What We Are Fighting For: A Radical Collective Manifesto

by Federico Campagna (Editor), Emanuele Campiglio (Editor)

Overview

*Shortlisted for the Bread and Roses Prize, 2013*

From the pens of major figures of the anti-austerity movement, comes the first radical, collective manifesto of the new decade.

From participatory democracy to media reform, from direct action to communal living, What Are We Fighting For is a bold look at alternatives to the economic, social and political travesty of contemporary capitalism. Chapters from Owen Jones, David Graeber, John Holloway, Nina Power, Mark Fisher, Franco Berardi Bifo and Marina Sitrin show a multifaceted but collective desire for a better world.

Anarchists, communists, feminists and autonomists come together to inspire us to think beyond neoliberalism.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781849647625
Publisher:	Pluto Press
Publication date:	09/06/2012
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	224
File size:	2 MB

About the Author

Federico Campagna is a writer and activist. He is one of the founders of the journal Through Europe and contributes to a number of magazines and radio programmes in Italy and the UK. He organised the 'What are we struggling for?' conference at the ICA, London, and is the editor of Franco Berardi Bifo's forthcoming reader.

Emanuele Campiglio is a Researcher at the New Economics Foundation.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Participatory Economics from Capitalism

Michael Albert

In the words of the great British economist John Maynard Keynes: '[Capitalism] is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous – and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed.' Let's see if we can undo some of the perplexity. First, what's the real problem with capitalism? ...

Capitalism is theft. The harsh and subservient labours of most citizens fantastically enrich an elite who, if they so choose, don't have to labour at all. On the upper West Side of New York City, within a mile of one another, there exist neighbourhoods in which the average disposable income is, on the poorer side, about $5,000 per year, and, on the richer side, about $500,000 per year. The richest people in the US have wealth unparalleled in history. The poorest people in the US live under bridges inside threadbare cardboard shelters, or they stop living at all. This gap is not explained by a difference in industriousness, in talent, etc. It is a social product, a theft, and the gap between rich and poor nations, as we all know, is even more dramatic.

Capitalism is alienation and anti-sociality. Within capitalism the motives guiding decisions are pecuniary not personal, selfish not social. We each seek individual advance at the expense of others. The result, unsurprisingly, is an anti-social environment in which nice guys finish last. Benefits for the weak arise only as a by-product, not as intended, and often not at all. As but one example, in American hospitals a few hundred thousand people a year die of diseases they did not have when they entered. This is in considerable part a matter of hygiene and other correctable problems. There is no massive campaign to save those lives. It would not be profitable. What health we attain, we attain because someone was seeking not health, but profit. Health, humanity, is impoverished even as profits soar.

Capitalism is authoritarian. Within its workplaces those who labour at rote and tedious jobs have virtually zero say over the conditions, output, and purpose of their efforts. Those who own or who monopolise empowering positions have the preponderant say, in some cases more so even than dictators. Corporations bear as much resemblance to democracy as killing fields do to peace.

Capitalism is inefficient. Market profit-seeking squanders the productive capacities of about 80 per cent of the population by training them primarily to endure boredom and to take orders, not to fulfil their greatest potentials. It wastes inordinate resources on producing sales that aren't beneficial, and on enforcing work assignments that are coerced and therefore resisted.

Capitalism is racist and sexist. This is not intrinsic to the relations of production, but occurs because under the pressure of market competition owners will inevitably exploit racial and gender hierarchies produced in other parts of society. If extra-economic factors reduce the bargaining power of some actors while raising that of others and impact expectations about who should rule and who should obey, capitalists will take note.

Capitalism is violent. The race for capitalist market domination produces nations at odds with other nations until those who accrue sufficient offensive might exploit the resources and populations of those lacking defensive means, including unleashing unholy war.

Capitalism is unsustainable. The money grabbers accumulate and accumulate, regardless of human need and desire, and ignoring or wilfully obscuring the impact not only on workers and consumers, but also on today's environment and tomorrow's resources.

The market propels short-term calculations and makes dumping waste on others to avoid costs an easy and unavoidable avenue to gain. The results are visible in sky and soil, mitigated, as with other capitalist induced suffering, only by social movements that force wiser behaviour.

For at least a decade, only a relatively few people have been made so immoral by their advantages, or so profoundly ignorant by their advanced educations, or so manipulated by media and their own naivete, that they fail to see that capitalism is a gigantic holocaust of injustice and suffering, and that, as Keynes says, is neither intelligent, nor beautiful, nor just, nor virtuous – and is not even delivering the goods.

So what do we want instead?

Participatory Economics (parecon), the replacement for capitalism that I advocate, is built on four institutional commitments.

First, the broad structures by which people participate in economic life and decision-making are nested workers' and consumers' councils of the sort we have seen arise throughout history. The added feature of parecon's councils is a commitment to self-management as the logic of decision-making. People should influence decisions relative to how they are in turn affected by them.

Sometimes self-management could require one-person one-vote and majority rule. Sometimes it could require that a different tally is needed, or that only some segment of the whole populace votes, or that for those who are deciding consensus is needed. All such options are tactics to attain the appropriate degree of self-management for all involved actors.

Second, remuneration in a parecon is in accord with effort and sacrifice, not with the output either of one's property or of one's labours, and not with bargaining power either. Other things being equal, in a parecon we will earn more if we work longer, if we work harder, or if we work under more harsh or harmful conditions. Remuneration is for duration, intensity, and harshness endured – and not for property, power, or output.

Parecon rejects the idea that someone should earn by virtue of having a deed in his or her pocket. There is no moral warrant for that, nor is there any incentive warrant for it. It also rejects a thuggish economy in which one gets what one can take, as in market exchange. And, most controversially, parecon rejects the idea that we should get back from the economy the amount we contributed to it by our personal labours. Parecon understands that our output depends on many factors we can't control: having better tools, or working in a more productive environment, or producing more valued items, or having innate qualities that increase our productivity. Economic incentives need to induce productive labour even when it is onerous. Parecon's remuneration scheme makes both moral and economic sense.

Third, participatory economics needs a new division of labour. If a new economy were to remove private profit and incorporate self-managing councils with remuneration for effort and sacrifice, but were to simultaneously retain the current corporate division of labour, its commitments would be inconsistent.

Having 20 per cent of the workforce monopolise largely empowering and more pleasurable work and leaving 80 per cent left with more rote, stultifying, and less pleasurable work, as is the case with the corporate division of labour, guarantees that the former group – I want to call them the coordinator class – will rule over the latter group, or the working class.

Even with a formal commitment to self-management, the coordinators, by virtue of the work they do, will enter each decision-discussion having set the agenda for it, owning the information relevant to debate, possessing the habits of communication that will inform it, and exuding the confidence and energy to fully participate. The workers, in contrast, having been deadened and exhausted by the work they do, will come to decision-discussions only disempowered and exhausted. The coordinators will therefore determine outcomes. In time they will choose to remunerate themselves more, to streamline meetings and decision-making processes by excluding those below, and to orient economic decisions in their own ruling class interests.

One kind of class that exists above workers is the owning class, as we all know. By virtue of a deed, owners in capitalism dispose over the means of production, including hiring and firing wage slaves. But even with this class division eliminated, classlessness is not necessarily attained. Another group that is also defined by its position in the economy, albeit differently, can wield virtually complete power and aggrandise itself above workers. To avoid this coordinator class rule requires that we replace the familiar corporate division of labour with a new approach to defining work roles.

This third institutional commitment of parecon requires what we call balanced job complexes. Each of us who works at some job, in any society, good or bad, will by definition be doing some collection of tasks. If the economy employs a corporate division of labour our tasks will combine into a job that is either largely empowering or largely disempowering. In a participatory economy, by contrast, we combine tasks into jobs so that for each person the overall empowerment effect of their job is like the overall empowerment effect of every other person's job. Everyone has an average balanced job complex.

We don't have managers and assemblers, editors and secretaries, surgeons and nurses. The functions these actors now fulfil persist in a parecon, but the labour is divided up differently. Of course some people do surgery while most don't, but those who take scalpel to brains also clean bed pans, or sweep floors, or assist with other hospital functions. The total empowerment the surgeon's job affords is altered by remixing tasks. She now has a balanced job complex conveying the same total empowerment and pleasure as the new job of the person who previously only cleaned up.

The domination of what I call the coordinator class over all other workers is removed not by eliminating empowering tasks, or by everyone doing the same things, both of which are not only irrational but impossible – nor by just extolling rote work as important, which is possible and even familiar historically, but which is structurally vacuous – but by distributing both empowering and rote work so that all economic actors are able to participate in self-managed decision-making without advantage or disadvantage due to their economic roles.

Finally, fourth, participatory economics also opts for a new approach to allocation. Instead of markets or central planning, it utilises what it calls participatory planning. The workers' and consumers' councils cooperatively negotiate inputs and outputs in light of the full social and ecological costs and benefits and with actors having a self-managing say. (A full discussion of this allocation system, and of the other key features of parecon, is available in many books and essays, including online.)

The claim we make for combining workers and consumers' councils, self-managed decision-making, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning, is not only that the system is classless and promotes values that we hold dear, such as solidarity, diversity and equity, but also that, to the extent possible and with no recurring biases, it apportions to each worker and consumer an appropriate level of self-managing influence in relation to each economic decision. More, it offers a minimalist list of institutional features designed to achieve these ends. It is not a blueprint, and does not overreach itself, but instead takes simple well-tested insights to their logical conclusions.

Parecon doesn't reduce productivity but rather provides adequate and proper incentives to work. It has no bias towards longer hours but allows for a free choice of work versus leisure. It doesn't pursue what is most profitable regardless of the impact on workers, on the environment, and often even on consumers, but reorients output towards what is truly beneficial in light of the full social and environmental costs and benefits and of people's freely developed self-managed preferences.

Parecon doesn't waste the human talents of the people now doing surgery, or composing music, or otherwise engaging in difficult and skilled labour, by requiring that they undertake less empowering labour as well; rather, by way of this requirement, there surfaces a gargantuan reservoir of previously untapped talents throughout the populace while empowering and rote labour is apportioned not only justly, but in accord with true and full self-management and classlessness.

Parecon doesn't assume sociable much less divine citizens. Rather it creates an institutional context in which, in order to get ahead in their economic engagements, even people who grow up entirely self-seeking and anti-social must be concerned for the general social good and the well being of others.

Finally, what difference does advocating parecon – once one has a full and informed view of it – make for our behaviour in the present?

When Margaret Thatcher said 'There is no alternative', she accurately identified a central obstacle to masses of people actively seeking a better world. If one sincerely believes there is no better future, then rejecting a call to fight against poverty, alienation, and even war is understandable. Indeed, for those who sincerely think capitalism is here to stay, to fight against it, or even against its symptoms, can seem like a fool's errand.

Advocates of parecon seek to provide a vision that will turn that feeling upside-down, replacing cynicism with hope and reason. When we go to movies and see courageous souls of the past represented on the screen, fighting against slavery, or against the subordination of women, or against colonialism, or for peace and justice and against dictatorships, we rightly feel sympathy and admiration for these acts. The abolitionists, the suffragettes, the labour union organisers, the anti-Apartheid activists, those overthrowing dictators, all the seekers of freedom and dignity are heroes for us.

But if we admire their standing up against injustice, we ought ourselves to stand up against injustice. If we admire their seeking a better world, we should ourselves seek a better world. If we admire their rejection of exploitation, alienation, domination, and its violent maintenance, we should ourselves advocate and fight for an economic model and societal structure that will eliminate these horrors – and I would argue that participatory economics offers such a model and should be part of such a new society.

CHAPTER 2

Let Ideas and Art be International, Goods be Homespun, and Finance Primarily National

Ann Pettifor

Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but by striking true.

Honoré de Balzac

I want to start on a positive note. As the 'Arab Spring' of 2011 demonstrated, transformations can happen – and can happen quite suddenly. Things can 'flip' in a startlingly short time. A social movement can build, mobilise and bring about great changes. However, meaningful change cannot happen unless we – i.e. civil society – fully understand the causes of oppression; the means for ending structural imbalances in power relationships, and why a transformation is needed. Unless, that is, we strike true.

We are faced by a quadruple crunch: the climate crunch, the energy crunch, and the credit crunch – the last of which has led to global financial crisis and an 'unemployment crunch'. We have to deal with these crises, but to do so we need a monetary system, a financial system, that serves both society's needs and the needs of the ecosystem.

Geoffrey Ingham explains the problem well: 'money is not only "infrastructural" power, it is also "despotic" power. In other words, money expands human society's capacity to get things done, but this power can be appropriated by particular interests ... The production of money is ... a source of power.'

In my experience, very few people – including mainstream economists, but also environmentalists and eco-warriors – understand the financial system, or the nature of credit, a cornerstone of all modern money, banking systems and economies. At a personal level we in the west, as individuals, have a conflicted relationship with money – it is both mundane and mysterious to us. We use it every day, routinely, rarely leaving the house without cash or our credit card. Simultaneously we are in awe of money, mystified by it, and fearful of its power over us. Many prefer to be in denial about its true nature and origins. And those who have the greatest power over money – central bankers and private bankers – deny society the transparency and accountability that would lead to a proper understanding of the nature of credit and money, and of the role of the banking system in creating and distributing that credit.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "What We Are Fighting For"
by .
Copyright © 2012 Federico Campagna and Emanuele Campiglio.
Excerpted by permission of Pluto Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Preface
Introduction
Part 1 - New Economics
1. Michael Albert - Participatory Economics From Capitalism
2. Ann Pettifor - Let Ideas and Art Be International, Goods Be Homespun and Finance Primarily National
3. Milford Bateman - A New Local Financial System For Sustainable Communities
4. Shaun Chamberlin - The Struggle For Meaning
Part 2 - New Governance
5. Richard Seymour - Towards a New Model Commune
6. Peter Hallward - The Dictatorship of the People
7. Mark J Smith - Practical Utopianism and Ecological Citizenship
8. Marina Sitrin - Occupy: Making Democracy a Question
Part 3 - New Public
9. Owen Jones - New Class Politics
10. Hilary Wainwright - “An Excess of Democracy”
11. Dan Hind - A Program of Media Reform
12. Zillah Eisenstein - Renewing Intersectionality
Part 4 - New Social Imagination
13. Mark Fisher - Post-Capitalist Desire
14. Franco Berardi Bifo - The Transversal Function of Disentaglement
15. Saul Newman - Why Do We Obey
16. Federico Campagna - Squandering
Part 5 - Tactics of Struggle
17. David Graeber - Revolution of Common Sense
18. Nina Power - Winning the Media War
19. Alberto Toscano - Reforming the Unreformable
20. Solidarity Federation - Direct Action and Unmediated Struggle
Afterword
21. John Holloway - Rage Against the Rule of Money
Acknowledgments
Index

Editorial Reviews

'Here are the first flowers of spring: the beginning of an epochal dialogue about the human future. Inspired by the Occupy movements across the world, What We Are Fighting For should inspire all of us to join the conversation''A rallying point for all those who resist the dogmas of contemporary politics and seek a fresh set of alternatives'

From the Publisher