Anarcho-Syndicalism and Participatory Management

Hey Lenny,

Thanks for the excellent input.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a good theory with the exception that to realize the goals of humanity, quality of life, and sustainability, we will have to also change the way that resources are allocated within and among economic sectors. To realize these goals and the very very important additional goal of equity, we will have to change the way that resources are allocated to and within communities. (In other words, the "social rearrangement" (notice I didn't use the word "engineering") needs to extend beyond the workplace, also into our communities.

It is true that Capitalists co-opted the participatory management trend that started in Europe (probably most accurately Eastern Europe (my study of Comparative Economic Systems in the 70's suggested to me that the Yugoslavs had progressed the furthest towards developing true economic democracies in the workplace)). A fundamental world-wide paradigm shift from competition to cooperation, along with removing the profit-taking of Capitalism, would go a long way towards relaxing the tension with regards to the requisite expedience in decision-making that co-opts even genuine attempts (if there were any) of Capitalists to implement participatory management operations.

Organization

The question, "Is the Party still a viable method of political organisation? " gets to the heart of some very fundamental dilemmas.

I'm probably different than most socialists, most anarcho-syndicalists, most communists, in that along the way while resigning myself to making a living within the Capitalist system, I picked up a MBA degree.

In "Organizational Behavior" class, I did my paper on "Participatory Management". I learned a few useful lessons, thus.

At an earlier period in my life, while participating in group self-study seminars with the Society of Friends, we operated on the principle of consensus in decision making. That is, we did not proceed until everyone concurred. Suffice to say, sometimes, if not often, the group progressed very slowly. On the other hand, we learned everybuddy's perspective and in a SMALL GROUP (a soviet) we eventually began to reach consensus faster, as we learned the perspectives and increased our own knowledge bases with respect to the questions at hand, and learned to respect and defer to others who either knew more or seemed to know more and/or had the respect and following of others in the group. Sometimes, if not often, participants would accede to the majority for the sake of expediency, having to weigh the importance of their disagreement, and/or having to weigh the confidence in one's knowledge and opinion with respect to the issue at hand.

In the "discipline" of Organizational Behavior, there are certain types of recognized authority.

One, which I know we all are familiar with, is called "legitimate" authority. I think a better term for it is "legitimized" authority. This is the authority delegated to an individual by the organization (e.g. a CEO, a Manager, a Foreman).

Another type of authority is called "expert" authority. Such occurs in a group when the members of a group either correctly or incorrectly identify an individual or individuals who have more knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom with respect to the matters at hand and defer to that authority.

If there is a need for "legitimized" authority then certainly it should come from one's "expert" authority (i.e. from the "bottom, up"). I know that some will object to the term, "bottom, up" because it implies a hierarchy. But the study of animal and human behavior teaches us that hierarchies are natural and will always occur. Would it not be optimal to assure that those hierarchies are based on the correct criteria, such as intentions, experience with respect to the matters at hand, wisdom, education and knowledge of the matters at hand, compassion, empathy, and intelligence? Is there always adequate time for a group to correctly discern the correct "expert" authority when someone who has "public relations" skills can outshine someone with the more noble attributes of "public service"?

Given that we all have limited combinations of knowledge, education (and of the kind that is oriented towards the best of intentions), experience, direct and indirect wisdom, empathy, compassion, tolerance, pride, etc., don't we all run the risk of falling into dogmatic thinking, thus following authoritarian (especially if talented orators and "target marketers" (e.g. Obama))?

I submit to you that such concerns are fundamental to the original question about whether a Party is a viable method of political organization. Being an anarcho-syndicalist of sorts, I transfer the question to one that precedes political organization with one that is concerned with ecological economic organization (ecology means the study of the home, economics means the management of the home).

Still, can we preclude the need for organization?

Anarcho-Syndicalism?

Capitalism is defeating itself as Marx said it would by over-production. It is defeating itself in that it does not recognize a finite world, and it made impossible assumptions about effective demand for its revenue maximization schemes which reached its zenith (our nadir) in the supply-side economics fiasco of the last generation.

All the Obama/Geithner grand larceny will not save the dying, almost dead Capitalist system.

Will there be any pieces left for us to pick up after Capitalism deteriorates to nothing but barbarian piracy?

I lean toward anarcho-syndicalism because I view the objective of the working people and the indigent and the infirm as forming an economic democracy that adheres to the old adage, "by those according to their abilities, for those according to their needs".

But I have serious doubts that we have and will have the skills and abilities and the access to resources to succeed. A big part of the problem is that the Capitalist modes of production are not sustainable, either economically or with respect to natural resources. Therefore, simply taking over the means of production will not nearly be good enough. We must also radically change the way resources are allocated to and within communities, and among and within the various economic sectors.

Mondragon and Sunkist and others are mutualists trapped within the Capitalist hegemony. Others such as New Harmony (there were others but I can't think of the names specifically), often referred to as utopian experiments, tried to form self-sufficient cooperative communitarian enclaves, but found themselves trapped by Capitalism in a different way; they found that in the evolution of human "civilization" and because of the demands of the dominant "culture" that most people can no longer exist in isolated communities (possible exceptions being encroached upon in the Amazon Rain Forest, perhaps).