Michael Albert’s “Parecon” and Reformist Strategy

by Nihilo Zero Sat Aug 02, 2008 17:59

I wish I had written this article. Nice job. Well done.

by Tom - WSA (personal capacity) Sun Aug 03, 2008 01:40

The basic problem with Wayne's piece is that there is no reason a person has to agree with the personal views of Albert or Hahnel say about tactics -- such as supporting the Green Party -- in order to agree with their specific conception of the structure of a libertarian socialist society. So Wayne's argument is therefore misleading. It sounds as if he's saying that participatory economics is "reformist". But this doesn't follow from any of the points that Wayne makes. So if that's his claim, he's provided no evidence for it. So his article is a bit disingenuous.

In other words, Wayne might have called his article "Michael Albert's reformism" but he doesn't do that because he wants to attack participatory economics. But the only appropriate and honest way to discuss participatory economics is to discuss participatory econmics which Wayne doesn't do. After all, there are scads of radical activists who could be said to be "reformist" for the same reasons Wayne says Michael Albert is. Why focus on him? Well, what Albert is well-known for is he advocates for a alternative vision of how a libertarian socialist society should be structured.

Does it follow that advocating for that structure for a libertarian socialist society is "reformist"? Wayne has provided no argument whatsoever to show that. If he disagrees with the theory of the coordinator class, let's see some arguments. If he disagrees with re-integrative labor or "balanced jobs," let's see some argument. If he disagrees with participatory planning, let's see some argument. That would be a more honest way to proceed if he wants to criticique participatory economics.

Now, the reason this is relevant is that, as Wayne knows, there are some of us who agree with some of the specific proposals about a libertarian socialist economy that Hahnel and Albert advocate without necessarily agreeing with their personal views about practical politics at present. It is perfectly possible to do this. For example, there is no necessary connection between the concept of participatory planning for a libertarian socialist economy and Hahnel & Albert's specific ideas about practical politics in the USA right now.

by Ilan S - AAtW ainfos Sun Aug 03, 2008 05:15 Tel Aviv

In a way a demagogue can claim that the number 60 can be divided to every number by giving the following as a representative examples:
60 can be divided to 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30.... so it can be divided to all.

Parecon stress that the present division of work between intelectual work and physical work will be abolished... so he said so. But, he do not have any real solution for hard physical jobs.

He propose a discussion between work place and community for adjusting production, but he do not propose any viable way the producers of raw materials in Africa will negotiate with the work place in Canada, nor the oranges growers in Israel with the people of north Europe.

He avoid the most important question about the way people will join work places or what mechanism resolve disagreements among communities; among workplaces and between work places and communities.

The same way as Michael Albert do not provide any reasonable way society will move from capitalism to class less society, so he does not provide any reasonable way a class less and state less world will be able to function.

I wonder if Tom can provide a clear answer to the misty covered subjects the Parecon pretend to solve.
Ilan
http://ilan.shalif.com/anarchy/glimpses/glimpses.html

by Wayne Sun Aug 03, 2008 07:49

Tom writes that my essay is "misleading," "disingenuous," and not quite "honest." He writes that I "want to attack participatory economics," even though I do not attack Parecon and in fact make positive statements about it. My motives are often unclear to me but Tom seems to be sure what they are.

He asks why I focus on Michael Albert. Well, I haven't. I have also written about the reformism of Hallowell and David Graeber, among others. But Albert is well known, so I wrote about him, and he is well known because of his development of Parecon and HE does not present his views on social strategy as distinct from his Parecon vision. So I thought to write about this well-known leftist, identifying him by his Parecon work, but focusing on one aspect of his work which is his reformist strategy. This is bad?

Here is a fact: the two founders of Parecon have (independently) presented reformist strategies. Why is this? Is this due to a flaw in Parecon? Frankly I do not know. I am thinking about it. Does Tom have a theory why this is?

In any case, it is Tom who is being disingenuous, a little. Does he agree with my criticisms of Albert or not? He does not say. He implies that he does but does not say so. And if there are Pareconists who disagree with Hahnel and Albert, where are the statements, the documents, the essays? Is Tom the only one?

by Nick Cooper - volunteer with FNB, IMC, Friends of Brad Will, member of Free Radicals Sun Aug 03, 2008 08:45

I agree with Tom and also have another concern. It seems that Wayne's vision of the how the revolution is going to play out is extremely narrow, and that he writes off as non-revolutionary, non-anarchist, non-radical, etc. all of the movements that choose to be unarmed, non-violent or at least committed to avoiding brutality.

It seems Wayne would have to find the Zapatistas to be reformist, since they say in the Sixth Declaration:

"The EZLN maintains its commitment to an offensive ceasefire, and it will not make any attack against government forces or any offensive military movements.

The EZLN still maintains its commitment to insisting on the path of political struggle through this peaceful initiative which we are now undertaking. The EZLN continues, therefore, in its resolve to not establish any kind of secret relations with either national political-military organizations or those from other countries.

The EZLN reaffirms its commitment to defend, support and obey the zapatista indigenous communities of which it is composed, and which are its supreme command, and - without interfering in their internal democratic processes - will, to the best of its abilities, contribute to the strengthening of their autonomy, good government and improvement in their living conditions. In other words, what we are going to do in Mexico and in the world, we are going to do without arms, with a civil and peaceful movement, and without neglecting nor ceasing to support our communities."

by Ilan S - AAtW ainfos Sun Aug 03, 2008 19:04 Tel Aviv

Nick Cooper and many other "anarchists with a small a " are interested in struggles within the capitalist system. This is a fine position. Certainly better than supporting the capitalist system or just passive acceptance of it. However, the claim that because we support the EZLN and the Zapatists struggle against the capitalist state but within the capitalist system, we should regard them and similar project as revolutionary... though they are not for revolution.... Very oblique reasoning to my taste.

There are some who are not in an obvious reformist position. They pay lip service to the revolution that will in the end of history replace capitalism with class less society, but at the present and near future are interested only in the "practical anarchism" of building the new in the womb of the old.

No matter what are the reasons they do not like the revolution, with all their good intentions they are reformists.

These good intentions people are partners for many struggles... but not partners for the main task of revolutionaries - promotion of the revolution.

by javier Sun Aug 03, 2008 22:38

Not necessarilly. In fact, Wayne did not say or imply so, but he explicitly criticized their reformist or centrist politics. The only thing that could be considered misleading is the title but again, only for those who just read the title.

Parecon should be discussed, at least because its an ellaborate proposal with which many agree. I however consider much more useful to look at historic revolutions and how events developed and think of a programme applicable in those conditions, something that parecon certainly doesn´t. It is clearly a blueprint aproach and not a practical solution sketched out. Also, to look at mutualist or cooperative experiences in nos revolutionary and revolutionary situations to understand how work could be organized in a small scale. In that respect parecon does provide some proposals of immediate applicability to be discussed.

Nick, no anarchist could declare that he is not "committed to avoiding brutality", that he is open to all kinds of attrocities is something quite at odds with a libertarian ideal. However, the use of violence, wether in the form of militant self-defense or as in offensives against constituted power has been actively reivindicated by all revolutionary anarchists, many of them putting it into practice in barricades and open battle. To reject that is reformists, to support it rethorically but withour assuming its implicancies today, condemining violence as such, is centrist.

The Zapatistas, as an armed movement which has gone in the offensive in the past are making a tactical decission. The people is not prepared for revolution. To attempt it without its support would only isolate them form many who could be sympathetic to their cause and would also fail miserably as they are in no condition to challenge the Mexican military in control of a terrain. With this aproach they have achieved a somwhat stable liberated zone for their people to work and organize. This is of much value. However, in the case of an offensive in depth, aimed at liquidating them, they would certainly fire back and retreat into their communities and into the wild using tactics of strike and retreat to hostigate the enemy forces. And if people all throughout Mexico had built militant classist mass movements and were decided for revolution, I dont think the Zapatistas would actually hold them back but actively support them.
.

by Nick Cooper - volunteer with FNB, IMC, Friends of Brad Will, member of Free Radicals Mon Aug 04, 2008 00:57

Ilan,

> However, the claim that because we support the EZLN and the Zapatists struggle against the capitalist state but within the capitalist system, we should regard them and similar project as revolutionary... though they are not for revolution.... Very oblique reasoning to my taste.
...
No matter what are the reasons they do not like the revolution, with all their good intentions they are reformists.

I was not trying to argue that you call the Zapatistas anything, I was just pointing out that by Wayne's criteria, the Zapatistas are reformist, which is the conclusion that you reach with similar criteria.

Javier,

> The Zapatistas, as an armed movement which has gone in the offensive in the past are making a tactical decission. The people is not prepared for revolution. To attempt it without its support would only isolate them form many who could be sympathetic to their cause and would also fail miserably as they are in no condition to challenge the Mexican military in control of a terrain. With this aproach they have achieved a somwhat stable liberated zone for their people to work and organize. This is of much value. However, in the case of an offensive in depth, aimed at liquidating them, they would certainly fire back and retreat into their communities and into the wild using tactics of strike and retreat to hostigate the enemy forces. And if people all throughout Mexico had built militant classist mass movements and were decided for revolution, I dont think the Zapatistas would actually hold them back but actively support them.

So, to clarify, you are saying the Zapatistas are reformist, centrist, potential revolutionaries, or what?

by Wayne Mon Aug 04, 2008 03:11

I am in complete agreement with the statements of Javier and Ilan. As for Parecon, I find many aspects of its theory to be useful, but I do not buy the whole package. I feel the same way about Marxism.

I wrote on one aspect of Albert's theory, namely his strategy, which HE does not distinguish from the rest of his Pareconist program. Even so I agreed with some of it (his idea of rebellion from below costing the rulers enough to pressure them to change policies). But I found fatal flaws in it, in theory and practice. Like Tom, Nick does not say whether he agrees with my criticisms or not, except that I should be less "narrow."

Nick thinks I have an "extremely narrow" view of revolution, and that I am, apparently, for "brutality" in a revolution. He ignores my point that a revolution might be nonviolent ("This might be so," I wrote). But, I wrote, it was an awful mistake to "be sure" that it would be. I did not cheer on brutality. The key point here is whether we advocate a revolution, an overturn of classes, dismantling of the state, and disarming the ruling class--not violence or nonviolence.

I do not criticize the Zapatistas for going from armed struggle to negotiations to unarmed struggle. In any case, they are under the gun and have the right to make their own tactical decisions. But I do criticize them for lacking a strategy for a Mexican-wide revolution to mobilize the workers and peasants through-out the country and to overthrow the Mexican capitalist state. While completely supporting them against the Mexican army, we should also be free to make comradely criticisms.

by jasper Mon Aug 04, 2008 07:17

it really seems to me that wayne thinks to be an anarchist you have to advocate "the revolution" and actual physical revolution that would bring us into a classless society.

i think this position is extremely naive. we have learned time and time again that such revolutions only bring about new tyrannies. ever read anarchist sympathizer albert camus' the rebel?

strategy wise i am for continual social/cultural/political/economic/etc rebellion. in this way we never impose a tyranical blueprint upon the masses. at times this rebellion might be violent and very "revolution-like/violent" and at times it might not.

i think overtime if anarchists developed this sort of stance things would get closer to the day that we could implement systems that are similar to parecon/parpolity though the authors of these theories have stated time and time again that they are only theories and not complete and they need our help.

by Nick Cooper - volunteer with FNB, IMC, Friends of Brad Will, member of Free Radicals Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:34

> Nick thinks I have an "extremely narrow" view of revolution, and that I am, apparently, for "brutality" in a revolution. He ignores my point that a revolution might be nonviolent ("This might be so," I wrote). But, I wrote, it was an awful mistake to "be sure" that it would be. I did not cheer on brutality. The key point here is whether we advocate a revolution, an overturn of classes, dismantling of the state, and disarming the ruling class--not violence or nonviolence.

I guess my key points are different. They are that we work always to oppose brutality, nationalism (/ racism / sexism, etc.), authority (/ hierarchy), and unsustainability within the system, within our communities, and in ourselves. Everything follows from those criteria, and therefore, dismantling / turning things over don't need to be goals in themselves. I'm not sure what that makes me. However, it is not necessarily so that your key points are more revolutionary than mine.

> I do not criticize the Zapatistas for going from armed struggle to negotiations to unarmed struggle. In any case, they are under the gun and have the right to make their own tactical decisions. But I do criticize them for lacking a strategy for a Mexican-wide revolution to mobilize the workers and peasants through-out the country and to overthrow the Mexican capitalist state.

This is quite an assumption. Do you imagine that the Zapatistas would make public all such strategies?

> While completely supporting them against the Mexican army, we should also be free to make comradely criticisms.

I am not really asking if you support them and of course you can make all the criticisms you like. My question was simply if you count them as reformist and it is still unanswered.

by Wayne Mon Aug 04, 2008 14:35

Jasper writes: " wayne thinks to be an anarchist you have to advocate "the revolution'".
No, I have no doubt that one can be a reformist anarchist. I just think that this is a wrong strategy. I never argue about who is or is not an anarchist. He writes, " such revolutions only bring about new tyrannies." Does Jasper claim that revolutions have never leead to improvements? Such as the US revolution, to pick an example. Or does he claim that nonviolent, gradual, incremental, reforms have led to an end to tyrannies in the past? He says, "we never impose a tyranical blueprint upon the masses." Does he think that I am advocating imposing a tyranical blueprint on the "masses"?

Nick wants to end all brutality, nationalism, racism, sexism, authority, heirarchy, and unsustainability. Very good. But he appears to think that these worthy goals can be achieved without overturning, dismantling, and confronting the state and other capitalist institutions. This is the basic disagreement between reformists and revolutionaries.

As forthe Zapatistas, I regard them as revolutionaries with an inadequate program. That they do not have a program for a Mexican-wide revolution is not a matter of some secret program they might have, but of an overall public program which does not exist.

by Nick Cooper Tue Aug 05, 2008 04:35

I did not say that I think my key ponts (to fight brutality, nationalism, racism, sexism, authority, heirarchy, and unsustainability) can be achieved without overturning, dismantling, and confronting the state and other capitalist institutions. I said that everything for me follows from those key points, and therefore, dismantling / turning over don't need to be goals in themselves. I hope you see the difference.

I don't understand how you conclude that I am a reformist, but the Zaptistas are revolutionaries despite their commitment to organize without arms with a civil and peaceful movement.

My point in bringing up these points is not to say that I want to be counted as a revolutionary or the Zapatistas to be counted as reformist. I simply question these distinctions. It seems to me you want groups to not only basically agree with you but also echo your way of describing your goals, and if they don't, they are relegated to a less cool category of being "reformist."

The Zapatista principles of "Un Mundo Donde Quepan Muchos Mundos" and “un no y muchos sí” are very useful to me. They strike me as far more revolutionary than ideologies that tend towards exclusion.

by Steve Tue Aug 05, 2008 05:43

Here is Albert's reply to the article in which he (to my mind) deals bit by bit with Wayne's points while clearly making his stances/intentions clear. I had to paste the article rather than do a link as Albert's reply was available to znet sustainers only (sorry)"


"Price starts by saying the Parecon is okay with him, or perhaps okay with him, but he doesn't want to talk about that. He wants to talk instead about "how to achieve this new society."

Fair enough.

But now we immediately enter a zone of confusion - or at least I do.

Price says, rightly, "Albert has not written much about tactics and strategy for reaching Parecon, as compared to his writing on how a pareconist society might work."

That is quite true. Why is it true?

Well, because it seems to me, as I have noted often, that going into some detail about how to reach a new society - in this case parecon plus parpolity, etc. - makes sense only if large numbers of people want to in fact reach that new society. So my not writing as much about strategy as about vision isn't a matter of thinking, "who cares, we need vision not strategy." Far from it. It is just a matter of taking things a step at a time. That said, I have written so much about vision, that even a lot less about strategy is still a lot about strategy. Price should have no trouble finding all kinds of material to assess, if it interests him.

Price continues: "One work which did focus on strategy was a little book, The Trajectory of Change: Activist Strategies for Social Transformation."' That is true, but so did, for example, the book Moving Forward, about economic program and strategy, and so have many many articles, and parts of other books, and debates with leninists, anarchists, etc. etc.

Still, taking from that short work, Price reports, Albert's "approach for a movement is stated summarily" and then Price quotes me writing: "Short term, we raise social costs until elites agree to implement our demands or end policies we oppose. Longer term, we accumulate support and develop movement infrastructure and alternative institutions, while working toward transforming society's defining relations."

And already, we have the confusion I mentioned, which will simply escalate from here.

Price says I have a reformist strategy. But is the above statement that he quotes from me consistent with that?

Well, what is reformism?

Reformism is a mindset, an approach, and a practice which says, "I like this and that, but, I believe that the basic institutions of society are unalterable, at least in their defining features, so whatever my likes and dislikes are, I will pursue changes in context of assuming the persistence of those defining institutions." Reformism is when you seek to make people's lives better, or to otherwise alter social conditions, but you take for granted that underlying defining features of capitalism, the parliamentary government, patriarchy, and racist or otherwise hierarchic cultural relations will persist, though improvements can be made around the periphery of those defining structures.

While Price asserts I am reformist, he doesn't quote me having that view - not surprisingly, because I don't. Likewise, he doesn't quote me rejecting that view, not surprisingly, though I do reject it, repeatedly, because that would complicate his article with actual facts. What Price does quote me saying, however, ironically should make perfectly clear my attitude about this issue. That it doesn't, for him, is strange.

Thus, Price quotes me saying that in the short term we win changes - reforms - that improve people's lives and we do it by having movements that are sufficiently strong to raise social costs that compel elites to give in to the demands rather than continue suffering the costs. Longer term, however, we grow those movements and also develop the infrastructure and institutions of a new society, winning a trajectory of changes while developing our new structures, in sum both winning and building the new society's new defining relations. But this is the opposite of reformism. This says we seek short run improvements, yes, via one struggle after another, but we do it with an approach, a commitment, a rhetoric and especially while building organizations that are not solely about those immediate improvements, but, are also about attaining new defining institutions in society - which is, of course, a revolution.

Some people - let's say hyptheitcally someone name Cost, since I am not sure if this is Price or not - hear formulations like this and say, "oh, it is reformist, you see how Albert says he wants to win reforms. You see how he thinks that a movement should seek reforms? That shows he is reformist." But of course it doesn't show that at all.

Cost would be wrong logically and in spirit, too. Logically, saying you want to win some reform - an end to a war, an end to the WTO, higher wages in an industry, affirmative action, a new law about emissions, a tax reform, a shorter work day, and on and on - does not say, nor even imply, that you don't want to win broader, more fundamental change. More, what is the alternative to saying you want to win various reforms? Would this hypothetical fellow named Cost say, "hey, I don't want an end to war or terminate the WTO or win higher wages or affirmative action? Is that how Cost would distinguish himself from a reformist advocate of those changes, by saying he doesn't want them? If so, then Cost would immediately reveal himself to be a callous idiot - to be very blunt. Callous, because to not want those changes says one doesn't give a damn about the pain that people now suffer. Idiot, because there is no way to create a movement able to overcome existing obstacles and construct new social relations without having fought and won diverse struggles along the way.

Okay, I hope we have dispensed with the idea that wanting to win a reform makes one reformist and I hope we have replaced that noxious view with clarity that what makes one reformist is wanting to win ONLY reforms and fighting for them with the assumption that that will be the maximum that can be hoped for. And I hope we have also dispensed with the idea that what makes someone revolutionary is decrying reforms as horrible things and have replaced that noxious view with clarity that what makes someone revolutionary is seeking fundamental change as an overarching goal, including while trying to win short run gains in the present.

Returning to Price, he looks at the brief passage that he quoted - which, remember, said we raise social costs until elites agree to implement our demands or end policies we oppose and we accumulate support and develop movement infrastructure and alternative institutions, toward transforming society's defining relations, and he follows up with this summary of what he hears in those words: "That is, we cannot force the state to end a particular war or to grant universal health care, but it may do it if the rulers fear that there will be a spread of radicalization among the people; if there is increased militancy among workers, youth, soldiers, and People of Color; if society becomes increasingly polarized and ungovernable. This is precisely what happened in the 60s and which led to the end of legal racial segregation and of the Vietnam war."

My only reaction is that Price seems to be confused about the word "force." What is one doing other than forcing it to act thusly if one amasses sufficient movement activism that the state relents and does what it otherwise had zero desire to do? Price may think, I don't know how else to understand this if we take the words at face value, that to force the state means for an armed group to point their rifles at the state and say, do this or else. Apparently, for a massive movement to point its activism at the state and say, do this or else - doesn't count as forcing, for some reason. Or maybe taking his words at face value and this is just careless writing and we agree on this point.

Then Price says, "So far, so good. A revolutionary anarchist would completely agree with this orientation. As opposed to the liberal strategy of permeating the centers of power and making changes from above, it proposes to pressure the state and capitalists from outside and below. It demonstrates why a revolutionary perspective is relevant even in non-revolutionary periods (which are most of the time): the more militant and disrespectful a movement is (that is, the more revolutionary it is), the more likely it is even to win reforms."

Well, this is strange. Price rightly reads into the one brief quote that I believe in pushing on centers of power from without, and below, and that I believe the more powerful a movement and the more it threatens basic relations, not just policies, the more likely it is to win even just regarding short term policies. You might think that with this considerable agreement, Price would then perhaps doubt some inclination or other I have, but you surely wouldn't think at this point that he would decide I am reformist, overall. But then Price continues: "But is Albert for revolution?"

Well, if I were to answer, I would have to know what does Price mean by his question? If Price means, as I would mean if I asked that question to him or someone else - does the person want to see the basic institutions of society fundamentally transformed and does the person believe that such transformation is possible so that efforts at social change, even in the present, should be oriented not only to short term gains but also to those long term goals - then I think Price has already indicated that he agrees that Albert is for revolution. Since Price is going to give the opposite negative answer, however, he must mean something else by the question. Here is what I think Price means: "Does Albert believe in revolutionary processes that I, Price, find convincing?" And to that question, Price answers no, which would be fair enough, of course, except for his deciding if he disagrees with me then I must not be for revolution at all.

Price says, in the same short book, Albert writes of "our commitment to ultimately revolutionize all aspects of life....This country needs a revolution..." He says in my memoir Albert makes it clear that "he regards himself as a revolutionary. What he means by revolutionary, however, is someone who advocates a totally new society, which he does." Well, yes, but a little more.

For example, a person could say, I love parecon, parpolity, etc. etc. - or some other vision - but then add, "but I don't think they are attainable. Instead, I think the best we can hope for is to ameliorate current ills via reforms." In other words, a person could be reformist even though the person would like, if he or she thought it was possible, a new society. But that isn't me. And the books Price mentions and many others, and piles or articles, debates, interviews, etc., and my choices over decades, etc., all make it very apparent. So why can't Price see this obvious point. Well, on the other hand, I am also not Price - as in, I don't see social change quite as he does. Is it the case, that like a lot of commentators Price confuses his own revolutionary view with the only possible revolutionary view? 

Now comes the heart of the matter for Price, though not for me. Price says "there have been differences between those socialists who hoped to reach a new society by gradual, peaceful, and legal changes, and those who believed that eventually there would have to be a confrontation with the capitalist state, its overthrow and dismantling."

The first thing to point out is that anyone remotely sane, and also leftist, would hope one could reach a new society with a minimum of conflict and violence. That seems obvious, unless one has a secret yearning for blood. As to a confrontation with the state - well that happens all the time. So anyone remotely in touch with reality knows that conflict is part and parcel of social change of any kind, all the time. As to my own aims, since they include the still very rough political vision called parpolity, which is about as different from current states as parecon is different from capitalism, clearly my revolutionary aims include, in the end, not even just overthrowing or dismantling the current state - but replacing it with a truly desirable new polity. 

Price says: "To be a revolutionary is to advocate a revolution."

Actually, there are tons of people, through history, who are advocates of revolution, but not revolutionary. What is the difference? Assume another fictitious character, Sam Lookatme. Sam says, "I am for parecon, parpolity, etc. I am for revolution." So far so good. If we take Same at his word, and there is no reason not to, then he advocates revolution. But suppose that's all Sam does. If you ask him, he wants the new society, yes, but beyond that, he does nothing to attain it. For me, to be a revolutionary, whether in tumultuous or in tied-down times, means to makes choices in your life in light of the desire to contribute to winning a new society. Now you might do this in a way that is silly, or in a way that is futile, or even in a way that is counterproductive, or you might do it in a way, against great odds, that yields wonderful success. Effectivity is not the criteria, however, trying is.

For Price, however, to be revolutionary is "to point out that the state will not permit peaceful, gradual, legal, changes to a better social system. It is to WARN the people that when the economy gets worse, the capitalists will take back the reforms they have given in the past—as they have begun to do. At some point, when the capitalists feel threatened enough, they will whip up racist and sexual hysteria. They will abandon bourgeois democracy, cancel elections, organize fascist gangs, smash unions, murder leftists, and arrange a military coup."

All this projection of reactions is possible, though not inevitable, case by case. But more to the point, the idea that being a revolutionary means proclaiming these things, as if these are the key insights of winning change, is absurd, at least in my eyes. Do I myself in my writings and talks and conversations point out, as a kind of background given, the vile inclinations of centers of power. Sure. I do that over and over, particularly when asked about such matters. So what is our difference on this issue? I think it may be that for Price, fighting the state is the heart of the matter. State power, and amassing military might sufficient to challenge it are the core of Price's notions of revolution of what he thinks is revolutionary. On the other hand, I think amassing sufficient movement organization and commitment to push the state toward relenting to movement demands in case after case, and, as well, to undermine its military might by organizing its police and military to resist orders and change allegiances, so that then a new polity takes over, along with a new economy, etc., is not only possible, but essential.

The state has soldiers, police, etc., and it has rulers willing to send out pretty much any order to retain power. So far, we agree. Indeed, is there anyone on the left who doesn't know this? And given that everyone knows this, is it really the pinnacle of revolutionary achievement to trumpet it?

Well, Price might think - and this would be consistent, at any rate - that it makes sense to begin working toward creating an army of liberation that can stand, toe to toe, or tank to tank, or jet to jet, however far in the future, with the U.S. military, or even the Chicago police force, and back them all down, marching into the White House due to the power that springs from the barrel of a gun. I, in contrast, have to say that I find it hard to imagine this is anything other than juvenile delusion of the highest order, or perhaps silly posturing for appearance sake, or maybe most likely a holdover of Leninist or Trotskyist identity, but in any case, nothing serious. To put it succinctly, there is no such thing as a movement in an industrialized society that will militarily defeat the army, or even police forces found there. What there, is, instead, is the possibility and even the likelihood of massive organizing by massive movements reducing the power of the state to a tiny fraction of its initial level, due to amassing huge popular support and participation while simultaneously undermining obedience by police and military for the rule of elites.

So, supposing we were quite a lot closer to tumultuous times, Price might advocate - I don't know what he thinks, of course, but it would at least be consistent if he urged this - giving talks and writing tracts claiming the state is the enemy and that everyone needs to buy guns and be prepared to barricade themselves against incursions, while forming a highly disciplined and powerful military machine to win the day. He might then suggest that the revolutionary armed forces he has worked so hard to organize should start aggressive struggle with the army and police. Let's take an example. If Price's scenario went broadly like Cuba, Price might suggest that he takes a group of a couple of hundred or so like minded advocates of violently overcoming the organized might of the state into the Appalachians. It is a big country, so he would presumably suggest another column in the Catskills, one in the Rockies, etc. And maybe he thinks there could be urban warfare too, so he organizes a column in Manhattan, Chicago, LA, etc. Then he would think, these groups could, continuing the analogy to Cuba, assault local police stations and military bases, gathering arms as they went about their assaults and intimidating the repressive forces, engaging in long marches through the mountains or from home to home of allies in the city, to stay ahead of forces in pursuit, etc. If this isn't what he advcoates, fine, what is?

However, if the above is even remotely his vision - and it is central to why and how he thinks we differ - I suggest that Price send a note to Castro inquiring of someone who actually did all this, and who succeeded, whether he thinks (a) this could be done, in this day and age, anywhere in the world, and (b) whether it could be done in the U.S. or any other developed society. I would bet that Castro would doubt the approach for anywhere at all, now - and I am confident he would say that in the U.S. such an effort would last not years, months, or even weeks, but maybe days, and more likely hours after the first aggressive action was taken before it was entirely dismantled. Che himself, would also laugh at the idea, I am quite certain. And they, and anyone serious about revolution, would then try to think, okay, if that military style strategy won't work in that win much of anything, not to mention yielding a paranoid and hyper militarized and centralized mess of a movement, what can we do that will work?

In this same vein, when I am out giving a talk or chatting with folks, either in the U.S. or abroad, and someone suggests grave concerns about the armed might of the state, I always have basically the same recommendation - organize or find a way to contribute to organizing movements, with commitment, clarity, program, etc. That is the key task, regardless of the state's capacities. However, if you have a hankering to get started, even now, at more directly addressing the might of the state, fine, join the army, or the police, and do your organizing there.

Price says, "Working people need to prepare to defend ourselves, to strengthen unions, and to engage in general (city-wide) strikes. We need to popularize the idea of workers' and community councils, for replacing the state, and of an armed working class, for replacing the specialized police and military."

As far as the councils go, and unions and so on, we agree, at least broadly. As far as telling working people they need to be prepared to defend themselves against their brothers and sisters and neighbors - literally - in the army and police, I recommend a slightly different stance. First, it would help if working people believed something better was possible and that fighting to win it had merit. Second, it would help if they spent time talking to and organizing their brothers and sisters and neighbors in the police and army. Third, there is no need to tell anyone in the U.S. to go buy a gun, and not much point to it, anyhow. Fourth, as far as replacing the police and military, as in, they are exterminated? - it is silly, honestly. If it means, constructing new ways of dealing with the functions that these groups perform that would be preserved, sure, that is one part of a revolution, I agree, though hardly the heart of soul of it. 

Price says, "None of this is in Albert's work. He wants a drastic change in society, but he does not expect it to need a revolution (what most people would mean by revolution, on the order of the U.S., French, or Russian revolutions). He does not warn of the dangers of counterrevolutionary, fascist, repression."

The confusion persists. Note, if I want parecon, etc., then I want a revolution. That is simply a matter of the meaning of the words. Revolution doesn't mean a confrontation of the sort Price has in mind, whatever that is. It means a process, with whatever features, which transforms defining institutions. More, if I work hard to try to figure out real actions I can take, or help others take, that contribute to an on-going process that attains revolutionary aims, then I am trying to be a revolutionary. However, for Price, if I don't do what he himself wants, if I don't see revolution as he himself sees it - as primarily some kind of armed confrontation and battle in which military type concerns are paramount, then, well, I am reformist. 

Price says "Albert believes in building a militant mass movement, but he believes that one way this can be done is through electoralism."

What Price thinks I believe seems to me to owe little to what Albert actually writes, says, or does. In fact, I think that in some contexts electoral campaigns can contribute, yes, though I don't think in forty years of writings Price will find anywhere where I say this is primarily how you build a militant mass movement. I don't think elections or electoral activity are the heart of the matter - indeed, they are or need to be a subordinate part of a much broader process - though I would be very happy if someone proved me wrong and got a new world through a simple election. In contrast, Price somehow knows that elections can never be anything but detrimental, it seems, not even, relatively positive in a limited context. Okay, great, then he should ignore them, and not partake, etc. The fact is, for the most part, I agree. Thus, I have never partaken of any electoral activity myself other than supporting Mel King, a mayoral candidate in Boston, some decades back, and watching some other people doing things, now and then. I have only voted in one national election - for Nader, despite all my criticisms of his endeavors. But I would never say to someone, you voted for some candidate, or you worked for some candidate, so therefore you are reformist. That is way beyond what the evidence of having cast a vote would warrant. It is, in my view, indeed, a kind of silly purism, sectarianism, and arrogance, to make that type assertion.

Price says, "Not only does he support third-party capitalist candidates (Nader, the Green party) but he supported Jesse Jackson's campaign inside the capitalist, racist, pro-war, imperialist, Democratic party (Albert, 1994)."

This just seems silly, honestly.

Did I hope and try to contribute to good results coming from both those efforts? Yes, I did. Reading the pieces I wrote at the time will also show, however, my disdain for the electoral system, Democratic Party, etc. etc., not to mention my trying to prevent the ills Price mentions. Let's take it further. On election night, this year, is Price going to be praying that Obama wins? If not, then I am sorry, but Price is horribly divorced from reality. Which doesn't mean I think Obama is a tribune of the people - very very very far from it. It just means I think if the country elects Mccain, over Obama, it will be markedly worse. And if Price is rooting for Obama, or even votes for him, or even works for him, it would in no way in and of itself mean Price is reformist, nor that he supports Obama as some kind of tribune of the people. It could mean that, or it could just mean, instead, that in a horrendously restricted context, Price can see that one outcome is better than another and is willing to try to make it occur. The same applies to me.

Price writes: Albert "seemed surprised when the so-called Rainbow Coalition turned from movement-building to supporting Jackson's deal-making." hmmm, I don't remember having Price as a dinner guest to hear my reaction when I heard about the turn - which, I actually knew about rather early on. Actually, no, I wasn't surprised, but I did discuss the behavior of the Rainbow, and critique it, and try to show the origins and lessons that arise - unlike just dismissing people with epithets. In fact, if I remember right, I was warning against the dangers, well in advance of their occurring, trying to point out changes that would diminish the debits and increase the benefits of the endeavor.

Then Price says, "Working with capitalist parties is not only naïve but it crosses the class line."

I don't know Price. But this type juxtaposition of words is to my eyes the first step on a sectarian slippery slope. I am now not just reformist, but I am a willful class enemy, no less. Ignore for a moment, that I didn't in fact work with the Democratic Party, because, of course, many other people did who are not, due to that, class enemies, not least, oh, say, millions upon millions of working people. The assertion would be horribly misplaced even if I worked tooth and nail for a mainstream Democrat, say Obama.

To understand why, consider this. Suppose I said that due to the crisis and military type orientation that Price has, I think his approach, if it were writ large would, contrary to his stated wishes, lead not to a bottom up truely participatory and self managing new society, but, instead, to a top down society, run by what I call the coordinator class and, in particular, run by the militarily central elements of the movement that Price advocates. So far, the claim would be perfectly fair - a statement of my view. But suppose I then said that this means Price is personally crossing the class line, and is an advocate of coordinatorism not classlessness. I hope you see the problem. I might say, legitimately, that I think the implications of Price's approach would bring on coordinatorism. But to say that coordinatorism is what he wants, that would not be fair.

Price says: Albert "does not warn the workers that Parecon cannot be voted in, the capitalist state is designed to prevent that. Even if Pareconists won an election, the result would be something like when Lincoln won the 1860 election; the slaveowners refused to accept their defeat, taking the leading military officers and organized to overthrow the government and break up the country in a bloody counterrevolution." Price has published in an anarchist web site - but I have to say, the whole tone and direction of his comments doesn't seem particularly anarchistic to me - rather it seems far more Trotskyist and Leninist. That doesn't make him wrong, of course, but it is surprising.

That said, I only wish that advocates of parecon were in a position where people's attitudes about voting in parecon, or parpolity, or whatever else, were issues of pressing concern. Regrettably, however, there is a prior step: having large numbers of people remotely interested in attaining parecon by whatever route may prove possible. 

Price says: "Albert believes in building alternate institutions in the present to demonstrate how Parecon might work. Such institutions (coops, collectives, democratic publishing groups, etc.) would face not only the state, but the forces of the marketplace, where capitalism is dominant. Many such attempts fail. Others succeed, only to be integrated into the capitalist economy. These organizations are good in themselves, but cannot play a major role in changing capitalism. I live in a self-administered housing coop, run by the tenants without even a professional manager. It provides good housing but is not a threat to the bourgeoisie."

I actually, agree with this and have said so repeatedly. Building alternative institutions, the seeds of the future in the present, both to learn about and test and revise our aims, and also to provide models and inspire, isn't alone sufficient - both because of the difficulties, as Price indicates, and due to the potential for insularity/isolation, but mostly because the ultimate battle ground of transforming society is the workplaces and neighborhoods of the whole society, and so those locales must be the locus of a second part of strategy, building movements, winning changes, amassing organizational might, etc.

Price writes: "In 1978, writing with Robin Hahnel, he sketched out how a `socialist revolution' might be carried out. There would be a `revolutionary councilist organization' or `party.' In workplaces and neighborhoods, the revolutionaries would organize people to fight back over economic, racial, gender. and other issues. They would seek to build popular councils of workers and oppressed people, to replace state functions in the communities and to challenge the managers in factories and workplaces. Workers' councils would take over the worksites. Neighborhood councils would take over the communities. The councils would federate. The revolutionary organization would dissolve into the councils. This would be the contest for power against the state and capitalism, to be followed by building a new society."

While quoting might have been better, as some nuance is lost, so for example I think the aim is not to fight back against repression, but to fight for positive changes, all in all, fair enough. But does it sound like reformism? 

Price writes: "As the councilist movement spread and solidified, there would be an increasing danger of state repression. The authors' main response to this is the need to avoid `adventurism' or `premature strikes.' They had previously mentioned the need for `people's patrols' but that is only `to deal with juvenile delinquency and mugging' (p. 336). They refer to mass struggles `all without and also often with militant self-defense' (p. 337), which is rather vague."

These fragments, with such partial quoting, from thirty years ago, are somehow meant to be a basis for evaluating my views? Odd. Is what Price quotes vague? Yes, and in fact, I plead guilty to then being vague about strategy more broadly. Indeed, thirty years later I remain vague, unlike Price, I guess, about what will and what won't work to galvanize a movement of roughly 100 million people in the U.S. to win a new society. I am pretty confident the way to disarm the state, in a given context, is to create a condition in which the use of its capacity for violence to snuff out dissent would, in fact, produce more dissent. If a strike is adventurist, it means it is going beyond what the carefully organized context permits, and leaving itself open to being repressed successfully. If a strike is sensible, it is fighting for worthy ends, with mass support, in a manner such that were the state, or the corporation, to use military repression against it, the result would be not its dissolution, but its growth. But this is the trivial part of strategy - not the heart of it, the core and hard part of it. That is reaching people, inspiring people, organizing people, motivating people. That's the part we all need to key on.

Price writes: "They wrote that readers may interpret this sketch to imply `an essentially non-violent dynamic` (p. 352)—which seems reasonable to me--but they deny this."

I am not sure what we said thirty years ago, given this five word reference, and I am less sure, even, what Price is saying. A U.S. revolution, occurring over a period of years or decades, can't be non violent, not least because daily life in the U.S. is incredibly violent even without a growing struggle intensifying all social interactions. But a revolutionary process can try to minimize violence turning to it only when forced to do so, if at all.

A revolutionary process could, and perhaps this is what Price has in mind, see military confrontation with the state as the central locus of winning a new society, as I think Price does, wrongly, and as Che and Fidel did, in a very very different setting, with considerable success. Alternatively, a revolutionary process could instead see amassing informed, passionate, committed, participation and leadership from immense numbers of working people as the locus of winning a new society - with the state effectively disarmed, over time, due to that organizing reaching into its innards. The two orientations are very different, I agree. But I wouldn't say Price isn't revolutionary because he sees things in a military way that I think is incredibly naive, deluded, or perhaps just habituated by ideology. I would just say he is, instead, in my view, wrong.

Price quotes us saying: "...There is considerable violence likely during the whole preparatory series of struggles leading up to the actual final seizure of power. But the seizure itself and the following period of construction will likely be relatively peaceful" (p. 352). And then Price himself adds that "They expect to have won over most of the ranks of the military as well as the big majority of the population by the time of a seizure of power."

Actually, my guess would be about a third of the population would be aggressively pro revolution, about a third doubtful, and about a third paying little attention, at the time when the balance of power would shift, but it is just a guess, nothing more. As to the army and police, however, Price is right. I believe that movements for change will be constructing a new society from positions of being able to themselves define (and not just demand) innovations only after the military and police are no longer willing to crush opposition, but are instead won over to our cause.

Price writes: "The prediction of repression and considerable violence during the preparatory period of struggles has dropped out of Albert's writings, as has the concept of a `final seizure of power.' Programmatically, he has abandoned talk of a need for people's patrols and miltant self-defense."

Actually, none of that is the case. I have no doubt about and routinely at talks indicate that there will be violence, in fact that there already is violence, and I also talk about what will be necessary, as compared to what will be counter productive, in dealing with it. But I admit, I do not see this as the main thing to spend time on, and so mostly only do it when asked. The idea of a "final seizure of power" is of little importance to me, I also admit, though absolutely central, I suspect, for Price. to me it is just one thing that happens along the way, and we may not even be able to pinpoint when it occurred. To me, instead, the really historic moment will be when there are sufficiently massive, participatory, committed movements that we can say with utter confidence that victory and transformation is now just a matter of time. If the issue is as Price seemingly thinks, mainly a kind of military battle, then yes, the battle becomes the focus, the lynchpin. If the issue is, instead, as I tend to think, a multifaceted development of infrastructure and movement while bettering people's lives, then the shift from fighting against a prior elite that still holds the state by seeking to win demands, to fighting for even greater innovation but with the movement literally defining outcomes, not making demands but ourselves enacting programs, is a consequential change, yes, but not the heart of the matter. The difference is, do you organize with an eye on numbers of guns and bullets - jails and escape routes, or something like that, with the movement's military command virtually inevitably centralizing power and developing a very instrumentalist view of change and society? Or do you organize with an eye on the growth of mass participation and leadership, grass roots definition, etc., with the institutions of the base becoming the infrastructure of the new society?

Price says: "To be so sure that `the seizure [of power] itself and the following period of construction will likely be relatively peaceful' is to disarm the workers and oppressed ahead of time." Here we sort of agree. That is, we don't know what the future will be. But the idea that what Price says now or what I say now or what anyone says now is going to arm or disarm working people is worse than silly, I think. On the other hand, our ability, now, to inspire and galvanize large numbers of people - and we are sadly wanting on this front too - to desire a new type society, which they can describe and more importantly even define, and to fight for gains in the present with an eye toward building toward that future, is not at all silly.

Price says: "For reasons of space, I have not discussed other aspects of Michael Albert's program, such as his concept of `non-reformist reforms,' his view of the working class, his odd belief that the managerial `coordinators' are not a pro-capitalist class, or his odder admiration for Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevera (who were hardly antistatist Marxists)."

Well, the concept of non reformist reforms is precisely what distinguishes someone who seeks reforms from reformism. To say that the coordinator class is pro capitalist, now, is true enough - but then again, Price would have to admit that whatever evidence he is using to say that, for example their day to day actions, their voting patterns, etc., would entail his also saying that the working class is pro capitalist. Of course, the point is, the working class can, and we hope will, develop anti capitalist views and indeed, pro change views, perhaps pro parecon views, we will see. Likewise, the coordinator class can develop anticapitalist but pro coordinatorism views - which I think often takes the form of Leninism, but that is a whole additional matter.

Price says, "Like me, Albert comes out of the councilist, antistatist, tradition of socialist anarchism and libertarian Marxism (although he no longer calls himself a socialist)."

I am going to go way out on a limb and say, perhaps unwisely, perhaps unfairly, but honestly since it is my reaction - I bet we did not in fact come out of similar traditions. My bet would be that Price came out of a Trotskyist tradition - it just sounds a lot like that to me. Doesn't matter much, but I am a bit curious.

Price says: "Like us, he aims for an economy which is neither centrally planned nor market-oriented. He believes that a movement needs a vision of a better world (although I do not think it needs to be as detailed as his Parecon blueprint). He also agrees with us about building a democratic movement from below, which challenges the centers of capitalist power by threatening them from outside."

Despite all this, I am a class enemy? Interesting. Apparently, to escape that designation requires quite a lot of agreement with Price. As to Parecon being a blueprint, of course it isn't. It is, in fact, a broad specification of just four key institutional features and their interconnections - self managing councils, balanced job complexes, remuneration for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, and participatory planning. What about that list is too much, too detailed, in Price's view, I wonder? 

Price says: "There are many areas where we revolutionary anarchists can work with Albert and others who advocate Parecon. However, there are fundamental weaknesses in his program for achieving a new society (as in the thinking of Robin Hahnel, that is, of both of the founders of Parecon)."

Here I could not agree more strongly. That is, I think my understanding of how to win a new society is very problematic, at best. Of course I also think that that is true for Price and others, too. Surely, the evidence that we don't know how to make fundamental change is all around us...in our relative lack of progress. For me, however, I admit, the issue of how to win a better society depends on having a degree of agreement about what the better society includes. This is because for me, strategy isn't primarily about overcoming a military power, it is primarily about developing participation and commitment to new relations and a willingness to fight to win those new relations in a huge and steadily growing number of people, and, as a result, our understanding of those new relations matters greatly to specifying strategy.

Price then levels his ultimate criticism: Albert "does not warn of counterrevolutionary violence. He disarms the working class and oppressed by predicting that the change to pareconism can be done peacefully. He has advocated participating in elections, in support of capitalist parties, which crosses the class line. Subjectively he regards himself as a revolutionary, but his practice is really reformist and nonrevolutionary (or at least "centrist," revolutionary in rhetoric but reformist in practice). With all respect for his contributions to the anti-capitalist movement, Albert's program is fatally flawed."

Pretty incredible. The first claim is false, I routinely talk about the violent inclinations of the state, to the point of making utterly clear that the only solution to it is to disarm it, not overcome it with a bigger power. But mainly, I just don't agree with Price, or many others, that the power of the state, or corporations, or the media, is the biggest obstacle to our winning change and therefore what we should constantly focus on. Of course they are real and matter, but the biggest obstacle, and particularly the one we can address, is our own lack of coherence and workable methodology for overcoming reticence, building solidarity, creating lasting structure, etc. That is where we can improve, and must.

Despite Price's assertion, I don't predict a peaceful change, only that the final steps get relatively less violent, and as to me disarming anyone, well, is that serious?

And yes, I think elections can perhaps be a positive part of social struggle, at times, though there are many obstacles. And yes, despite that I virtually never do it, I think voting is no more a crime against humanity than putting your money in a capitalist bank. It is better, at times, than not doing so. If Price uses a bank, or, say, the roads that the state maintains, is he then, as a result, a class enemy? His is sad and sectarian reasoning, at least to my eyes."

by red paint Tue Aug 05, 2008 06:00

So if Michael Albert held more hawkish views, you'd find more value in Parecon?

There's an interesting sentence in your article: "It is really impossible to predict, especially since we are so far from any actual revolution." So, you criticize Michael Albert for not being a real Revolutionary like you... but then you seem to claim that The Revolution is some shadowy thing far off in the distance, and there's vital things that you can't predict about it anyway.

Have you considered that maybe Michael is genuinely interested in revolutionary change in society -- and you're the one who isn't, despite how you portray yourself?

After all, Michael talks about being "resolved to win a trajectory of changes leading toward a new social order, not just to fight the good fight. If we do all that, even just reasonably well, I believe that five years from now, and perhaps even just one or two years from now, the results will be immense."


Or to put it less confrontationally, maybe he just has a different view than you, and you don't have all the answers?

by K. Blythe Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:05

I have read very little about Parecon and pretty much nothing about Michael Albert, but to be honest I have to say that I think a lot of Albert's remarks in his reply were spot on, and I did not care at all for Wayne's article. I am not sure if he was being sarcastic (i.e. is already familiar with Wayne's background) or serious, but I think Albert's comment about Trotskyist traditions is quite telling, and obviously it is is correct. That aside, I really found this article rather pointless as well and did not even intend to comment until I read Albert's reply.

However, I will say I disagree a little with Albert's idea of revolution. This is a longstanding confusion and debate I have encountered many times, over defining "revolution" and "revolutionary." Basically, there are those who say a revolution is fundamental change or transformation, and then there those who say that revolution is overthrowing of the government or of the established order or the like -- i.e., those who emphasize the "change" aspect and those who emphasize the aspect of struggle. I don't want to go off on a long tangent about it right now, but to put it briefly I do not think that the word "revolution" has a lot of value in a political setting without the struggle aspect, since even legal reformism can be "revolutionary" in the sense of leading to fundamental change or "revolutionizing" society. But that is not the same as revolution in the political sense of the word -- and I should also point out that "social revolution," while different from only "political revolution," in my view must include political revolution, unless we are again using the word "revolution" in its vaguest sense (ifor instance, including economic revolutions like the industrial revolution or agricultural revolution, which are of a fundamentally different character and having nothing to do with political or social revolution). I suppose the word's ambiguous connotations does not help out in this matter, but the point is that when we talk about revolution it seems to me it necessarily involves the struggle aspect, i.e. "revolutionary struggle" which obviously makes little sense if we are only talking about the change aspect of revolution, since struggle is not exactly change although it can sometimes lead to fundamental changes.

by Nick Cooper Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:47

Don't you think you could have made those points in a couple paragraphs?

by Wayne Wed Aug 06, 2008 05:00

Thanks to Steve for putting up Michael Albert's lengthy reply to my essay, taken from the znet site. And thanks to Albert for writing so fervent a criticism of the original essay (although I wish he had edited it before putting it out).

I will write a response to his response, although the length and detail of his comments will require a little time to put one together.

One comment now: Albert writes several times that I sound like a "Leninist and Trotskyist." This is a dirty business. I strongly suspect that he learned that I was once a Trotskyist (not hard to find out). Anyway, why does he raise this, instead of just refuting what I say? Presumably to deny that I am really a revolutionary class-struggle anarchist! (He specifically denies that I came out of a libertarian socialist tradition, unlike him.) In fact, I was a pacifist-anarchist before I was a Trotskyist, and then joined the revolutionary libertarian-democratic tendency of Trotskyism, eventually (with my friends) turning toward anarchism. In this we resembled a significant number of people who evolved from Trotskyism to libertarian socialism of some sort, such as Daniel Guerin, Murray Bookchin, CLR James, Dwight Macdonald, Cornelius Castoriadis, and others. I both learned things from Lenin and Trotsky and rejected things (many things) from Lenin and Trotsky.

What makes this red-baiting bizarre, is that Albert regularly quotes Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevera in his books. He seems to have respect and perhaps affection for these two Marxist-Leninists. They were, no doubt, genuine anti-imperialists. No doubt Ho wrote some nice poems and Che wrote some inspiring passages. But they both established one-party police state dictatorships. They do not come out of the autonomist tradition in Marxism! Quoting them is like quoting some nice passage from Hitler (on vegetarianism, perhaps).

by K. Blythe Wed Aug 06, 2008 06:10

Wayne, I think you are reading the wrong idea in Albert's Trotskism comment. Of course, I could be wrong (I am not him and I don't know his motivations), but given the context of both his ideas and the remarks surrounding that reference, it seems to me not a case of "red baiting" so much as an observation of what definitely smacks of a Trotskyist-style influence in your writing. It is true he did say that the "tone and direction" of your comments "doesn't seem particularly anarchistic" etc. That I disagree with in the sense that it is rather typical "true anarchist" comment.

However, I will say that, based on my personal experiences encountering actual Trotskyists as well as reading Trotsky and/or Trotskyist material, that the "tone and direction" of a lot of this article does bear a close resemblance. Obviously, that does not in itself negate what you say, but it is reflective, I think, of a lot of weaknesses in the overall construction of your critique.

On a side note, I also don't get your comparison of Che with Hitler (which, while we're busy "baiting," is exactly the comparison I heard once from a right-wing commentator about the "Motorcycle Diaries" movie). We might as well start listing off all sort flawed revolutionaries in the same line, from George Washington to Jean-Paul Marat to Trotsky and even Makhno! There is just no basis for this comparison, I think, especially seeing as Hitler was not just your "average fascist" but the orchestrator of the Holocaust!

by AJohnstone - Socialist Party of Great Britain Wed Aug 06, 2008 16:25 alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot uk scotland/india na

I wasn't particularly going to enter this debate since i find myself agreeing with Michael Albert on a number of his rebuttal points of Wayne's article and Wayne's indentification of revolution with armed struggle but i felt i needed to defend Wayne against Albert ( and KBlythe) since he does appear to have this habit of associating any criticism of him from the Marxists ( or platformist anarchists it now seems )as Trotskyist .
Examples of this is from his response to the SPGB .
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/36173 ( again it required cutting and pasting of Alberts article from the restricted Z-Net )

"...(The editors want to reject the Soviet system I hope for good reasons rather than only because Trotsky did, in the end.)...."

and again here

"...And all this is so, note,just by decree, by definition, by the authority of humpty dumpty, in my view, and I guess Trotsky, or whoever, in the editors' view..." .

MA is unaware that the World Socialist Movement was perhaps the earliest critics of Bolshevism , very much alone and against popular feeling when they questioned the validity of the Bolshevik claims . They have offered numerous critiques of Trotsky over the years .

MA , nevertheless , unintentionally reveals that his attitude is that all criticism of Russia begins and ends with Trotsky or Trotskyists , (which explains the obssession with bureaucracy of the deformed workers state or bureaucratic collective state or whatever neo- or ex--Trotskyist of Russia view MA adheres to in his co-ordinator class thesis .)

by K. Blythe Wed Aug 06, 2008 23:39

That is an interesting point, I will grant. Again, I am not real familiar with Michael Albert's work, and I have no intention of speaking for or defending him, except to point out what I saw as some basic problems with Wayne's article. Which, by the way, I mostly am a fan of Wayne's writing and share a fair number of his ideas, but there is a real weakness nonetheless in this approach.

by Wayne Fri Aug 08, 2008 04:06

(1) The comparison of Che and Hitler: I had already agreed that Che and Uncle Ho were genuine opponetnts of imperialism (or at least the imperialisms which had exploited their nations). This is unlike Hitler, who of course was an imperialist. So that is a difference. At the same time, they set up totalitarian single-party police states, organized similar to the states of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. And internationally they supported a social-political system which murdered tens of millions of people. So while they were not precisely the same as Hitler, they were similar to Hitler.

(2) The report from the British group about Albert Trotsky-baiting them (when they have never had any association with Trotskyism) is revealing. If you read Albert's memoir, you can see that he always was around the vauguely Maoist wing of the movement, as opposed to the Trotskyist wing. This is nothing to be ashamed of; the Maoists were more radical and more working class than the main Trotskyists (the SWP). But some bad habits seem to have rubbed off, including his Trotsky-baiting.

by K. Blythe Sat Aug 09, 2008 02:50

I can see what you are saying about Trotsky-baiting given that context, and again I grant that point. That does not necessarily negate the point in itself, so much as question the mentality of its author. But like you, I don't care so much about the fact of a Trotskyist background (its not, after all, a Nazi background, whatever the murderous and party-dictatorial tendencies of Trotsky), I had just thought it reflective of a certain more concrete aspect of your writing.

The main weakness of this article, in my view, is simply that it is too concerned with painting a portrait of someone who I am really not all that concerned about myself except so far as he has had an influence through his Parecon ideas. Being neither stupid enough to accept one relatively short article as a basis for judging anyone's ideas or character, nor interested enough in the personal background of Michael Albert to research it much further, the article is therefore of very little interest except to a handful of people who particularly care about the character of Michael Albert. So I agree with Tom that it would have been a lot better to critique Parecon than evaluate its author. By way of contrasting, think if Joe Black or Jose Gutierrez had chosen to write about Alfredo Bonanno or Hakim Bey, instead of examining and critiquing the main ideas of insurrectional anarchism. It would simply miss the point and be of little interest (although I will say, a look at Bonanno would be a lot more interesting to me than one at Michael Albert).

Also, about the Hitler-Che comparison, I understand what you are saying about a one-party state etc., but I don't the comparison is apt. I have not studied enough of Ho Chi Minh to comment on that comparison, but I don't get the demonization of Che that seems to be popular among some more serious anarchists. It seems to me more like a reaction against the "Marxist hegemony" than an intelligent look at the man himself. He was no anarchist, but he was much less a fascist even, despite his authoritarianism.

by Dave B - World Socialist Movement Sat Aug 09, 2008 20:08 Manchester UK

I think with this discussion of comparing Leninist with fascists we should take a more dialetical approach. And accept that there are aspects of the Leninist political approach that have similarities to the fascist ones.

To quote from James Burnham who was a leading Trot intellectual in the 1930’s and an early proponent of Albert’s co-ordinator class theory.

"Both communism and fascism claim, as do all the great social
ideologies to speak for the people as a whole for the future of
mankind. However it is interesting to notice that both provide even
in their public words for an elite or vanguard. The elite is of
course the managers and their political associates the rulers of the
new society.

Naturally the ideologies do not put it this way. As they say it the
elite represents, stands for, the people as a whole and their
interests. Fascism is more blunt about the need for the elite,
for `leadership'. Leninism worked out a more elaborate
rationalisation. The masses according to Leninism are unable to
become sufficiently educated and trained under capitalism to carry in
their own immediate persons the burdens of socialism

The mases are unable to understand in full what their interests are.
Consequently, the transition to socialism will have to be supervised
by an enlightened vanguard which `understands the historic process as
a whole' and can ably and correctly act for the interests of the
masses as a whole; like as Lenin puts it, the general staff of an
army.

Through this notion of an elite or vanguard, these ideologies thus
serve at once the two fold need of justifying the existence of a
ruling class and at the same time providing the masses with an
attitude making easy the acceptance of its rule.

This device is similar to that used by the capitalist ideologies when
they argued that capitalist were necessary in order to carry on
business and that profits for capitalists were identical with
prosperity for the people as a whole…………….The communist and fascist
doctrine is a device, and an effective one, for enlisting the support
of the masses for the interests of the new elite through an apparent
identification of those interests with the interests of the masses
themselves."

Mangerial Revolution Chapter 13

James Burnham as if to prove his point subsequently became a crypto fascist himself.

However many Leninists, particularly the foot soldiers, do I think have a genuine concern for the oppressed and do vigorously at least oppose the racism of the fascists.

As something like this is being discussed on Libcom, Wilhelm Reich dicussed the mindset of the fascist mentality and its followers in ‘The Mass Psychology of Fascism’, something Fromm developed in ‘Escape From Freedom’ or ‘Fear of Freedom’.

A subject too massive to deal with briefly but were people with a ‘masochistic’ personality structure as a result of a deep sense of insecurity and lack of personal self esteem passively submit to, and become part of to be protected, a powerful authority to compensate for their lack of self worth. As a result of a sense of previous humiliations it is often accompanied with a desire for redress or revenge and hence the ‘sadism’ which often goes with it.

by Tom Tue Aug 12, 2008 04:55

i also thought that Wayne's piece reminded me a bit of Trotskyist political style. As I said before, I didn't see the point to Wayne's focus on particular individuals, and wanting to tag them as "reformists." Trotskyists do this because they believe the struggle over the direction of society is a struggle between competing leaders, and so they see a need to discredit others who they see as competing for leadership of soceity or leadership of the movement. I also don't see the importance at the present time of this business of "warning people that a violent conflict must happen" in the course of the revolution. The issue of armed self-defense of a revolution becomes more salient once there is a strong revolutionary tendency in social movements but we are far from that situation.

I expect that the elite classes will not give up their power voluntarily, but as Michael points out, there are different forms of force, and armed violence is not the central form of force for a revolution. The central form of force is the force of numbers, the force of working class unity and militancy in pursuit of its aims. I think Michael is correct to point out that an indispensable part of the revolutionary process is likely to be winning over rank and file people in the military. Just as workers breaking from the habit of obeying the bosses is part of the revolutionary process, this is true of hierarchical organizations in the military and elsewhere.

Michael's point about Leninist coordinatorism is not, I think, based on any ideas of Wayne's past affiliations, but his fear that a military focused revolutionary process is likely to consolidate a new coordinator elite, and in fact the various post-WW2 guerrilla army based revolutions did exactly that.

The revoluiton we are about is changing how the society is organized, so that the oppressed, the masses of ordinary people, acquire control over their lives, and over the political and economic decision-making. A problem with focusing on armed conflict is that this plays into the popular misconception of "revolution" as an armed uprising or armed struggle or struggle for state power.

by Brian Dominick Sat Aug 23, 2008 03:42

It's stuff like Price's ridiculous diatribe that makes me hesitate to call myself an anarchist. Not because I'm not an anarchist, but because I wouldn't want to be associated with this kind of ass-backwards thinking. The notion that either parecon or Mike Albert are reformist is totally laughable. Like Mike, I do not vote, but I can't fathom getting worked up and foaming at the mouth like Price and so many more-anarchist-than-thou types just because someone wants to vote, or just because they advocate voting. Which Mike doesn't even do. Where the hell is the argument? Does Price just like to hear himself rail against the social evil of voting? Does it make him feel like he's more anarchist, or more revolutionary, than the next person? Is he saying he'd rather have a President McCain than a President Obama?

Michael Albert and I differ on the prospects for militant violent resistance in an insurrectionary phase of the revolution we both very much hope to see in our lifetimes. It's not a fundamental difference: we both think demoralizing and decaying the cops and soldiers is a key, vital aim -- even a precondition -- of a revolutionary movement, since the people stand no chance toe-to-toe with the full forces of the state... But I do think there needs to be an organized armed component to the movement to oppose last vestiges, private armies and counter-revolutionary guerrillas and saboteurs, whereas I think Mike sees less if any need for that. We have argued about it numerous times. Yet somehow these discussions never lead to me calling him a "reformist." Does that make me a reformist? Is a "revolutionary" someone who goes around writing essays about how "reformist" other activists are?

Maybe these days revolution and anarchism are all about being "more revolutionary" and "more anarchistic" than others in our rhetoric. How sad if it's come to that...

by Wayne Sat Aug 23, 2008 04:45

Actually I did NOT write that Michael Albert was a reformist. I wrote that his strategic program was reformist. And so it is.

The question is not about voting as such. As I said, I do not attack liberal individuals who intend to vote; I try to persuade them that Obama is not a Great Hope, but at best a lesser evil, which means...an evil, even if they feel they have to vote for him.

But while it is understandable that most Americans will vote for a capitalist politician (because they believe in capitalism, after all), it is not understandable or acceptable for supposed "revolutionaries" to support (be for voting for) a capitalist politician.

More: the Democratic Party has a historic role of attracting and then killing off popular movements. It leads working people to support politicians who will attack them. It leads working people to support imperialist wars. The job of a revolutionary anarchist is to WARN workers about this. It is to call for workers, African-Americans, etc. to break from the Democrats and to act independently (mass strikes and demonstrations). To vote for Democrats, or even to be neutral about it is to fail badly in our job.

by Tom Fri Aug 29, 2008 07:10

Wayne, it's true you use the phrase "reformist strategy" in your title but you don't discuss any alleged "reformist strategy." What you ciriticize Albert for is supporting certain candicates for office, such as Jesse Jackson. That's not the same thing as saying that one's strategy for changing society is to elect particular people to government office. As you acknowledge, Albert hasn't really written a great deal about strategy and tactics. In other words, you've not pointed to a particular strategy that you think is reformist, since saying one favors voting for a candidate is not the same thing as advocating electoralism as a strategy.

So, again, I don't see the point to your article. It's only tangentially about strategy in the sense that you don't think revolutionaries should ever say we should vote for someone. I wouldn't say that Durruti was not a revolutionary because in Feb 1936 he advocated voting for the Popular Front. Getting the Popular Front into power obviously wasn't his strategy for change.

by Wayne Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:28

The issue is not Michael Albert. It is a political question, in which he is only one example among many. Apparently, you, Tom, do not see the problem with being for voting for the Democratic Party, the party of imperialism and war, the La Brea Tar Pit of popular discontent. I guess we have different interpretations of what it means to be "revolutionary."

Anarchists often raise the example of the Spanish revolution of the thirties, as Tom does here. The real analogy is the anarchists joining the Popular Front government. This was presented as an exceptional action, not part of their general strategy, as Tom might say. After all, there was the special need to unify against the fascists. But the anarchists betrayed their principles and program by doing this, they lost the chance of making a revolution, and lost to the fascists anyway.

Now we are not under the threat of fascism. Merely that of the election of a conservative Republican. If revolutionaries abandon our class and antistatist principles under these conditions, then it can be expected that we would repeat the betrayal of the Spanish anarchists when faced with our own revolutionary crisis.

by Tom Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:16

I would say that a reformst approach to fighting for reforms would be to proposed doing this through an electoral party or electoral politics, lobbying politicians, routine collective bargaining, bureaucratic organizations such as the existing trade unions and such. This is what reformism is. The problem with it is that it simply reinforces acceptance of the existing ways decisions are made in society, through hierarchies in which ordinary people are excluded in the normal course of events. As far as I know, Albert doesn't advocate this sort of strategy, nor have you argued that he does.

To tell people to not vote is actually pretty useless. First of all, about half the working class doesn't vote because they correctly perceive that their interests are not represented. On the other hand, this also tends to go hand in hand with fatalism, the "you can't fight city hall" mentality, which doesn't encourage active defiance.

As far as the half of the working class who do vote, they do so to make a difference in the outcome where they think it will actually affect them. There is some rational point to voting for a candidate who you perceive to be less bad. Otherwise you're just letting our worst enemies have a cake walk. Thus it isn't entirely irrational for working class people to vote for Democrats when they perceive them to be less damaging to their interests than the Repubs. This is true despite the fact the Dems are a party of big business just like the Repubs, a party of imperialism and so on.

There is nothing particularly revolutionary about not voting. What should be done is to point out alternative tactics and strategy that people can use which will enable ordinary people to control the movement, build their own skills and knowledge, gain confidence or a sense of power because they've won something through their efforts.

But the conditions that lead to mass collective activity are not created by revolutionaries. Revolutionaries can be catalyists and organizers in such situations, and help to further things along, and articulate some alternative ideas in terms of pointing beyond capitalism. Organizations that are non-bureaucratic and grassroots endeavors can help give a sense of potential collective strength, tho this doesn't come just from numbers, as bureaucratic organizations may be inert but large.

It's true that an orientation to electoral activity is a mistake -- it's a dead-end, a sink hole that enables movements to be tamed. But it doesn't follow that there is never anything to be gained by voting. Not advocating a strategy of electoral participation is not the same thing as saying one should never vote.

Also, you make a particular point about voting for the Dems. But the fact is, it is equally a problem to advocate a strategy based on building up some third or more radical electoral party. This only further entrenches the illusion that things can be fundamentally changed through the electoral process. A strategy based on voting for the Greens or a labor party would still be reformist.

by Javier Sun Aug 31, 2008 19:33

Excuse me if i jump in this debate uninvited but...

The problem with your aproach Tom is that there is a militant reformism. Indeed, the Communist Party could hardly be considered something other than that as well as several populisms in Latin America. Some of them even talk about socialism but the furthest they go is in fomenting cooperatives and some forms of co-management. They do not question capitalism, they do not question the state, even while nominally recognizing referendums, revocable mandates, the linking of municipal authorities to local assemblies, they continue business as usual marginating the most radical sectors of its own support base. I say, look at Venezuela or look at Argentina. These regimes were able to combine electoral politics with militant tactics building a movement (with much more success in venezuela than in argentina) or a mobilized support base to confront their opponents both to the right and left. Their tactics are not just "electoral politics, lobbying politicians, routine collective bargaining, bureaucratic organizations" altough all of them are ingredients in their mix, but it can also include mas rallies, clashes with opposition mobilizations, building cooperatives, strikes, pickets, etc.

Durruti spelled the problem with electoralism and abstentionism quite well. Whoever votes and then stays at home doing nothing is counterrevolutionary. But whoever doesnt vote and stays at home doing nothing is not worth much more. We should always try to change the axis of discussion from elections to action. But I agree with the historical anarchist positions that calling for abstentionism is the most coherent politics because its a logical consequence of disbeleiveing any significant change can come from the elections. This is the spirit in ehich we did an anti-electoral campaign in the Red Libertaria putting up a significant propaganda effort trying to reach people and convince them both of the futility of participating in the elections and in the need and potential of direct action and popular struggle.

Our "better" enemies always want us not only not to denounce their treacheries (repression, attacks on workers rights) but to support them and even actively to mobilize around their campaigns. That would be really stupid and would make us unable to develop our own politics and projects. It is true there are differences between different politicians, some are more agressive in their antipopular policies and I will not condemn someone for voting for "lesser evils" rightly perceives or not but I will insist that he is deluding himself beleiveing that that way he is safe, I would point that the only way out is fighting and thus we should put no hope in the electoral system but in our own popular fighting organizations.

by ajohnstone - socialist party of great britain Mon Sep 01, 2008 15:21 alanjjohnstone at yahoo dot co dot uk edinburgh scotland na

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls will give the workers power to achieve Socialism. We have always emphasised that such a majority must be educated in the essentials of Socialist principles and have a party democratically organised .

William Morris wrote. "It should be our special aim to make Socialists by putting before people, and especially the working classes, the elementary truths of socialism… before any definite socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion — the opinion of a great mass of people who are already socialists…"

It is the quality of the voters behind the vote that, in the revolutionary struggle, will be decisive.

In our Declaration of Principles we stress the necessity of capturing the machinery of government including the armed forces. That is the fundamental thing. The method, though important, is second to this. The attitude of fetishism which some anarchists show towards "armed struggle" , their advocacy of street warfare against overwhelming odds only serves to make more difficult the Socialist education and organisation of the workers.
This either-or approach to activism is self-defeating. There appears to be disagreement on what form of resistance to capitalism is the most effective. Direct action or party political work through the electoral system . Such views have always divided anarchists and socialists. Some now argue that both forms of resistance not only compliment each other but are also essential in the pursuit of class struggle. For the Trotskyist Lenininist Left, all activity should be mediated by the Party (union activity, neighbourhood community struggles , etc.) , whereas for us, the Party is just one mode of activity available to the working class to use in their struggles, a tail to be wagged by the dog.

The easiest and surest way for a socialist majority to gain control of political power in order to establish socialism is to use the existing electoral machinery to send a majority of mandated socialist delegates to the various parliaments of the world. This is why we advocate using Parliament; not to try to reform capitalism (the only way Parliaments have been used up till now ), but for the single revolutionary purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism by converting the means of production and distribution into the common property of the whole of society. No doubt, at the same time, the working class will also have organised itself, at the various places of work, in order to keep production going, but nothing can be done here until the machinery of coercion which is the state has been taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by political action. As the SPGB said in 1915 ( yes , we do have a long history as a political party based on agreed goals, methods and organisational principles. ) "The workers must prepare themselves for their emancipation by class-conscious organisation on both the political and the economic fields,the first to gain control of the forces with which the masters maintain their dominance, the second to carry on production in the new order of things" .

Political democracy is not, or is not just only , a trick whereby the capitalist class get the working class to endorse their rule. It is a potential instrument that the working class can turn into a weapon to use in ending capitalism and class rule. The ballot box is a tactical but never a strategic (and the only) option (and that is true for Capitalists as well for Socialists.) The working class is the key political class, whoever wins its support wins the day, hence why the factions of the capitalist party vie for working class votes

According to our analysis of society , the capitalist class are the dominant class today because they control the State (machinery of government/political power). And they control the State because a majority of the population allow them to, by, apart from their everyday attitudes, voting for pro-capitalism parties at election times, so returning a pro-capitalism majority to Parliament, so ensuring that any government emerging from Parliament will be pro-capitalism.
If the workers (the vast majority of the population) are to establish socialism they must first take this control of the State (including the armed forces) out of the hands of the capitalist class, so that it can be used to uproot capitalism and usher in socialism. The Party has always said that, in countries where there exist more or less free elections to a central law-making body to which the executive, or government, is responsible, the working class can do this by sending a majority of mandated delegates to the elected, central legislative body. Just as today a pro-capitalism majority in Parliament reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population wants or accepts capitalism, so a socialist majority in Parliament would reflect the fact that a majority outside Parliament wanted socialism. The SPGB contest elections making no promises and offering no reforms except for using parliament as a tool for the abolition of capitalism .

Michael Albert , Wayne , Tom, Javier have to envisage some other means of expressing the popular will/public demand than a parliament elected by and responsible to a socialist majority amongst the
population. But what, exactly? It would have to be something like the Congress of Socialist Industrial Unions or a Central Council of the Federation of Workers Councils. That's not to deny that it could be one of these (because bodies such as these will exist at the time), but would any of these bodies be more efficient and more effective (and even more democratic) in controlling the State/central administrative machinery than a socialist majority elected to Parliament by universal suffrage in a secret ballot.

It is hardly conceivable when there is, say, 10 percent of the population who are socialist, that at election times they will not decide to put up candidates against those favouring capitalism.
What would be the point of boycotting elections? There would be nothing to gain (in fact there could be something to lose in terms of political stability).When it came down to it, when they felt that something important was at stake, not even the anarchists in the one place where they did have
appreciable support (Spain in the 1930s) were able to maintain their boycott position: they allowed, even encouraged, their supporters to take part in both the 1931 and 1936 elections there (in the one case to kick out the monarchy and in the other to secure a parliamentary majority favourable to the release of anarchist political prisoners).
James Connolly said much the same in 1908 when the IWW jettisoned their political action clause ...to paraphrase .." just try and stop them using it "

No-one can be exactly sure which form the revolutionary process will take but the Socialist Party of Great Britain has always held that the potential use of parliament as part of a revolutionary process may prove vitally important in neutralising the ruling class's hold on state power. For us, this is the most effective way of abolishing the state and ushering in the revolutionary society . The working class cannot enter the class war with one arm tied behind its back .

by Tom Sat Sep 13, 2008 02:38

responding to Javier: it only appears that militant reformism is left out. here in the USA the type of thing you refer to does occur, on a smaller scale (as the unions and left are very weak) when union bureuacracies mobilize their members into the streets, in a seemingly militant strike, banging pots and drums and what not, but with the actual control of the struggle in the hands of the bureaucracy. thus it isn't really inconsistent with "collective bargaining controlled by union bureaucracies." we have the Green Party which does nominally advocate things like accountability to neighborhood assemblies or other forms of "participatory democracy" but it's practice doesn't actually differ that much. It doesn't really challenge the elite classes, and most ifs base is drawn from the middle layers in any case.

I would say that the viability of the sort of overt anti-electoralism you refer to may depend on the degree to which mass self-activity is feasible at a given point in time. In the USA such activity is at a very low level at present. thus working class people are less likely to think in those terms. when there is some visible difference between the candidates, so that it makes a difference who wins an election, not opposing one's worst enemies gaining control of the state means leaving one particular arena free for them to win. and many working class people will see voting as rational for purposes of self-defense.

the feasibility of an alternative strategy depends on an increase in the level of mass self-activity and self-organization.