Hello , my name is Michael Albert and this is the 242nd consecutive episode of the podcast titled Revolution Z .
As noted last time , over the past couple of months I have intermittently offered Revolution Z episodes based on essays I had written earlier , with the new innovation being that during and also at the end of these episodes , I would spontaneously comment on the material . Last time I began a sequence of episodes that would do that for a book titled no Bosses .
Last time the episode presented two prefixes , one by Noam Chomsky and one by Yanis Varifakis , plus some reaction that I spontaneously added . So these no Bosses based episodes will partly present very carefully developed formulations from the book and partly offer current spontaneous reactions in response to what I wrote about two years ago .
I hope this approach of providing not just the whole book but my reactions to it two years after having written it will be edifying . So to start this episode first , here is the introduction , which I titled two years ago Beyond Depravity , a New Economy .
I began the introduction and actually every chapter , if I remember right with a couple of quotations that I quite liked and that I thought fit the context . The first , for the prefixes , was Sage Advice from Amalcar Cabral Tell no Lies Claim no Easy Victories . The second was from a famous song by Sam Cook .
It's been a long time coming , but I know a change is going to come . Oh , yes , it will . And then came the introduction Behind closed doors , I write outside , people die outside . The wealthy get richer , outside , the poor get poorer . This is America , this is the world , march 2021 . I interject . I obviously could have written those words today .
Sadly enough , the intro continues . 58 years ago , sam Cook sang a change is going to come . Yesterday , aaron Dottie Roy asked will we walk through a gateway between one world and the next , dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred , our avarice , our data banks and dead ideas , our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us ?
Or will we walk through lightly , with little luggage , ready to imagine a new world and ready to fight for it ? I interject , aaron Dottie and I may dead . Only Aaron Dottie could have written that today . The intro now gets rolling Winter , spring , summer , fall , 2021 , 2022 , 2023 . Will we mobilize osipherously but nonetheless slip-side toward downbeat normality ?
Will we organize deeply and thereby dance toward upbeat liberation ? Will we suffer miserably in a gasping old world ? Will we flourish gloriously in a better new world To transcend disease , depravity , sadism , catastrophe and firestorm . Big change will have to come , but big change will require steadfast , informed collectivity . Big change will require unified motion .
Big change will require no lies , but big change to what . Don't deny the obvious . Humans can be cruel . Israeli virus-infected settler gangs spit on Palestinians to sicken them . American youths gleefully call the virus a boomer-remover . Teenage parties invite guests with COVID , charge admission and offer prizes for whoever gets virus first .
Kids kill classmates to rule school corridors . Corporate vermin impose misery to enlarge profits . Nations pour hard rain onto other nations . Militarized police crush bare-necks dead . Formacies impose murderous vaccine . Apartheid Landlords produce raging homelessness . Employers endlessly impoverish . Media lies , cruelty . Don't deny the obvious . Humans can also be kind .
Civil aid proliferates , street to street , home to home . Blacks revolt , whites join . Neighbors share Organizers block evictions . People deploy selflessness . Change rears up , desire grows , material resources appear , optimism rises . Trillions for the already rich why not trillions for the unnecessarily poor ?
Bailouts for the unceasingly elevated why not healthcare , housing , education and empowerment for the tediously trampled ? Pragmatism pivots left . I've got your back , you've got mine . Produce integrity , not pollution . Distribute dignity , not submission . Save the planet Kindness . As desperation surges , we cling to hospitals , drugists and police .
As mortification multiplies , we beseech banks , corporations , courts and legislatures . As outrage explodes , we curse them all . As insurgency rises , we assault them all . I interject . I guess I was a bit too optimistic about the next two years two years ago . Some of what I hoped for has happened , but not enough . But what about the next two years ?
The intro continues . Society's institutions spit floods . Society's institutions deploy leaky life rests . North , south , east and west . High water everywhere . High water rising . What to do ? What's the lesson ? Reject internalized facility . Reject habitual obedience . Replace leaky life rafts . Don't just cling and curse . Swim , don't just hunker down . Reach out .
Don't just mobilize , organize . We have no choice . Nine to five . Heart attack machines are everywhere . There will be no easy victories . We overcome or we die . Apocalyptic rhetoric no , this is the coming of the third decade of the 21st century . Suffer the verities of virus Resist . Suffer the ravages of racism Resist . Suffer global climate dissolution Resist .
Suffer gender deprivation Resist . Suffer economic impoverishment Resist , but not so fast . Prior decades teach that needing big change will not alone win big change . Desiring big change will not alone win big change . Even believing big change is gonna come will not alone win big change . Resist . To what end ? We hate how contemporary life constricts and kills .
We are courageous , committed and confident . We resist , but without shared vision of what we seek , our courageous , committed and confident resistance will ultimately deposit us back where we began . Without capacity and consciousness able to persist , we will travel from outsized COVID , resurgent racism and flaming fascism back to normal sized business as usual .
We will cling to leaky life rafts but not replace them . We will polish the old nasty normal but not end it . And the old nasty normal will end us . To attain a better world , we must replace today's institutions like a transplant replaces a dying heart . Keep society breathing while we operate . Scorched earth would burn us too .
Our actions must mitigate present day injustice . To do less would be callous . Our actions must win changes in the present . To do less would forego the experience of struggle that arouses people to seek more . Our actions must envision , advocate , seek and finally win a succession of new presence that accelerate into a better future .
To do less would forego hope and produce despair . But into what future ? I interject . Reading this to you is strange for me . I don't remember the words . I like them , but I now wonder if I poured it on a bit too hard . Yet as I read it , it simultaneously seems not hard enough , not desperate , not militant , not positive enough .
Maybe it would have benefited from actual evidentiary experiences . But then the introduction would have been a book , the rock and a hard place of political writing . Too much or too little , the introduction continues . When we suffer losses , our experiences must inform later wins . When we enjoy victories , our experiences must ensure that we fight on to a new world .
Our losses and our victories must together accumulate awareness , connections and organization . We must win a trajectory of synchronized gains . We must bury the old and birth the new . To do less would lose . We must win , win . What Do I sound naive ? Does this sound pied ? Here is the harsh truth . We have no other choice .
Alone on foot in the desert , we must walk until we reach water To curse the sun's heat and bemoan the sand's seeming endlessness , while standing still guarantees death . We must walk , march , prance , dance , run , but where to ? I interject as I read this , I don't know how to say this . I wonder why more ?
Why nearly everyone doesn't see the truth that it conveys . This is not rocket science , it is trivially obvious . So then I think maybe nearly everyone does see that truth at some level , but not that it is possible , not where to go , and thus many hide that they see it or bury that they see it . The intro continues .
First , what values can inform a long march into a new world ? That all people share responsibilities and benefits fairly . That all people collectively self-manage their own situations . That social options and outcomes express the full diversity of human potentials . That all people feel solidarity and even empathy toward other people .
That across the world , what's good for one is warranted for all . That the planet enjoys sustainability and stewardship . I interject Can anyone sensible deny that , if they can be comparably attained , these values can and should inform a long march to a new world ? Can you that all people share responsibilities and benefits fairly .
That all people collectively self-manage their own situations . That social options and outcomes express the full diversity of human potentials . That all people feel solidarity and even empathy toward all other people ? But across the world , what's good for one is warranted for all . That the planet enjoys sustainability and stewardship ? The intro continues .
Second , what changes can ensure that a better future fulfills such guiding values ? What arrangements can ensure that we always wisely and ceaselessly invest in the day after tomorrow's tomorrow ? What attitudes and practices can ensure that we continually reharmonize with each other and with our ever changing planet ?
A new world should always be busy being born , a new world should never be busy dying . But what new norms and structures can meet that high standard ? I interject he not busy being born is busy dying . That's from Dylan . Set values , conceive institutions consistent with those values .
That is the visionary task of this book and the general task of all visionary thought . At some point , when I interject as we go along , I hope and expect that I will be critical or at least add something , apply something . But to this point it is all , at least as I read it totally evident , even if not totally asserted .
The intro continues To seek what we want . We must envision it and describe it . Okay , already let's get on with it . But wait , there is an important caveat . To build a bridge over troubled waters , we have to preconceive fine details , but to build a bridge to a better future is different . We have no capacity to preconceive fine details More .
It is not our place to determine the detailed preferences of everyone in a better society . I interject Perhaps you remember from the episode presenting the prefaces . That was Chomsky's point and , as I mentioned there , it played a role in how I wrote this book . The intro continues we cannot know finely detailed future choices .
Even if we had a right to do so , it is beyond our experience . More a worthy future will reveal many good choices that will differ from one time to another , from one society to another and even within a single society , from one region to another . There is no one worthy future For our new future . We should not propose , share and pursue a detailed blueprint .
We should envision only what we can now show to be necessary for future citizens to be prepared , able and institutionally propelled to determine their own finely detailed fates . We should propose a scaffold of a new world . A scaffold can provide hope , guidance and means . A scaffold can accept details when experience yields them . A scaffold does not go too far .
A scaffold can go far enough . Different people typically hear an advisory likely above . Differently , many people's books , essays and other works claim to address a vision for a better future . But first analyze past and present relations .
When the dust settles , the resultant works are typically 90% , 95% or even 99% about what we endure and barely at all about what we want . The 90% , 95% or even 99% about what we endure provides sound arguments that prove our present is perverse . But the 1% , 5% or even 10% about what we want falls horribly short of providing worthy , workable vision .
No bosses , a new economy for a better world is not going to fit on the same shelf as those works . No bosses may be less eloquent . Some of no bosses' arguments may prove less sound as a proposal . No bosses will propose , not declare . It will need improvement , from ideas still to be thought and from experiences still to be had .
No bosses mainly addresses economics it's every page . Knows , however , that we don't live by economy alone . We also need vision for racial and community , gender and sexual , political , international and ecological relations to overcome cynicism , to provide hope , to inspire efforts and to orient strategy .
Does no bosses present a sufficiently useful , workable and evident scaffold for experience to fill out ? I interject . Well , that is certainly the question , or at least it's my question , as I read the book anew , as if for the first time , because , well , it feels like the first time . Will its formulations not go too far ?
But will they go far enough to do what vision needs to do and what is that as stated ? Vision needs to overcome cynicism , provide hope , inspire efforts and orient strategy . The intro continues . Chapter 1 offers a short list of key vision orienting values .
Chapters 2 through 7 respectively address economic , common , self-managed decision making , classless division of labor , equitable income , rejected markets and central planning and finally , new participatory planning . Chapter 8 considers how our proposed economic vision might intersect new community kinship , political and ecological vision .
Suppose our economic vision would be classless , equitable , self-managing and consistent with equally visionary new cultural kinship , political , international and ecological relations . Nonetheless , a question would remain Would our vision be just a thought dream , or could we navigate from where we are today to where we hope to arrive tomorrow ?
Chapter 9 offers a bit of strategy , a bit of tactics and a bit of mindset . A final , more personal chapter assesses and situates the whole discussion . A short bibliography then points to some selected sources and references . Some books entertain and edify , some books inspire , engage and instigate .
No bosses would love to do all that , but mainly seeks to prod and provoke . Will you find its economic vision sufficiently worthy to elaborate , advocate and use as you see fit ? Finally , what might we call our proposed economic vision ? Originally it was called participatory economics , or parrycon for short .
Some have taken to calling it participatory socialism as a part of a participatory society . But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet and a thorn by any other name would hurt as deep . Rose or thorn , you decide , I interject . That was how the introduction ended . I think it was a bit of a fudge .
Not the rose or thorn part that is indeed for readers to determine but the name part . The reason we called it participatory economics and parrycon for short , was that the name socialism had been appropriated and applied to economies and societies that did not fulfill the values we proposed and that , as we will see later , instead obstructed our desired outcomes .
So we thought that using that name would imply that we were proposing something quite different than what we were in fact proposing . I tend to think , even now , that that observation made sense and was a good choice . Others disagreed Then .
The arrival on the USC scene , conveyed widely , of Bernie Sanders , tended to resurrect the word socialism from its 20th century identifications . Now there were two new dangers one , that using the word would tend to convey just social democracy , or perhaps a vague better aspiration , but without substance .
Or two , using the word would slowly tend to get those doing so to alibi for what has gone before and to insufficiently transcend its failings . I think both those possibilities exist and are to an extent occurring among some who now use that label .
On the other hand , I also think , as I didn't think it years back that the word may be able to attain a new definition , free of its old associations , especially when one says , say , participatory socialism or perhaps echosocialism . My own preference , though , remains as it was , albeit attenuated in its confidence a bit .
While I sometimes waver , I tend to use the label participatory economy for the sought economy and participatory society for the sought society , which of course includes other domains than just economics . At any rate , back to this episode . Now comes chapter one , the first chapter , and it was titled Values for a Better World .
Like the introduction , the first chapter began with two quotes , first from Malcolm X if we don't stand for something , we may fall for anything , and second from Ralph Waldo Emerson do not go where the path may lead . Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail .
After those advisories , which I still quite like and find apropos , the first chapter of no Bosses begins . All around , apocalyptic novels portray pathology , blockbuster movies display depravity , disease ravages , ecological nightmares , rampage , inexorable inequality , raging racism , surging sexism and advancing authoritarianism all assassinate dignity . I interject Eegad here .
I go again like in the intro , but I bet it will be shorter here and I hope it will lead right into positive formulations . The chapter continues . Billboards reborn of cyber screams pummel our nerves and butcher truth . Hunker down , they order , serve self , they holler . Despair goes viral , virus goes normal .
Pundits pontificate that it is easier to think about apocalypse than to envision a new world . The end , is it really our only friend ? But pundits be damned . Desires visibly rise . What new world might our new desires seek ? How can living , breathing , suffering , struggling souls on fire , envision a better future ?
Three ways suggest themselves Reject current realities , debilitating racism , sexism , authoritarianism and classism . Preserve what remains . Reject past visions , debilitating authoritarianism and narrowness . Extend what remains . Proclaim positive values that we want a better world to actualize . Describe new institutions to implement those values . Celebrate what emerges . I interject .
I think maybe that little list was a bit convoluted and obscure . The first approach just says this , this and that are horrible , for example , racism , sexism and classism . Get rid of them . What's left is our vision . The second says look at past efforts to transform society . Dissern the flaws , reject the bad choices , race the bad commitments .
Get rid of all that . What's left ? Perhaps extended a bit . This is our vision . The third says start over from what we now want . Think through positive values , conceive institutions that will make them real . That's our vision .
You know , there's a sense in which the first , pointing to what's horrible now and saying get rid of it , leads , you know , not inexorably but sort of to social democracy .
The second , which says look at past efforts to get beyond what we have and get rid of the ills of those past efforts , that one sort of leads to what people call democratic socialism but which doesn't have a lot of substance . The third says start from what we want . Think through those values , conceive institutions that will make them real . That's our vision .
That one , I think , leads pretty much inexorably toward participatory economics . At any rate , the chapter continues the first two approaches reject existing evil to seek future good . That's a nice idea . The third approach establishes positive aims to seek future good . That's also a nice idea . Luckily , we don't have to choose .
We can proactively embrace positive future features and also be sure they firmly dismiss past ills that we reject . Start with positive social values . How ? Perhaps we should divide society into a few fundamental functions and propose a value for each . That's a plan . Plans are worth trying . But what functions should we highlight ?
Well , why not follow activist wisdom First ? Every society makes decisions . Decisions dramatically affect life prospects . What role do I play ? What role do you play ? What role do we all play in the decisions that impact you , me and all of us ? What degree of influence do we each wield ? What do we value for better decision making ?
Next , every society delivers burdens and benefits that dramatically affect life prospects . Do we become poor , rich or something in between ? Do we endure too many burdens ? Do we enjoy too few benefits ? What do we value for a better distribution of burdens and benefits ?
But also , every society has people who delightedly , neutrally or antagonistically engage with one another . These engagements dramatically impact how we feel and what we can achieve . Do we aid or fleece one another ? Thank you . Do we respect or denigrate one another ? What do we value for ? How people might better relate to one another ?
Similarly , every society offers people a range of options and outcomes . The breadth of these options and outcomes impacts the enrichment , suffering or boredom in our lives . Do limited options homogenize us ? Do diverse options fulfill us ? What do we value for a better range of options ? Also , every society inhabits an environmental context .
Can we breathe the air around us ? Does available food and water make us sick or well ? Do we reside in natural beauty or endure unnatural ugliness ? Do we face high waters rising , garbage proliferating and extinction encroaching , or do we harmonize supportively with our surroundings ? What do we value for better relations with ecology ?
How about the rest of the world ? Every society exists among other societies . Do societies fear or celebrate one another ? Do societies attack or support one another ? Does each society exploit the rest and vice versa , or does each society elevate the conditions of the rest to be as good as its own conditions , and vice versa ?
What do we value for international relations among better societies ? Finally , every society contains a population with diverse characteristics . Do some citizens become beneficiaries of enlightened values while other citizens remain regulated and repressed , or do all citizens participate and benefit comfortably ? What do we value for the applicability of our values ?
I interject , I am not sure it matters once the results exist , but the just listed set of questions were those that Robin Hannel and I mulled over decades back , and the succinct list of values that I am confident the chapter will now present as broad answers to the questions became our guide for the whole undertaking .
I think what is useful about noting that now is that I suspect to develop any vision , say , for other key parts of societies , like their polities or kinship arrangements , or for parts of the whole like , say , healthcare or education .
Going through guiding values and then trying to conceive institutions that won t impede and that will even facilitate their fulfillment is a good game plan for generating vision . At any rate , the chapter continues In a philosophical treatise .
A chosen value to answer any of the above questions might receive a whole book , or even a whole library of books , for its exposition and defense . In this first chapter , we give only two of the areas more than a paragraph . Is that enough , too much or too little ? You judge . If it is enough , continue .
If it is too much , pick and choose and then continue . If it is too little , add and then continue . That is how conceiving a better world gets started and really how it progresses as well . Decision making and being subject to decisions occurs all over social life in homes , parents and children do it . In workplaces , owners , managers and workers do it .
It happens in churches and ballparks . It happens in malls and on farms . It happens in courtrooms and concert halls . Decision making is at the heart of society s political system and is comparably central to economy , culture and kinship . Decisions involve choices . Choices require decisions . Who makes them ?
Typically , people decide A parent , a boss , a pastor , a consumer , a community , a population decides Less . Obviously social relations decide , markets , media and structures of diverse kinds decide . So what is a worthy value for decision making ? An obvious candidate is one person , one vote majority rule .
But that kind of democracy is far from universally applicable At work . While one person , one vote majority rule may make sense for many decisions , it certainly would not make sense for many others . Suppose I have a desk and I m arranging items on it . Should the whole workforce vote ?
Suppose you and 10 others work together as a team in a workplace where 190 others also work . You propose something new for your 9 workmates and you Should 200 vote . But what if you propose for your team that you have really loud rock music in your area ? What if that music would be heard by all 190 in the surrounding workplace ?
Should you 10 decide that alone ? Decisions differently affect people . A potential norm arises Everyone should have a say in decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by them . Decisions that affect only me , I should make unilaterally .
Decisions that affect all members of a group and not others , the group should make unilaterally In a group making decisions . If you are more or less affected , you should have more or less say this we call participatory self-management . People should have a say in decisions to the extent they are affected by those decisions .
This proposed decision making value treats everyone alike . It is a non-norm for all . But is it workable , is it achievable ? Is it compatible with other values that we favor ? To accomplish perfect participatory self-management will often be impossible or , at any rate , unduly time consuming .
Luckily , to achieve participatory self-management to everyone's broad satisfaction , and so the deviations are at most modest , should be quite sufficient . It is still a demanding standard but if attained it would treat everyone fairly and consistently . But would it lead to good outcomes ? The hardest part would be the broadest part .
For example , when I decide to consume some item from the social product , something goes to me that could have gone to others elsewhere . Others elsewhere should have some say . But how can new institutions give me a say and give you a say across town ? How can they give me much more say about what I consume and you much less ? But still some say about that ?
And what kind of say ? I interject . The questions asked about self-management point to the logic of conceiving and advocating or rejecting an economic or any other kind of vision . We have broad aims , in this case that all participants in activities and society ought to have appropriate say in decisions that must be made .
We favor this broad attainment as a value , which is to say as something we think pivotal to having a desirable economy or polity or schools or whatever we are considering . And then we assess various institutions for whether they can abide or allow or , still better , facilitate the aim , in this case self-management .
The idea is that the values enunciated in this first chapter or here in this episode , are not window dressing or posturing . They mean to summarize what we desire and as such , they mean to provide a standard against which we can evaluate the merit of , or even conceive and then advocate for particular institutions . The institutions are means to an end .
We could list lots of worthy values , but to have a workable list we instead try to raise a few that we think will together constitute enough to ground our efforts . That is actually not just how this work no bosses was constructed , but how , decades back , participatory economics was brought into existence as an idea .
The chapter continues my consumption also likely impacts the environment . That affects everyone everywhere , slightly for each , but a lot in total . Again , people beyond me need to have a say Can we achieve that ? In what manner ? The same holds for what a workplace produces . It directly affects those doing the work .
It indirectly affects those consuming the result and those afflicted with harmful byproducts , and even those who might have wanted to use the inputs for something else . How do we involve all the impacted people yet simultaneously ensure wise choices emerge ?
Our new institutions will have to take all these various issues very seriously , particularly when we consider how to combine tasks into jobs and how to accomplish allocation . Self-management becomes our first guiding value . I interject Is there anything new about that ? Well , anarchists and councilist heritages favored it and even often used the same term .
I think we pinned down the meaning a bit from people should have a say over their own lives to the level of say that people should have . But I think it was there , even if not often precisely enunciated , before we took up the same value on the road to conceiving participatory economics . The chapter continues .
Societies also affect the benefits and burdens we each receive . This is most obviously a matter of income and expenses , but it also arises in families , schools , courtrooms , elections , churches and hospitals . To hone in on a possible value for apportioning benefits and burdens , perhaps considering income , is the most direct route . We work . We receive income .
What should determine its amount ? Should we get for our income an amount in proportion to what our property adds to the social product ? An amount in proportion to what we , by our own labor , add to the social product ? An amount we can take due to our bargaining power ? An amount that we say we need ?
An amount in proportion to our effort and sacrifice doing socially useful work ? I interject Again this is not only how I was thinking about income when considering how to best organize no bosses , but how Robin Hanell and I thought about it decades back . We considered the various existing formulations of how an economy should apportion income .
We had problems with each . We then extrapolated the new norm that left behind the problems and that also pointed toward a familiar value , equity , which I guess again we gave more specific substance . At any rate , the chapter continues . Of course , we shouldn't get back the specific things that are machines and employees or that we ourselves specifically have produced .
If I produce bicycles , my income should not be just bicycles . I should get back a claim on the social product after some goes to investment and some to provide free goods as well as to provide income for those who cannot work .
So we each get food , housing , clothes and whatever , but should the size of our overall share of the social product depend on the value of our property's output , on the value of our own personal output , on what we can take , on what we say we need , or on our socially valued effort and sacrifice ?
Our task is to settle a norm for remuneration in a new economy . Let's call what we seek equity . How , then , can we equitably apportion responsibilities and benefits ? What is fair ? What will function well ? Which norm should be our norm ?
Regarding the economy , you likely wouldn't read these pages if you thought that Jeff Bezos should get tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars for owning Amazon . So let's reject income for property without further ado , though we will return to details in due course . A caveat Some may think owning is okay because maybe they can become an owner .
I have to wonder if any slaves thought people owning other people was okay because maybe they could own someone someday . Similarly , you likely agree that our value for income ought not be that if you have more bargaining power , you get to take more income , and if you have less bargaining power , you get to take less . That would establish a thugs economy .
You get what you can take . We aren't thugs . So let's also summarily reject rewarding income for bargaining power . I interject here . We have the tension between comprehensiveness and concision rearing its head . Should I have presented a full argument about the effects of private ownership or bargaining power determining income when I first mentioned them ?
I decided not to , because so many others have done so convincingly and because I estimated that most people who would pick up a book titled no Bosses would not need such a discussion . The chapter continues . Now comes something more substantial and , at first glance , more just .
We should get back in proportion to what we , by our efforts , add to the social product . If we add more , we should get more . If we add less , we should get less .
This norm , as well as the two above , will get more attention in chapter five , but for now , suffice it to say that we reject this third norm , albeit for less obvious reasons than we have for rejecting income for property or for power . In essence , we reject rewarding income for luck in the genetic tools , jobs and workmate's lottery .
You are born with a quick brain , a fine eye , a motive voice , outstanding strength , lightning speed or exceptional vision , or you are lucky enough to have better tools , you produce something more essential or you have better workmates . Chapter five will argue that in each of these cases , there is no reason to pile excess income on top of your good luck .
I interject Now . The concision in place of comprehensiveness . Choice is a function of the longer discussion being placed later . I don't know if that was wise or not . The chapter continues as to getting what you say you need want .
That would undeniably be wonderful and it is of course , essential for anyone who cannot work , but , as we will also address in chapter five , it would be unviable as an overall norm for producing outputs that match what is sought . It would also provide no guidance for investment or even for wise apportionment of limited resources , labor and tools .
The problem is that , with people getting whatever they ask for , the economy hears that people want X and that people want Y , but not how greatly they want XY or anything else . I interject . Ok , I suspect this last paragraph was probably too brief .
Yes , it comes up for a fuller treatment later , but since , to the extent no bosses reach readers at all , likely a good percentage of them would be adherence to the formulation , from each according to ability , to each according to need . So I should have addressed it a bit more even this early in the book .
It is a sentiment I actually like , but as a guide it comes apart . But as it comes up later , I won't have my interjection go overboard , but instead just move on . The chapter continues . So we come to what we do favor , which is that we get income for our effort and sacrifice in producing socially desired outputs .
We get income that is for the duration , intensity and onerousness of our socially valued work . If we usefully work longer , harder or in worse conditions than the social average , we earn more than the social average . If we usefully work less long , less hard or in better conditions than the social average , we earn less than the social average .
Can we implement that norm for remuneration ? Would attaining that norm be viable and worthy ? For now , like self-management , equitable remuneration is a proposed value that we can aspire to . We will see if an economy can embody it and how doing so would improve on a rewarding output , much less property or power .
As we proceed , equity becomes our second guiding value . I interject .
I wonder if readers thought about these values for themselves as they were first enunciated and , if so , whether it caused some readers to stop dead , feeling they were inadequate or unattainable and other readers to move on , finding them worthy and hoping to see how participatory economics proposes to attain them .
There is a sense in which this kind of calculation arises for someone proposing vision for anything at all economy , polity , schools , whatever . From whatever source the question may arise , you have to barrel along even when you don't yet have full answers to your doubts . The same thing arises in many pursuits .
How do you plow on into uncertain conceptions or calculations when you don't know whether the end will be a valuable result or something entirely ill-conceived ? This , along with an ability and , even more so , an inclination to think outside familiar suppositions , are , I think , the necessary attributes to arrive at worthy vision .
But of course there is a serious danger of avoiding or even denying compelling arguments and even evidence of inadequacy or failure . The chapter continues . Instead , my well-being should depend on everyone else's well-being and vice versa . Social institutions should cause us to employ our capacities for empathy .
Social institutions should cause us to feel and enjoy solidarity toward one another . Solidarity becomes our third guiding value . I interject , I hope when one reads this or hears it , it is , even without describing why and how totally obvious , just how viciously and completely existing institutions not only obstruct the proposed values but produce their opposite .
Perhaps I should have already been more explicit about that , but I'm pretty sure it will come up later . The chapter continues . Like solidarity , a value for range of life options is also uncontroversial . We cannot do all things at once . We cannot even do all things ever .
Partly we don't have the time , partly we don't have the capacity , partly we don't have the means . As a result , we can benefit from enjoying the achievements of others . Other things being equal , the more our relations and outcomes are homogenized , the more our life options are impoverished .
The more our relations and outcomes are multi-fold , the more our life options are enriched . Valuing diversity negates any inclination to remove conflict or hierarchy . By removing differences , valuing diversity avoids a mindset that would put all our eggs in one basket .
Valuing diversity establishes a mindset that preserves multiple options , lest any single option proves unwise . Among other virtues , valuing diversity promotes personal and collective flexibility . Diversity becomes our fourth guiding value . I interject here again . A lot goes unsaid or only briefly indicated , and again it is concision versus comprehensiveness .
Knowing more is to come , but still I now feel a need to note how these values provide a guide not only for , say , allocation in a new economy or decision making and so on , but also for our current activist choices .
This value of diversity , even as quickly described in the above brief account , offers a strong corrective to activist sectarianism and a strong aim for activist inclusiveness . The chapter moves on .
Do we favor exploiting and despoiling our environment at the expense of future generations or do we favor accounting for the impact of our actions on our surroundings , taking into account our own well-being but also the well-being of our children , our children's children and thereafter , even more aggressively but equivalently , are we sentient or stupid , far-seeing or myopic
relations to our environment evidence civility , sanity and even humanity , or evidence the opposite ? Should we value sustainability ? Does that set too low a bar ? If we carefully clarify its meaning as we proceed , sustainability can be our fifth guiding value . Next is another straightforward issue what we value for our society ? We should value for all societies .
Peace , mutual aid and respect are watchwords for relations among societies . Each society should have relations with all societies that permit and even facilitate all preferred values being met by each and all . Diversity with solidarity , equity with self-management . Sustainability for all Internationalism is our other values , writ large To keep us alert to it .
Internationalism becomes our sixth guiding value . Finally , what good would it be to choose fine values but then apply them to a limited selection of people or have them be unviable , viable , self-management , equity , solidarity , diversity , sustainability and internationalism are not for only some people .
Society's benefits and burdens , its rights and responsibilities should be for everyone . Participation for all who can participate is our seventh guiding value for envisioning new institutions for a new society .
I interject Perhaps I should have said values are nice , but if they are unattainable , or if attaining one precludes attaining the others , then they aren't collectively real , only rhetorical . The idea is not to propose a gaudy but unattainable utopia , but a real , attainable utopia .
This chapter on values didn't address viability and interconnectivity of each with the rest , but of course coming chapters will and indeed that is the institutional task Create a social setting in which our values are mutually attainable and even create a social setting that facilitates their attainment and precludes their denial . The chapter continued .
The above values may morph a little depending on which part of society we think about . Think about politics , and equity might usefully become justice . Think about culture , community or gender , and we may highlight race and ethnicity or highlight gender and sexuality .
Our hope is that when we think about how an economy ought to meet needs , develop potentials and not waste things that we value . Our shared values will give us an agreed standard to organize our thoughts .
Our shared values will orient us to ask how will what we propose for production , consumption and allocation fulfill our preferred values , rather than to ask how will what we propose for production , consumption and allocation implement some old ideological scripture ? I interject Get beyond what has failed to attain what is desired . That's the task .
And that said , this is Michael Albert signing off for Revolution Z . Until next time .