Wednesday, August 07, 2024


Central African Republic: looting as retribution



Tuesday 6 August 2024, by Paul Martial


Russian mercenaries and Rwandan soldiers are protecting the authoritarian regime in the Central African Republic (CAR). In return, they lay their hands on the country’s riches. Yesterday, at the gates of Bangui, the capital of the CAR, the various armed groups operating in the country were partly defeated by the combined action of Wagner’s troops, the UN mission, Minusca, and Rwandan special forces.

Scorched earth policy

This counter-offensive extended to the country’s main towns, but was accompanied by widespread violence against civilians perpetrated by Wagner’s mercenaries. Entire villages were razed to the ground and the Russian soldiers claimed more victims than all the armed rebel groups put together.

The challenge for Wagner is not just to preserve the power of the President of the Republic, Faustin-Archange Touadéra, but to get his hands on the diamond and gold mines previously exploited by the armed militias. Although the militias have been weakened, they are still present in the country’s rural areas.

Although the Russian authorities regained control of Wagner’s activities in the CAR following the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the company’s founder, the mercenaries retain a large degree of autonomy and continue to expand their business by trying to diversify into log exports and brewing.

But the Russians are no longer alone and must now rely on the Rwandans. For the moment, everyone is respecting a modus vivendi.

Interested aid

The Rwandan contingent represents 20% of the 14,000 soldiers of the Minusca led by Valentine Rugwabiza, a Rwandan businesswoman and diplomat. Other Rwandans head up local UN agencies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP), as well as structures such as the World Bank. At the same time, almost 850 special forces soldiers reporting directly to the Rwandan government have been deployed.

While the Rwandan forces have a much better reputation among the civilian population than Wagner’s mercenaries, they are also widely used to secure the economic activities of the mining companies owned by the Crystal Ventures holding company, which is linked to the RPF, Paul Kagamé’s ruling party. These mines exploit rare earths, in particular tantalum used in electronics and niobium to produce steel alloys. In addition to the numerous companies created and benefiting from tax exemptions, the grabbing of arable land - more than 40,000 hectares where large Rwandan farms have been set up - has been denounced by the opposition.
Whether Russian or Rwandan, these armed forces from undemocratic countries are helping to strengthen Touadéra’s authoritarian power. They are secure in the knowledge that the constitutional referendum abolishing term limits has been passed. As a reward, they plunder the country’s natural resources with complete impunity.

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

 USA

Slouching Toward November

Election 2024: What are our options

Wednesday 7 August 2024, by Against the Current Editors

In theforthcoming issue of Against the Current, we will present three opinion pieces on tactical voting options for socialists in November (drafted before Biden’s withdrawal). We won’t summarize those here – nor are we interested in the syrupy sentimentality over Joe Biden’s “selfless legacy” coming from one side, or the vilification coming from the other.

As our readers will already know, whatever grades may be assigned to Biden’s handling of the economy or NATO or immigration, trade policy or anything else, on Israel and Gaza it’s below F-minus: G for Genocide.

In this respect at least, the none-too-soon end of Biden’s candidacy is a partial victory for the pro-Palestinian solidarity struggle – those “uncommitted” primary votes, the college encampments, the sit-ins and local resolutions demanding ceasefire.

It’s not that the ascendancy of Kamala Harris is a solution, or that her record on Palestinian rights is any better on substance – but the movement for Palestine has moved the needle of public opinion and shown that the catastrophe in Gaza can’t be shoved back into the twilight.

The International Court of Justice ruling on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank – although international law in practice does not apply to Israel, due to the permanent U.S. dispensation – is also a helpful embarrassment for Washington’s enabling of ethnic cleansing.

Will Arab and Muslim communities rightfully enraged by the Biden enabling of Israel’s genocide, despite Harris’ complicity, be prepared to give her at least a hearing? Can she show enough decent compassion for the Palestinian people’s unending catastrophe – if not an alternative policy – that they might listen? Too soon to predict, but it might make the difference in Michigan and perhaps the national outcome.

The Road to Monarchy?

Mostly, however, we want to focus here on the condition of U.S. politics that have brought us to the present moment of slouching toward November’s “existential,” yet uninspiring, election.

The Republican Party shows the spectacle of a well-oiled and lavishly funded cult, with the providential gift of an attempted assassination having elevated Trump to demigod status. A substantial sector of billionaires and corporate elites have come over to Trump, and the monarchist Supreme Court majority’s “immunity” ruling overtly paves the way for the coronation of King Donald I.

This time around, Trump’s royal court would be the far-right cadres of Project 2025, who may have made the mistake of going too public with their Christian-supremacist agenda and mass deportation camps, tax cuts and civil service purge plans. Trump’s announced economic policies based on massive tariffs and permanent tax cuts for corporations and billionaires would be both inflationary and ruinous for the budget, although no one knows how seriously to take them.

And since by the third year of Trump’s term he’d be older than Biden is now, his alt-right protégé J.D. Vance would be poised to run for a full two terms. Vance’s statements about women as “childless cat ladies” taking over political life, it must be said, are stunning even by MAGA standards.

As for Trump himself, his unhinged comment at the Christian-nationalist Turning Point Action’s “Believers Summit” encouraged attendees that “you’ll never have to vote again” in the event he’s elected. (New York Times, July 26, 2024) In this climate, the threat is clear and present of the planned destruction of even the flawed democratic structures that have evolved under the ambiguous rubric of the U.S. Constitution.

The Trump-Vance agenda includes open cheerleading for Israel’s Gaza genocide and rampant ethnic cleansing of Palestine – along with indifference if not active support for Russia’s drive to turn Ukraine into another Gaza. (In this respect, at least they’re consistent.)

Whatever the outcome this November, four years from now the United States along with the rest of the world will be experiencing climate-change disasters of magnitudes we can barely imagine now. The restoration of full-scale death-to-the-environment Republican policies would go a long way toward making the global crisis irreversible.

With Biden’s stumbling candidacy, the Democratic leadership’s apparent incapacity to remove him began by mid-July to look like a mixture of paralysis and panic. As Against the Current will go to press shortly before the Democratic convention, it’s an open question whether it’s able to generate the cohesion, unity and energy to defeat Trump.

In any event, the Democrats’ ability to deliver on promises to restore abortion rights, expand environmental protections or anything else would be dim at best in what are likely to be closely divided Houses of Congress, quite possibly with either or both under Republican majorities.

But these short-term projections get nowhere near the depth of the U.S. political crisis.

Paradoxically Speaking

The Republican Party, of course, is no meaningful sense a populist, let alone a “workers’ party.” As much if not more than ever, it’s a party of plutocracy, privilege and unrestrained corporate greed. Yet astonishingly it captures a large working class vote, both union and nonunion.

That Includes for example an estimated half of working Teamsters, which of course is why Teamster president Sean O’Brien turned up to speak at the Republican convention, leaving delegates a bit unsure what to make of his denunciation of companies’ and “both parties’” trampling on working people’s rights. (But they got over it quickly enough.)

On the other side, UAW president Shawn Fain doubled down on the union’s early endorsement of Biden, instantly and predictably coming out for Harris. What’s regrettably missing in each case is an open, democratic discussion within the unions’ memberships about whom they would support, including possible third-party options – the kind of healthy activating process that’s urgently needed as we are increasingly witnessing a reckoning moment for the future of labor and progressive politics.

While the working-class Republican vote is certainly disproportionately (not exclusively) white, this cannot be attributed solely to racism, Christian fundamentalism, the appeal of Hulk Hogan or other glib conventional explanations. These are all real, but the plain fact – as we are not unique in pointing out – is that both capitalist parties for four decades now embraced a gospel of globalization, deregulation and technocracy that left behind huge sectors of the population, abandoned whole regions of rural and smaller-town America, and widened inequality to the most obscene levels.

We might add here that these are generally the communities most heavily impacted by climate-induced disasters, while drill-baby-drill politicians spew contempt on any programs (“Green New Scam”) or regulations that might alleviate the slide toward ecocide.

Housing, access to education, medical care, food security and hopes for a decent future are slipping away from tens of millions of people. A shocking proportion of U.S. households (37 percent by some accounts, although the statistic’s meaning is contested) would scramble to meet a $400 emergency expense. It‘s not so much a question of absolute poverty as one of deepening anxiety, insecurity and fear that naturally gives to resentments that can be readily manipulated by rightwing opportunist fake-“populism.”

None of this is exactly “breaking news.” Bernie Sanders has been talking for decades about the ravages of policies that enrich “the billionaire class” and “the one percent” at the expense of the great majority. Reverend William Barber of the New Poor Peoples Campaign eloquently appeals for a multiracial movement drawing on the reality that a majority of the poor and insecure in America are white.

The Democratic Party is institutionally uninterested in the moderate social-democratic reforms that have made Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly popular – Medicare for all (single-payer health care), free public college tuition, stopping corporate welfare. Still less is the Democratic establishment prepared to embrace Rev. Barber’s movement in the streets.

In the vacuum of the absence of appeals to genuine pro-worker and yes, authentic populist solutions, false and even crazy explanations arise – not spontaneously, but from the bottomless lagoon of the rightwing conspiracy industry. Inflation is rampant (in fact it’s easing), crime is skyrocketing (actually it’s falling, despite weekly mass shootings), the border crisis is Biden’s creation (it’s 100% bipartisan), illegal immigrants are bringing a crime and drug wave, and voting in droves (they aren’t, of course), and on and on.

Facing the most anti-labor, plutocratic and anti-civil rights Republican Party in at least 80 years, the Democrats can only turn to the stereotypical “suburban moms” to compensate for the erosion of their labor voting base and weakening of support in other sectors, especially the critical and growing Latine communities.

Ever since the unhinged Supreme Court Dobbs ruling, the Democrats have been able to ride a wave of energy for abortion rights, which may save them in 2024 as well. African American women, who were essential to Biden’s 2020 election, will provide a critical base of support rallying around Kamala Harris. With Biden out (and Harris’s VP choice pending), the outcome is up for grabs.

Crisis for the Left

Again, we are not talking a stand here on the voting options discussed in the opinion pieces in this issue of Against the Current. We will comment briefly on a perennial issue vexing the left in this country.

In our previous issue (#231, July-August 2024), Part One of historian August Nimtz’s extensive exploration of “What Does It Mean to Vote?” (the second part appears in the forthcoming issue) lays out a lesson that Karl Marx learned as long ago as 1850: the working class or the revolutionary party should never subordinate its independent electoral expression to supporting a liberal or lesser-evil bourgeois choice.

That is excellent guidance, then and now. Sadly, in the United States of America, the most politically backward country in the “developed” capitalist world, there is no working class party of any stripe – small, medium or large, reformist or revolutionary or anything in between. Nor is there a populist or mass movement party in this country or on the immediate horizon.

Politics in the United States, with some local exceptions, remain trapped in the Republican and Democratic capitalist duopoly. The Green Party is a progressive option, one that still represents potential rather than class-based reality. Breaking from this grip is partly a task for the socialist left, but depends more critically on the emergence of mass social insurgencies of labor and oppressed people’s communities.

The outcome of the November election may, or may not, stave off the immediate prospect of a full-blooded far-right presidency with its sickening consequences for democratic rights in the United States, for any hope of environmental policy, for forces of democracy and social justice in many parts of the world.

What will not change is the enormous inequalities that are choking our society, the ever-expanding military budget, and escalating tensions with rivals for world imperialist domination.

We see in today’s upsurge in solidarity for Palestinian freedom, as we’ve seen before in the struggles for marriage equality, Queer and trans rights and the response to racist police brutality, organized movements from below do make a difference in politics. Whether in resistance to Trump’s semi-fascism or in confronting another Democratic administration, our movement-building responsibilities remain paramount.

This is a pre-publication version of an editorial statement for the forthcoming September-October 2024 issue of Against the Current

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Voting Won’t End US Support for Gaza Genocide. We Must Target Its Perpetrators.

Real hope for change lies in those organizing for a free Palestine, not the US leaders who are responsible for genocide.
August 5, 2024
Source: Truthout





Massacre after massacre is occurring in Palestine, with immense human suffering and destruction, all enabled by the U.S. government. Even with the International Court of Justice declaring Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories as unlawful, President Joe Biden has shown that there is, in fact, no “red line” for the United States military support for Israel.

What more evidence do we need that our government is morally corrupt, with the death toll rising in Gaza, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is invited to Washington, D.C.? Real hope for change lies in those that are willing to call out our government’s role in the genocide in Palestine, not the U.S. leaders who are to blame for such depravity.

Vice President Kamala Harris, likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, has also been deeply committed to supporting Israel, and has not indicated any interest in conditioning military funding thus far. Many activists are seeing this as a critical opportunity to push her to depart from Biden’s approach to Israel. As for Donald Trump, he was unequivocally supportive of Israel during his first term as president. For example, he decided to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights (which is not recognized internationally). U.S. voters must reckon with the limitations of a presidential race in which neither Democrats nor Republicans seek to end U.S. complicity in the genocide in Palestine.

From an early age, the U.S. public is taught that in a functioning democracy, the governed have a voice in shaping the decisions of our elected leaders. Yet despite 67 percent of U.S. voters across the political spectrum supporting a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the U.S. continues to send ever more weapons to Israel.

By disregarding the opinions of the governed, U.S. democracy in practice is teaching us something very different. Not only does it appear that the will of the people is little more than a facade, but President Biden’s actions also show that our democratic dissent continues to be ignored. Therefore, it falls to us to establish our own moral red line and hold our government accountable for abetting Israel’s blatant war crimes.
Activists Take Direct Action in Texas

April 15, 2024, was the first time I participated in a high-risk, arrestable action. A15, as we call it, was an internationally coordinated day of action to “block the arteries and jam the wheels of capitalism,” escalating our resistance in solidarity with Palestine. Eighty-two cities across 18 countries participated in this historic day of action, targeting economic powerhouses that led to the arrests of 483 activists.


It falls to us to establish our own moral red line and hold our government accountable for abetting Israel’s blatant war crimes.

Organizers in each city autonomously selected targets to ensure massive losses in capital that they could realistically carry out, such as at ports, international airports, commercial highways, as well as corporations and weapons manufacturing companies directly profiting from the genocide, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

As part of A15, community members in Austin and San Antonio, Texas — myself included — blockaded the entrances and exits to Valero headquarters in San Antonio to protest the corporation’s provision of JP-8 jet fuel to the Israeli military. Valero HQ was selected as a target for a few strategic reasons. Foremost, it is one of the biggest employers in San Antonio and has a notable presence in the city. To follow the main objective of A15, organizers chose Valero HQ to interrupt the work day for as long as possible to cause an economic impact. Valero was also an effective target due to its direct role in the genocide. Additionally, factors such as capacity and number of participants (especially those willing to risk arrest) led to the decision to blockade Valero.

As we put barricades up around Valero HQ, chaining ourselves to people we met merely a few months prior, I knew we were fighting for something much bigger than what voting or traditionally accepted forms of civic engagement could ever offer.

We were creating a sense of community, justice and truth sharing — refusing to give up our power in a political system that harms people both here in the U.S. and around the world. As I banded together with others who were ready to make sacrifices, however small, the possibility of real change felt closer than ever.

Blockaders responsible for directly standing in front of the various entry points to the headquarters were dropped off around 7 am. Within seconds of us lining up and rushing to put our chains on, a large truck angrily attempted to get by us and drove onto the sidewalk, almost grazing us.


The order and civility that Biden and other politicians call for is often disrupted through aggression and violence by police.

As employees pulled up, we informed them that Valero HQ was closed due to its complicity in the genocide. Some Valero employees stayed in their cars trying to explain they had to go to work, while a few tried to maneuver through the small opening next to us, or speedily drove away in frustration. Soon after, several police cars showed up.

As the police collected our information, they attempted to negotiate with us. We were told that if we moved our protest to the sidewalk, we would not be arrested. It was still too early, around 8 am, and we were all well aware of the risk of arrest to ensure capital would be impacted that day in San Antonio. We chanted Palestine solidarity chants, including “Valero, Valero, You Can’t Hide, We Charge You With Genocide,” while also calling out Mayor Ron Nirenberg, Gov. Greg Abbott and President Biden. Employees’ reactions ranged from anger and annoyance, to indifference and even confusion, but after reading our banners, they knew why we were there.

Another hour later, police were still hovering and trying to get us to leave the entrance, but we refused. They were waiting for nearby traffic to die down and for tools to cut off our chains before arresting us. After three hours into blockading the headquarters, close to 10 am, it seemed our chances of leaving arrest-free were diminishing.

At that point, blockaders collectively decided to step off to the sidewalk, feeling confident in significantly disrupting the work day at Valero HQ and its profits. Our ability to get arrested could be used for a future opportunity for direct action. Due to this decision, no one was arrested. Many of us left the action feeling a sense of pride, reinvigorated to continue disrupting “business as usual” and reflected on how we can build from this moment.

Months later, local groups around the U.S., including in Austin, continue to assess which targets and strategies make direct action most effective. Organizers have been mobilizing for Palestine by targeting weapons manufacturing companies and other corporations fueling the genocide, as well as elected officials.

College students protesting for institutional divestment from companies profiting off genocide similarly sacrificed their personal safety in the name of justice. Students and faculty members at over 500 colleges in the U.S. have stood in solidarity with Palestine, facing arrest and brutalization. Pro-Palestine protests on campuses have been met with extreme violence from police and cruel treatment by college administrations and local officials alike.


If order can only be attained by crushing dissenting voices, then are we truly in a legitimate democracy?

Commenting on the protests, Biden said, “We are a civil society, and order must prevail. … We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent. … Peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues.”

“But,” Biden added, “neither are we a lawless country.”

President Biden’s assessment of the protests shows that dissent is acceptable, but only with an immensely low threshold. He, along with many elected officials who have criticized protesters during this time, show that they are comfortable with protest only when it does not challenge the status quo.

It is often when the power of the elite is most threatened that the people’s dissent is viewed as illegitimate. Ironically, the order and civility that Biden and other politicians call for is often disrupted through aggression and violence by police. The U.S. government also never holds itself to the same standards it imposes on its people by funding a genocide and applauding a war criminal in Congress.

Our government chooses instead to respond to the whims of corporations and the 1 percent, but rarely reacts with the same urgency to the dire needs of the people. Back in May, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was quick to send police forces to Columbia University to break up pro-Palestine protests at the request of billionaires. Many other local officials around the country followed suit. But democracy cannot be legitimized through the barrel of a gun.

When our elected leaders instill fear of speaking up against our government’s policies through backlash, repression and police-perpetrated violence, democratic practice requires us to push back in real time.

To those who question these forms of escalation, I urge you to ask yourself: What type of response can be expected from a “civil” society when its leaders are responsible for preventing peace and stability? Is the occupation and genocide in Palestine and destruction of Gaza not the most surefire way to destroy any possibility of order? If order can only be attained by crushing dissenting voices, then are we truly in a legitimate democracy? Civility and peace cannot exist when gross injustices are perpetrated by those in power, who are either part of or beholden to the wealthy elite.

As the past several months have demonstrated, fighting for a democracy that works for all of us is not just about voting. The movement for a free Palestine, and related movements against imperialism and militarism, have made clear that the struggle for true democracy requires employing every possible tactic, even — and maybe especially — when it causes disruption and disorder.




Roshni Ahmed
Roshni Ahmed is a fellow with the Muslim Counterpublics Lab, an organization dedicated to combating systems of oppression and challenging Islamophobia. She is an organizer on issues related to immigrant justice, gender-based violence and Palestine. She graduated from Johns Hopkins University with a degree in international studies and sociology.
Deconstructing Balanced Job Complexes

A Critique of Albert and Hahnel’s Thinking on the Division of Labo
ur

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





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.