either / or black and white thinking, which is understood as both unhealthy and unnecessarily divisive. When applied to the division of labour, dichotomous thinking is best understood as a cognitive distortion of reality and therefore not a good basis for the development of vision. The second argues that Albert and Hahnel failed to take into consideration the impact of important factors, such as participatory education, when developing their economic vision and that this constitutes an unjustified simplifying assumption. In turn, this led to showing that the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel, as a premise for their argument for BJCs, are misconceived. The third argues that Albert and Hahnel violate their own social theory by failing to take into consideration important codefining influences from other social spheres. In particular, the impact of economic legislation from the political sphere has been highlighted to illustrate how Albert and Hahnel contradict their own theory in the development of their economic model. Each argument highlights a different aspect of the questionable thinking employed by Albert and Hahnel in their arguments for BJCs. Additional arguments could have been presented as further critiques of Albert and Hahnel’s thinking, both on BJCs and other aspects of their economic model. These, however, will have to wait for future papers. Hopefully, these arguments will help to open-up more space for further exploration into improving and diversifying economic vision for a just society.
NotesFrom Looking Forward, p152.
From Looking Forward, p152.
From Of the People, By the People, p55.
From ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, p103.
From Of the People, By the People, p55-56.
From Of the People, By the People, p55.
From ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, p103.
From Liberating Theory, p12.
From Liberating Theory, p15.
From Liberating Theory, p15.
From Fanfare for the Future Volume Two Occupy Vision, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/chapter-3-of-occupy-vision-parpolity-by-michael-albert/]
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
This essay is the start of a discussion on the concept of Balanced Job Complexes. Response from Michael Albert can be found here.
Introduction: The Division of Labour, Job Complexes and Economic Justice
Like those who advocate for a participatory economy, I would like to live in a classless economy / society. However, unlike those who advocate for participatory economics – as conceived by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel – I am not convinced that this requires balanced job complexes (BJCs). For Albert, Hahnel and their followers, BJCs are essential for classlessness. Somewhat ironically, with regards to the division of labour, according to these thinkers there is no alternative! In this paper I offer a number of arguments, some of which overlap, that challenge the thinking that underpins this claim. My hope is that these arguments will help to open up a space for more critical and creative thinking around the issue of the division of labour (and participatory economics more generally) and with it more room for experimentation in the real world. After all, it is only within such conditions that participatory economics will become as popular as it needs to be if it is to have the impact its advocates desire.
The division of labour simply refers to the way in which work is shared out within the workplace and across the economy. In other words, it has to do with how jobs are conceived and formulated. Following the industrial revolution and with the rise of capitalism, we have seen the emergence of what Albert, Hahnel (and others) call the corporate division of labour (CDoL). According to their thinking, it is this feature of capitalist and 20th century socialist economics that facilitates the rise to dominance over the working class of what they referred to as the “coordinator class”, namely “planners, administrators, technocrats and other conceptual workers”. [1]
For Albert and Hahnel, what is typically understood, during the 20th century, as socialism is better understood as “coordinatorism”. This refers to an economy in which “a class of experts/technocrats/managers/conceptual workers monopolize decision-making authority while traditional workers carry out their orders”. [2]
A central feature of Albert and Hanel’s model for a participatory economy, therefore, is balanced job complexes (BJCs), which they present as an explicit alternative to the CDoL as a means of undermining coordinator class rule whilst also instituting classlessness. As Albert and Hahnel point out, “all economies have job complexes”, which refers to the “collection of tasks comprising an individual’s work assignment” or what is typically referred to as a job description. They then go on to state what they see as our options. Job complexes “may be unbalanced regarding desirability and empowerment, as in capitalism and coordinatorism, or balanced as in participatory economics”.
When presenting their argument for BJCs, Albert and Hahnel typically start with a scenario. For example, Hahnel presents the case for BJCs as follows:
“If some people sweep floors all week, year in year out, while others evaluate new technological options and attend planning meetings all week, year in year out, is it realistic to believe they have an equal opportunity to affect workplace decisions simply because they each have one vote in the worker council. Doesn’t taking participation seriously require balancing work for empowerment?” [3]
Similarly, Albert has argued:
“…even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do only engaging and empowering taks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality”. [4]
As we can see, for Albert and Hahnel, to desire classlessness without implementing BJCs is not “realistic” and/or constitutes a position that “denies reality”. But is this true? Are BJCs really the only way to arrive at a classless division of labour? Or are there other options available to those who desire to live in a classless economy/society? The following arguments are presented to reopen-up this important topic.
Argument One: Black-and-White Thinking
Following the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument, outlined above, it seems that we have two choices when it comes to the division of labour. We can choose the CDoL, which generates a class system. Or we can choose BJCs, which work to generate classlessness. For those of us who desire classlessness, it seems we only have one choice, which is the same as having no choice at all! The logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument seems to force those of us who would like to see an end to the class system into supporting BJCs as part of our position on post-capitalist economic vision. Rejecting BJC’s can, therefore, feel like rejecting logic.
The clarity and simplicity of this argument can be very seductive. However, are things really this straightforward? Are these really our only two choices? Is this a realistic way of thinking and talking about the division of labour? Before going on to suggest an alternative way of thinking and talking about the division of labour, a way that I think is much more realistic and open to experimentation, I would first like to argue that Albert and Hahnel’s thinking regarding the division of labour is actually unrealistic.
The basic problem with Albert and Hahnels thinking on the division of labour is their either/or formulation. This is an example of black-and-white thinking, which is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Black-and-white thinking tends to see the world as being made up of either entirely good things or entirely bad things. In Albert and Hahnel’s thinking it is the CDoL that is entirely bad and BJCs that are entirely good. This is an example of what is commonly understood to be a cognitive distortion that can often lead to emotional disturbances. In turn, emotional disturbance can lead to unnecessary conflict and divisiveness, which is not very in-keeping with the values that underpin participatory economics.
This kind of dichotomous thinking also tends to give the impression that the CDoL and BJCs are distinct things and that there isn’t really any middle ground or room for experimentation. But is this true? Consider, for example, BJCs. Let’s say we have a workplace that attempts to implement BJCs. Obviously, in the real world, BJCs would not be perfectly formulated. Given that we only have a choice between the CDoL and BJCs, does this mean that an imperfect BJC would actually be an example of the CDoL? How imperfect do BJC’s have to be before they would be better described as the CDoL? These are the kinds of ridiculous questions that can arise in response to black-and-white thinking.
It could, of course, be argued that when discussing the division of labour Albert and Hahnel are not talking in such absolute terms. Their thinking is more nuanced than the characterisation presented above makes out. For example, when describing the implications of BJCs on workers councils Hahnel has stated:
“So in a participatory economy every worker council is called upon to create a job balancing committee to distribute and combine tasks in ways that make jobs more “balanced” with regard to desirability and empowerment.” (emphasis added) [5]
The key word here, of course, is “more”. This definitely gives the impression of nuanced thinking. What, however, does it mean to talk about “more balanced jobs”? Obviously, we can have more balanced jobs whilst maintaining the CDoL. It seems, therefore, that whilst adding the word “more” may make Albert and Hahnel’s argument for BJCs appear less absolutist in character, and with it less divisive, it also renders their argument for BJCs, as a distinct alternative to the CDoL, meaningless.
It seems, therefore, that what is needed is a different way of thinking and talking about the division of labour, one that avoids these kinds of problems. We could, for example, think of the division of labour in terms of a sliding scale, where we have “hierarchical” at one end and “egalitarian” at the other. Clearly, advocates for a participatory economy would very much want to lean in the direction of an egalitarian division of labour. This, of course, would mean arguing and organising for more balanced jobs. However, there would be no need to insist on the necessity of BJCs as a distinct alternative to the CDoL.
Such an approach, I would suggest, would avoid the dichotomous, divisive and unrealistic thinking that informs Albert and Hahnel’s argument. It would also open up space for more experimentation, in the real world, with regards to where on the scale between a hierarchical and egalitarian division of labour we can move without creating a class system. It would transcend the either/or thinking that informs BJCs and the unrealistic and divisive language used by Albert and Hahnel when talking about the division of labour.
Argument Two: Unjustified Simplifying Assumption
Let’s take another look at the scenarios that Albert and Hahnel use as a premise for their argument for BJCs:
“If some people sweep floors all week, year in year out, while others evaluate new technological options and attend planning meetings all week, year in year out, is it realistic to believe they have an equal opportunity to affect workplace decisions simply because they each have one vote in the worker council. Doesn’t taking participation seriously require balancing work for empowerment?” [6]
“…even in a formally democratic council, if some workers do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies, and other workers do only engaging and empowering taks that not only brighten their spirits and attentiveness, but also provide them with information critical to intelligent decision-making, saying that the two should have equal impact on decisions denies reality”. [7]
What is been suggested in their scenarios is that if we don’t institute BJCs we by definition maintain the CDoL and with that we have the all too familiar picture of a workplace found in both capitalist and 20th century socialist economies. But are these scenarios even relevant to the discussion of participatory economic vision? To explain why I think these scenarios are not relevant we will need to briefly explore some of Albert and Hahnel’s social theory.
According to Albert and Hahnel’s social theory, human societies are made up of a number of spheres. In no particular order they are; the cultural sphere, the political sphere, the kinship sphere and, of course, the economic sphere. Crucial to understanding Albert and Hahnel’s social theory are the notions of holism and complementary. By complementary they mean, “that the parts which compose wholes interrelate to help define one another, even though each appears often to have an independent and even contrary existence”. Holism, on the other hand, “informs us that reality’s many parts always act together to form an entwined whole.” [8]
It is for this reason that Albert and Hahnel argue:
“… since society itself is holistic, it is essential that we develop an intellectual framework specifically contoured to understanding an interconnected reality. [9]
However, it is impossible to explore the whole of reality all at once. It is for this reason that Albert and Hahnel add the following important consideration:
We should expect interdependence and only introduce simplifying assumptions that deny the importance of interconnections when such assumptions are carefully justified”. (Emphasis added) [10]
As this quote suggests, the introduction of “simplifying assumptions” is an important methodological consideration. In other words, we can only justify leaving something out of the picture if it is “careful justification”. Clearly, such considerations have important implications for the development of vision. If we get our simplifying assumptions wrong then our vision will be distorted.
The question that I would like to consider now is, are there any unjustified simplifying assumptions in the above scenarios that Albert and Hahnel present as part of their argument for BJCs? One way of testing for possible unjustified simplifying assumptions is to (re)introduce a factor that has been abstracted out of the picture. For example, we might consider the effect a participatory education system might have on the scenarios used by Albert and Hahnel as a starting point for their argument for BJCs.
It is safe to say that as part of the transition towards a participatory society there will need to be radical and progressive changes made to the education system. Rather than “educating” elites to own and/or control the economy and workplace whilst the majority are “educated” to sell themselves for a wage and follow orders from above – as in both a capitalist and 20th century socialist economy – a participatory education system would be geared towards a two-fold objective. First, it would function to help citizens reach their full potential. Second, it would empower them with the capacity – i.e. the knowledge and skill-set – to engage in participatory democratic processes (what, in the economic sphere, is referred to by Albert and Hannel and others as self-management).
With this in mind we may wonder how we could end up with some workers who “do only rote tasks that numb their minds and bodies” who “sweep floors all week, year in year out”. If we include the implications of a functioning participatory education system into our thinking about the division of labour then the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel seem irrelevant. The scenarios they present as the starting point for their argument for BJCs simply would not arise. It seems, therefore, that the simplifying assumptions that Albert and Hahnel make when presenting their argument for BJCs are misguided and unjustified.
What we would have instead is a very different scenario to that presented by Albert and Hahnel. What we would see, as a result of a participatory education system, is a workplace full of confident, competent and civilised workers able to engage in both the work of their chosen area of expertise and self-management. Clearly, this is a very different starting point for thinking about the division of labour and it is one that does not feed into the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument for BJCs, which as we have seen is already problematic for a number of reasons (see Argument One).
However, advocates of BJCs would undoubtedly still argue that even if the scenarios that Albert and Hahnel present are unlikely to emerge for the reasons given above, the reality of empowering / disempowering tasks would nevertheless still persist. In other words, even if we have a scenario in which we have confident, competent and civilised workers able to engage in both the work of their chosen area of expertise and self-management, somebody has still got to do those disempowering tasks. Therefore, BJCs are still relevant and necessary, they would argue. There are at least two points to consider with regards to this claim.
First, the claim seems to assume that no technological innovations regarding disempowering tasks will take place as part of the transition to a participatory economy / society. This, I think, is highly unlikely. As part of the transition to a participatory economy / society technology would be repurposed to serve the common good as opposed to elite interests. This holds out the hope that at least some of the disempowering and undesirable tasks could be removed from job descriptions for workers. Whilst nobody currently knows how many of these tasks could be removed, it seems unreasonable to operate from the assumption that no significant innovations will occur and therefore not have it as an important part of the conversation about economic vision.
Second, the claim also seems to assume that no psycho-social innovations with regards to attitudes to what today are considered disempower tasks will take place. Again, I think, this is highly unlikely. As part of the transition to a participatory economy / society attitude towards so called disempowering tasks would likely shift towards recognising the importance of many of these jobs. In turn this would lead to more respectful levels of investment and remuneration elevating these tasks / jobs to a more egalitarian relationship with other areas of expertise within the economy.
There is a broader point that also needs to be highlighted in response to the above claim. As we can see from the scenarios, Albert and Hahnel also argue that BJCs are necessary for self-management to function. Without BJCs we simply could not have self-management. But as we have also seen, Albert and Hahnel fail to consider the implications of participatory education on economic vision. In doing so, they fail to notice that there is a separation between the knowledge and skills for a worker’s chosen area of expertise and that of self-management. This means that in a functioning participatory economy everyone would need to be trained to engage fully and confidently in workplace decision making. This means that every individual and every branch of industry would have the capacity to participate in self-management regardless of the nature of the work undertaken by those individuals or branches of industry. The important point here is that having greater knowledge and confidence in a given area of work would translate to greater knowledge and confidence in self-management leading to the reemergence of elitist decision making, as Albert and Hahnel scenarios suggest.
Argument Three: Contradicting Their Own Theory
As discussed above, Albert and Hanel’s social theory is based upon the idea of complementary holism. One aspect of this theory highlights how the logic of each of the four social spheres that make up human societies not only interrelate but also codefine one another. As we have already seen, however, in the development of their vision for a participatory economy Albert and Hahnel failed to take into consideration important insights regarding the impact a participatory education system could have on a participatory economy (see argument two). In fact, if you look at the institutional features of their model you will find very little, if any, consideration of how any of the other three social spheres could help inform participatory economic vision. This is perhaps most noteworthy with regards to the political sphere.
As we have seen in the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel, the failure to implement BJCs would inevitably lead to a division of labour in which a class of coordinators would rule over the workers. According to the logic of their argument, this would result, not in liberation from class oppression, but in workers continuing in their traditional role of following orders from above. The logic of their argument typically continues to unfold from the relatively benign observation of following orders from above to full blown class exploitation, where the coordinators would use the positions of power to promote their own class interests at the expense of the working class. Furthermore, according to Albert and Hahnel analysis, this is precisely what occurred with what is typically called 20th century socialism. This is one of the main reasons why Albert and Hahnel prefer to refer to 20th century socialism as coordinatorism.
But what happens to the logic of Albert and Hahnel’s argument if we take their social theory seriously? More precisely, what happens to their argument if we take into consideration influences from the political sphere?
First of all, we might want to highlight the fact that in a participatory society there would be no political elite organised into a central committee with a monopoly on state violence, which was typically the case in 20th century socialist societies. This raises the question of whether the so-called coordinator class could have come to dominate the workers in 20th century socialist societies without the assistance and support of the political elite that made-up the central committees? Of course, no one knows the answer to questions like these with any real certainty. What we can say with some confidence, however, is that coordinator class dominance over the workers would be a lot less likely in the absence of a political elite backed by state violence. Nevertheless, Albert and Hanel use their analysis of 20th century socialism as a backdrop to their argument for BJCs without taking into consideration participatory transformations within the political sphere.
Another political factor that Albert and Hahnel fail to take into consideration when developing their economic vision is the development and implementation of legislation for the economy. As we know from Albert and Hahnel’s writings, the political sphere is the domain in which law and order are maintained via the development and implementation of systems of legislation and adjudication. As Albert has stated regarding political vision for a participatory society:
“To have social success […] we need political structures. Roles certainly eliminate some options, but they also fantastically facilitate others. When options that are precluded are all harshly harmful, and options that we gain are all desirable, the limitations and facilitations of institutional roles benefit us.” [11]
Albert’s language here is designed to appeal to a leftwing audience who, he seems to believe, will baulk at the idea of law and order. However, when he talks about “roles” that “eliminate some options” he is talking about laws that maintain social order. Whether Albert is right or wrong about this communication issue is of no concern here. Rather, what is concerning is that, despite their social theory, Albert and Hahnel fail to discuss possible laws that could impact on the economy. More precisely, and more relevant here, they do not include the possibility of legislation that could be developed and implemented to “eliminate some options” and “facilitate others” with regards to their concerns about the division of labour. However, if such legislation were to be developed within a complementary and holistic framework as part of a vision for a participatory economic system then the logic for BJCs, as presented in Albert and Hahnels arguments, could be undermined and it may prove more difficult for them and their followers to insist that BJCs are an essential component of the participatory economic model.
Conclusion: Questions and Further Explorations
Three arguments have been presented that together represent a critique of Albert and Hahnel’s thinking on the division of labour. The first argues that Albert and Hahnel frame the discussion on the division of labour using either / or black and white thinking, which is understood as both unhealthy and unnecessarily divisive. When applied to the division of labour, dichotomous thinking is best understood as a cognitive distortion of reality and therefore not a good basis for the development of vision. The second argues that Albert and Hahnel failed to take into consideration the impact of important factors, such as participatory education, when developing their economic vision and that this constitutes an unjustified simplifying assumption. In turn, this led to showing that the scenarios presented by Albert and Hahnel, as a premise for their argument for BJCs, are misconceived. The third argues that Albert and Hahnel violate their own social theory by failing to take into consideration important codefining influences from other social spheres. In particular, the impact of economic legislation from the political sphere has been highlighted to illustrate how Albert and Hahnel contradict their own theory in the development of their economic model. Each argument highlights a different aspect of the questionable thinking employed by Albert and Hahnel in their arguments for BJCs. Additional arguments could have been presented as further critiques of Albert and Hahnel’s thinking, both on BJCs and other aspects of their economic model. These, however, will have to wait for future papers. Hopefully, these arguments will help to open-up more space for further exploration into improving and diversifying economic vision for a just society.
NotesFrom Looking Forward, p152.
From Looking Forward, p152.
From Of the People, By the People, p55.
From ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, p103.
From Of the People, By the People, p55-56.
From Of the People, By the People, p55.
From ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, p103.
From Liberating Theory, p12.
From Liberating Theory, p15.
From Liberating Theory, p15.
From Fanfare for the Future Volume Two Occupy Vision, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/chapter-3-of-occupy-vision-parpolity-by-michael-albert/]
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Mark Evans
Mark was born in 1968 in the industrial heartland of England to working class parents. He has two older sisters. Over the years He has lived in a number of cities and have had many different jobs. However, over the past 20 years he has lived in Birmingham (UK) where he works in healthcare on the nursing side of things. He has two main interests in life. They are mental health and social justice. His main interest in social justice has to do organising for a participatory society. More precisely, He is interested in helping to establish an international network of geographically based self-managed groups as a basis for a participatory society. It is this that motivated me to help set-up, in 2020, Real Utopia: Foundation for a Participatory Society. Mark is also a member of Collective 20 writers collective.
No comments:
Post a Comment