Ep 241 Chomsky, Varoufakis, and Me

Over the past couple of months , I have intermittently offered Revolution Z episodes based on episodes I had written earlier , with the innovation that during and also at the end of these audio episodes that repeated the things I had done earlier , I would spontaneously comment on the material . Just a bit over two years ago , I wrote a book titled no Bosses .

I know that at least some of you who frequent Revolution Z have read it and that others have likely heard me discuss chunks of it online in talks or articles , debates and so on , and , in addition , have heard others do likewise .

Still , I thought it might prove interesting to give the written book the same present it and comment on it treatment that I have given some articles . I don't know in advance what my comments on no Bosses will be like .

I do know they will be spontaneous reactions , rather like you might have reactions where you are now reading it , but I would expect my reactions perhaps again like yours , will most often address how the material might be used or whether the material seems to me as valid two years later as when I first wrote it two years ago , or perhaps some corrections or

avenues for further analysis and maybe some comparisons between it and other views or perspectives as well . So these episodes will be partly presentation of very carefully developed formulations the book and partly spontaneous ruminations in response comments on the book .

It may not be believable I would guess that it would not be true for many of you looking at something you had written and edited and edited and edited just two years ago . But when I recently looked at no Bosses , when I read a couple of chapters to see what I had written , it was evident that well , it might as well have been written by someone else .

As I read from it , that is just days ago , but for an occasional sentence , it was as if I was first encountering it . It was as if I was considering something that someone else had written . I kid you not .

This happens to different degrees as one gets older , though I suspect I am a somewhat extreme case of it , my memory having always been pretty horrendous . If age diminishes what was already there in my case horrendous memory then before long you get to nearly no memory .

In any case , since I felt no Bosses to be unfamiliar , it meant I could present its contents , not all at once , of course , but in a series of episodes . And as I went along I could comment on the substance of it as if I was hearing it for the first time . It's an interesting situation , but will it be worth doing out loud ? Well , what can I say ?

No , bosses presents participatory economics as sensibly and succinctly as I was able to manage two years ago . Past episodes have emphasized how important I think having shared vision , not just economic , but also kinship , cultural , political , etc . Is to achieving movement successes sufficiently ample to lead to a better world .

So since I do think that , I also think that to present vision yet again has merit . For example , think how many times analyses of imperialism or capitalism or well you name it are presented .

I and other advocates of participatory economics would have to do nothing else for year after year after year after year , to get even remotely into the same ballpark of repetition .

And there is a further justifying difference for participatory economies advocates to repeat , since participatory economics has as yet reached far fewer people than are fully familiar with how capitalism and imperialism work . So I hope this proves as engaging and interesting for you as I suspect it will for me .

I am pretty sure it will be engaging and interesting for me . That is , though , also perhaps a bit disconcerting for me , as I find stuff that I would now do differently .

So the title this time is Chomsky and Verifakis on no Bosses , and that's because they each very kindly contributed a preface to the book , and I think I will start with those presenting what they wrote , but also my on the fly reactions to what they wrote . So first , here is Noam Chomsky's preface . He starts out .

I am very pleased to be able to say a few words about the most recent of Michael Albert's very important contributions , which I have been following with great interest and appreciation since we met in the mid 1960s .

As for myself , when asked to summarize my general stance on the socioeconomic and political order , I expressed my sympathy for libertarian socialists , anarcho-syndicalist goals and for the core anarchist principle . Relations of hierarchy and domination carry a heavy burden of proof .

They must demonstrate their legitimacy , and when they cannot do so which is the norm they should be dismantled in favor of more just human relations and institutions . Okay , I interject here .

I should say Noam's injunction or guide , which I certainly agree with and actually tried to follow in the development of participatory economics , gives insight on what to remove that currently exists , but it doesn't tell us much about what to replace it with . In any case , noam continued One of the relations of domination that can't pass the test is bosses .

Subordination to a master is an illegitimate attack on fundamental human rights . Hence a core principle is quote no bosses . Albert's theme in the present work . This is hardly a novel thought . For millennia the principle has taken , was taken for granted For free men , that is , not women or slaves .

In the early days of the Industrial Revolution , working people , by then , men and women , the eloquent and militant factory girls , fought bitterly against the imposition of what was commonly called wage slavery , subordination to a master . The illegitimacy of wage slavery was so much a part of common understanding that it was a slogan of Lincoln's Republican Party .

Working men and women created a lively and independent press , written and produced by those driven by need into the brutal industrial system . In their journals they condemned quote the blasting influence of monarchical principles on democratic soil .

They recognize that this assault on elementary human rights will not be overcome until quote they who work in the mills will own them and sovereignty will return to free producers .

Then working people will no longer be quote menials or the humble subjects of a foreign despot , the absentee owners , slaves in the strictest sense of the word , who toil for their masters . Rather , says Noam , they will regain their status as free American citizens . Noam continued .

The basic ideas articulated in the labor press were shared by independent farmers in what was then a mostly agrarian society . Radical farmers in Texas and throughout the Midwest joined together to free themselves from the domination of Northeast capital and finance and to run their own affairs in the cooperative Commonwealth to which they aspired .

Their populist movement , remote from today's populism , began to construct links with the Knights of Labor , the rising labor movement that could have expanded to a new era of radical democracy , but it was beaten down by state and private force . I interject here .

There is the inkling of one of my differences with Nome in this paragraph , and with many other people too . Of course , it is true that efforts were beaten down , but the thing is is that the thing to focus on , to my thought , accurate or not ?

The thing to focus on when movements fail , at whatever level and with whatever speed , so to speak , is their internal problems , the fact that they are repressed and attacked , the fact that they are deemed unacceptable and battled against . That's just the way it is . That's going to keep happening .

So the trick is to create a movement that can survive that , and the reason a movement can or can't survive that is internal to the movement .

And so , for me , whenever talking about something that didn't bring on the desirable new society , the key thing to look at is not how harshly it was treated , how it was battled against , how it was beaten back and buried , but what are the attributes of its internally that made that external repression possible and successful .

The archetype case of this , for those with some background in the topic , is the Soviet Revolution , where most analysts of the Russian Revolution would focus on repression of it and isolation of it and physical war against it , and not focus on the internal characteristics , the internal problems that it had . I think the latter are the important thing to note .

Anyway , nome continues the US has an unusually violent labor history . Labor historian David Montgomery writes that quote modern America had been created over its workers' protests , even though every step of its formation had been influenced by the activities , organizations and proposals that had sprung from working class life . And that's the end of the quote .

Not to speak of the hands and brains of those who did the work that's Nome . Nome continues .

19th century workers , repeating the common view that a daily wage is a form of slavery , feared that a day might come when wage slaves quote will so forget what is due to manhood as to glory in a system forced on them by their necessity and in opposition to their feelings of independence and self-respect and hope that that day would be far distant .

A prime goal of Albert's work is to help to reinvigorate that common understanding and to revive the commitment to mutual aid and solidarity and , most important , to spell out in some detail how the goals can be realized . I interject at this point . Indeed , that's true , and indeed Nome is identifying a prime goal .

The question is going to become notice his use of the word in some detail . That's going to become an issue between us over the years . How much detail , in any case , nome continued . I met Michael in 1966 , shortly after he arrived as a freshman at MIT , where I spent almost all of my professional life .

Within a few years , he and his friends had radicalized the MIT student body , with large effects on Cambridge and Boston as well . It was inspiring and edifying . Since then , michael and I have been close friends . We have , however , traveled somewhat different paths .

I interject yeah , me and my friends did turn the campus upside down , that's true , but me and my friends were turned upside down by Nome before we did that . That is , he had a big impact on us and are then ensuing activism on the campus and throughout the area . Anyway , nome continues .

Michael has spent some of his time addressing the kinds of social and political issues that have been my own priorities Problems of domestic society , international affairs , activist opportunities and possibilities but he has moved on in several different directions .

He has been engaged very successfully in creating alternative institutions based on our generally shared principles , often working together with his late great personal partner Linus Sargent , and he continues actively to do so with constant new initiatives .

At the same time , along with a number of others , including in particular Robin Hanell , michael has elaborated the kinds of anarchist principles we both favor , mainly , but not exclusively , regarding economic vision . I once wrote that quote .

The task for a modern industrial society is to achieve what is now technically realizable , namely a society that is really based on free , voluntary participation of people who produce , create and live lives freely within institutions they control and with limited hierarchical structures , possibly none at all .

That's the end of his quote Michael has impressively refined , elaborated and carried forward that task and I interject that formulation of the task that needed to be done and some others that he made at the same period . You know , the late 1960s , early 70s actually played a big role , I think , in Robin and I deciding to work on the question of economic vision .

Nome continues I have watched these pursuits with enthusiastic support for the first creation of new alternative institutions and with more modulated support for the second elaboration and advocacy of economic vision . Modulated because I have some concerns .

Do we know enough about humans and society to construct detailed plans or should more space be left for experimentation and learning ? Should we take our vision further than general guidelines , perhaps those of the anarcho-syndicalist principles to which we are both sympathetic ?

How does the pursuit of more specific goals affect the actual work of activists under current circumstances ? Nome was referring , I think , when he was talking about new alternative institutions , mainly about South End Press , which we put together , you know , not long after I got out of MIT .

And with regard to the vision , his reservations did play a small role at the outset of working on the vision and a larger and larger role as time went along and I became convinced that his concerns were valid . I knew that all along but required serious , constant attention , which I took up later . Anyway , that'll become clear as we go along . Nome continues .

So while I have continually admired Michaels and others steadfast drive for their visionary agenda , I have sometimes wondered if they had taken it too far . These questions are considerably sharpened by Michaels' new book no Bosses a New Economy for a Better World .

In inaugurating the neoliberal assault that the global population has endured for 40 years , along with her partner Ronald Reagan , british Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave the world the acronym TINA . There is no alternative . That was not an innovation .

The claim that what is being imposed by power is the only possible world has been a prominent bulwark of oppressive systems for as long as they have existed .

The hope is that the claim will become what Grampsci called hegemonic common sense , unchallengeable a condition of life , like the air we breathe , or like the conception that the highest goal is to find a way to spend most of one's waking life , subordinated to a master who controls every detail of your existence , to have a job .

Michael has always felt that , to break free from these fetters , people should have a strong shared view of how their general aspirations can be manifested in actual social structures . He has sought to determine the essential conditions we must attain if we are to eliminate a problem of oppressive hierarchy and institute authentic self-management .

I interject , I guess , unsurprisingly . Noam's perception of my and other advocates' intentions is spot on . That is indeed what I , we , were trying to do , trying to provide enough of an understanding of what might accomplish our aspirations , to give hope , to provide direction , etc . Noam continues In the chapters that follow .

Michael examines closely a wide range of such issues , developing modalities of self-management , equity , solidarity , diversity , sustainability , internationalism and participation as guides for proposing better ways of organizing society while freeing ourselves from ingrained habits and assumptions .

The chapters do not provide a complete blueprint , but rather the essentials , or what Albert calls a scaffold for future experiences to fill out .

The scaffold describes and advocates a natural and built commons , workers and consumers' self-managing councils , a division of labor that balances empowering tasks among all workers , a norm that apportes income for duration , intensity and onerousness of socially valued labor .

And , finally , not markets or central planning , but instead participatory planning by workers and consumers of what is produced , by what means , to what ends .

It makes a compelling case that these features can be brought together in a spirit of solidarity to establish a self-managing , equitable , sustainable , participatory new economy with a rich artistic and intellectual culture as well .

I interject To summarize in few words I would happily crib from him , but the question still remains , despite being alerted to the danger does participatory economics go too far , either extending beyond what we can sensibly address or extending beyond what it is our purview and need to address ?

This will , among other things , be addressed in the substance of the no bosses' text to come , but I think it's fair to say that the scaffold notion of a core around which many , many changes and many , many additions and refinements occur due to experimentation and insights that we learn along the way , is actually product of Nome's criticisms over the years of going

too far and overextending . Anyway , nome continues .

The book then discusses the relation of the economic visions , that is , its core concern , to aims for polity , based on work by Stephen Shalom , aims for kinship , based on work by Lydia Sargent and Cynthia Peters , and also aims for culture , ecology and international relations , as well as some implications of the participatory economic vision for activist practice in our

present cruel and potentially even suicidal world . I interject , ps . I don't think it's any accident that all those people were also influenced by Nome . Nome continues In a final chapter . Albert responds to questions that might cross the mind of various readers on completing the book . What is the lineage of the viewpoint developed here ?

What are the disagreements among its advocates ? What are its prospects ? What difference does it make for activism today ? These are questions that Albert has encountered repeatedly and has thought through carefully . Does nobosses produce what it claims to deliver ?

That , of course , is a question that readers will have to decide for themselves , after which should be an engaging and thought-provoking journey . I interject Indeed , it is for readers or perhaps I was listening to a series of discussions to decide , but to explore the issues , raise concerns , propose extrapolations , etc .

Readers might also consider visiting znetworkorg and becoming active as a participant in the discord system that it offers .

But let me just add that Noam's preface and discussions with him over the years , especially back before Robin Hanell and I had proposed participatory economics , spurred us on , helped us arrive in underlying commitments and values and then , more recently , propelled me into a more aggressive stance vis-a-vis , not overextending and being very explicit about the scaffold approach

to a vision that Noam mentions in his preface . The second preface was by Yanis Verifakis . Yanis begins Markets may have spread everywhere like a boisterous virus , from the realm of genes to space , but there are still oases out there not yet wholly infected . One is the family .

Imagine that after an extended family dinner that has taken the parents' enormous time and effort to organize , cook and serve their teenage daughter , jill , responds to a request to help with the dishes with the question Mom , dad , because I can't be bothered , how much do you want me to pay for you to take the task off my hands ?

No price could ever compensate for the moral outrage that Jill's question will , one hopes , engender . But it is not just within family life where marketization and exchange value are a jarring dissonance . Imagine a bunch of passengers whose airplane crash landed them in a desert . Shaken but thirsty , they fan out in search of water .

One of them , jack , discovers an oasis complete with a water spring . What if he claims ownership rights over the spring and demands of his fellow survivors labor services in return for water , or even money and property transfers upon their return to civilization ? Surely they have the right , indeed the duty , to ignore Jack and share the water .

These common sense reactions to the logic of commodification are today exceptions to , and thus a sad reminder of the stupendous triumph of the extractive powers of private property and their abstract form , money . Capitalism has succeeded in alienating us from our natural tendency , as a species , to do things cooperatively .

This is why Michael Albert's new book no Bosses A New Economy for a Better World is such a breath of fresh air . It helps us retrieve from within ourselves the suppressed conviction shared by every human being that it is not alright to live under the tyranny of market forces weaponized by cunning bosses . I interject .

No substance for me to comment on , I agree , other than when I first read Yanis' preface , I remember feeling this guy can write Whatever precisely constitutes writing . Well , he does it . Yanis continued Bossing people around , of course , predates capitalism by millennia .

However , capitalism has achieved something quite remarkable it has managed to disguise the most authoritarian variety of bullying , that is , the power of capital , into something that passes credibly as the exercise of freedom in a setting of equals .

It has taken gills and jacks , outrageous behaviors , and made them the norm , the mindset , the ideology of an ironclad global system that only extremists like us question .

The problem with us extremists , that is , those of us critical of capitalism and other exploitative economic systems , is that we have concentrated too much on criticism of what is , and avoided talking about what a post-capitalist future worth fighting for or to be like . I interject .

You can perhaps imagine how I resonated on first reading , no doubt , and this time too , with that sentiment , yanis continues .

Karl Marx notoriously refused to talk about communism except in one-liners or vague terms , defending his silence by stating that it was his duty to demonstrate how capitalism's internal contradictions guarantee its transcendence , while it is the duty of the working class to decide what mode of production and distribution follows capitalism .

This excuse for not coming up with a post-capitalist blueprint was one that I also hid behind for decades , until in 2020 , I ran out of excuses and came up with my own . Yanis wrote a novel titled Another Now , which was published in New York by Melville House and in London by Penguin . Anyway , yanis continues .

However , unlike us cowards who came late to the party , if at all , michael Albert has been at it since the 1960s , together with various fellow travelers , robin Hinell in particular . Michael has valiantly tried to answer the pivotal question how can we scale up a cooperative , collective approach that emerges as both common sense and justice in action ?

In the two examples above , where Jills and Jack's behavior exposed the lunacy of commodification , this is a hard nut to crack After the family dinner . What to do is obvious . Those who did little of the shopping , food preparation , decorating , serving etc . Should do the washing up and cleaning .

As for the desert , anyone who disagrees with the right of the thirsty to share the water spring in the oasis should have their heads examined . But what happens when division of labor is necessary at a large scale ? Or , to paraphrase Lenin , by which decision making process do we decide ? Who tells whom what to do ? Janus continues .

Michael's book partly answers the question with its title . No bosses means that no one tells anyone what to do from above , not owners or commissars . But then how do the things get done ? Comes the inevitable question . To answer it , michael begins , analytically , methodically , by first answering the question how should things not get done ?

The first thing that we must never do , he says , is to accept Jack's sick idea that a minority with asymmetric property rights like the ones Jack demanded in the oasis he discovered , or even asymmetric work circumstances , get the right to boss the rest around .

It is fine to own your toaster and to use it as you please , but it is not fine to own the industrial oven to which human laborers must be attached to produce others daily bread .

It is fine to have insights , knowledge , skills and experience able to inform wise decision making , but it is not fine for a fraction of the population to monopolize empowering conditions while the rest of the population simply obeys their commands .

Michael calls this empowered group who , by circumstance , not by ownership , control outcomes , a coordinator class , and it is but one of the main themes of the book that to attain classlessness , we must not only remove the owner's ownership , but we must also disperse fairly the coordinator class's empowering tasks and roles by way of a new division of labor .

I interject as I read this between these two guys in their pages . Well , what can I say ? They got it , at least so far . And yet there are differences to navigate . One of them , as it came up in Yanis' forward , took me a little bit by surprise .

Up to this point , do you have a feeling that he is well what Robin and I called ourselves back in the day , a market abolitionist ? He talks about marketization and markets in a very aggressive manner , and yet , well , let's see what follows . Yanis continues .

This is not a book for readers wedded to the idea of privately owned factories , offices and digital platforms .

No bosses , a new economy for a better world is a book for those of us who take for granted the need to end private property over the means of production , but who crave an answer to the question in that case , how do we manage commonly owned resources and means of production ?

Before beginning to answer it , we need to dissect this question into two separate ones . First , how do we run a collectively operated firm or company to produce specific quantities and qualities of products and services ? Secondly , who decides , and how , the quantity and quality of products and services to be produced by different firms ?

If a firm is to have no boss Yanis continues capitalist , or what Michael calls coordinator then all its workers must self-manage within a democratic framework . One way to do this is for a workers assembly to elect decision makers and to approve , by majority voting , the business plan these coordinators put to them .

Michael , rightly I think , dismisses this , because elected bosses are still bosses and will quickly amass the capacity , circumstances and mindset to repress those they coordinate and to reproduce themselves as a class .

His alternative is to propose self-organizing units that fulfill obligations to the rest of society as specified in an overarching plan arrived at by workers and consumers' councils , with , to the extent possible , each worker having influence on matters that affect them in proportion to how they are affected and with wages that reflect the relative unpleasantness of the work

they do and the number of hours they wish to dedicate to the firm and their intensity of effort . I interject , yikes . Yanis still gets it and he expresses it really well , not the ins and outs but the overall impact or intent of participatory economics . Yanis continues keen to keep markets at bay .

In my case it was actually keen to abolish markets , robin too , we'll see as we go . Anyway , keen to keep markets at bay , michael extends what he calls his self-managing approach , which seems to me a form of radical contractarianism , to beyond the firm .

So he answers the broader question of who decides which goods and services different firms must produce , in the same manner that he answers the question of how a firm produces given outputs .

This , he proposes , should be accomplished via a cooperative negotiation among workplace and consumer councils , who arrive at a plan that specifies how many bicycles , electric cars , etc . The firm's capable of producing these things should supply to the citizen consumers , in light of proposals for what the population wishes to consume .

In short , michael proposes cooperatively negotiated plans wherein firms and consumers settle on what must be produced , and then self-manage choices by members of each firm in context of the firm's overarching responsibilities , decide how these products will be manufactured .

The bulk of no bosses thus comprises Michael's discussion of the features of this participatory economic process , its implications for daily life more broadly and , additionally , his responses to anticipated criticisms .

If one is adamant , like Michael , that markets should be driven to extinction , this version of anarcho-syndicalism is an attractive alternative , possibly the only one . In no bosses .

Michael gives a brilliant account of the best thinking along these lines , making it a must read for anyone who is open not only to the eradication of private property , of productive means , but also to the replacement of central planning and markets with a new form of allocation , one based on self-management , equity and solidarity .

Additionally , michael argues that , in addition to addressing consumers' needs and desires , his proposals point to an efficient management of society's commons , including the ecological ones . I interject , janus gets the essence of it and recounts it in very severe summary , of course really well . It is interesting , therefore , that he doesn't sign on , so to speak .

Further explanations of his views and my responses can be found on znetworkorg , in the form of me interviewing him and vice versa , and a sequence of short pieces by both of us which , however , regrettably came to a conclusion too early in my view . Janus continues .

As a reader who does not think that markets should be eradicated once means of production are socialized , I nonetheless found no bosses , a new economy for a better world , an invaluable guide to the possibilities and limits of an economic system which leaves no room to markets for the purposes of allocating scarce resources .

As such , I feel that we all have a debt of gratitude to Michael for taking to its logical limits the ambition to end all reliance on the price mechanism . I interject Okay , there's the beginning of a problem here .

It should have been Janus should have said a competitive price mechanism , markets , not to a price mechanism , since participatory economics has participatory planning and that certainly has prices . Prices aren't eliminated . Market competition to determine prices are In any case , janus continues .

Having said that , I remain skeptical regarding some of Michael's specific proposals , for example , the replacement of bosses with sequential bargaining negotiations or the new type of division of labor he proposes , and especially the replacement of markets as means of connecting firms and consumers by worker and consumer decentralized planning that take place within and between

his proposed worker and consumer councils and federations of councils , I interject . Well , these are certainly issues on which not only Janus but also some others disagree , and they will come up in the sequence of episodes that is to follow . Janus continues .

While I see how Michael's proposed organization would rid workers of individual bosses and market pressures , I feel that may end up being bossed around by tyrannical majorities .

Having , for instance , to seek the approval of a council before you are allowed to try out new things , either as a firm or as a worker within a firm , appears to me also as a form of oppression and an impediment to genuine innovation . I interject I have to admit perhaps a failing on my part .

I was surprised at this formulation and had not heard it from any other quarter before Janus raised it . It will come up further as we proceed and , if you are interested , it is dealt with in some detail and other engagements with Janus . Anyhow , janus continues . Michael's book is , however , deliciously open-ended .

He calls what he has offered not a blueprint but a scaffold on which future people , in light of future experiences , will add the details to arrive at a fully functioning economy .

His aim is not so much that his vision becomes reality as that a post-capitalist vision emerges that is sufficient to attract wide and deep support to inform , planting the seeds of the future and the present , and to guide efforts at change , which are undeniably now a matter of life and death for everyone .

In this context , michael's scaffold seeks to provide the institutional features essential for classlessness , collective self-management and equity . Michael wants future people to take his scaffold and add to it what is missing to create a functioning economy without , however , compromising its fundamental principles .

I interject Exactly so I suppose I am a fan of the vision as it stands in , no bosses , but mostly of , as Janus says , humanity escaping indignity and denial , whether what achieves that is the scaffold I offered with contingent additions , or a newly improved scaffold with contingent additions and , of course , with changes in dimensions beyond economy as well .

Janus continues . But it is at this point that my questions and qualms return . Can this be done by relying exclusively on negotiated plans and without adding a price mechanism somewhere along the scaffold ? Who decides how resources and fixed supply are to be distributed , for example , the current housing stock , agricultural land between cooperatives ?

How is international trade to be conducted ? Can this be done by relying exclusively on negotiated plans and without adding a price mechanism ? If there is a role for money , what is it and who issues it ? I interject there is a price mechanism , which is to say a mechanism which establishes the relative valuations of items that are produced and consumed .

It is just that this price mechanism is other than central planning and markets , as coming episodes will discuss Ditto for the other concerns , janus continues . The seeds of answers to these questions are in no bosses , and I shall therefore leave it to you , dear reader , to assess and to develop them as Michael wants you to do so .

I conclude with the remark that , like Michael , I too yearn for a world in which we can live free of the tyranny of bosses and market competition , a world in which Gilles and Jack's mindsets are confined to a museum of human miseries .

Michael's new book is a remarkable study of the economic arrangements necessary to achieve this today , even if I retain a hunch that , while we have a duty to eradicate bosses and private property immediately , markets will still have a role to play for quite some time . I interject that was the end of Janus' forward , and thus of both forwards .

Sadly , I think bosses will be around for some time too , and not just markets . But as to what the next revolution produces , coming episodes will clarify that it should not , will not include bosses or markets , or current norms of remuneration , income determination or the current familiar division of labor or , of course , private ownership of productive assets .

And so next , in this particular sequence , not all at once but intermittently , will be the text of no bosses plus significant interjection of current reactions . I hope this approach works . Maybe somebody will respond in the Patreon site comments . And that said , this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z .