In capitalism, owners together with about a fifth of the population who have highly empowered work decide what is produced, by what means, and with what distribution. Nearly four fifths of the population does largely rote labor, suffers inferior incomes, obeys orders, and endures boredom, all imposed from above. As John Lennon put it, “As soon as you’re born they make you feel small, by giving you no time instead of it all.”

Capitalism destroys solidarity, homogenizes variety, obliterates equity, and imposes harsh hierarchy. It is top heavy in power and opportunity. It is bottom heavy in pain and constraint. Indeed, Capitalism imposes on workers a degree of discipline beyond what any dictator ever dreamed of imposing politically. Who ever heard of citizens asking permission to go to the bathroom, a commonplace occurrence for workers in many corporations.

Capitalism’s ills are not due to antisocial people. Instead, capitalism’s institutions impose horrible behavior even on its most social citizens. In capitalism as a famous American baseball manager quipped “nice guys finish last.” More aggressively: “garbage rises.” Witness Washington’s White House.

Participatory economics is an alternative way to organize economic life.

It has equitable incomes, circumstances, opportunities, and responsibilities for all participants. Each participant in a participatory economy has a fair share of control over their own life and over all shared social outcomes. Participatory economics eliminates class division.

It produces solidarity. Even an antisocial individual in a participatory economy has no choice but to account for social well-being if he or she wishes to prosper.

It diversifies outcomes and generates equitable distribution that remunerates each participant for how long and how hard they work as well as for harsh conditions they may suffer at work.

It also conveys to each person a say in what is produced, what means are used, and how outputs are allocated, all in proportion to the degree he or she is affected by those decisions.

Participatory economics, in other words, has completely different values than capitalism and to further its different values participatory economics incorporates different institutions.

It has workers and consumers councils where workers and consumers employ diverse modes of discussion, debate, and democratic determination. In a participatory economic, there are no corporate owners and managers deciding outcomes from the top down.

It has balanced jobs in which each worker does a fair combination of empowering and rote labor, so that all participants have comparably empowering circumstances instead of 20% of the workforce monopolizing all the empowering tasks and 80% doing only subordinate labor. In a participatory economy there is still expertise. There is still coordination. Decisions still get made. But there is no minority monopolizing empowering information, activity, and access to decision making positions while a majority is made subservient by doing only deadening daily tasks with no decision making component.

In a participatory economy, each and every job, which means each and every person’s work, involves a mix calibrated so that each participant has essentially equally empowering conditions. A participatory economy has no owning class. It has no technocratic, managerial, or coordinator class. A participatory economy has only workers and consumers cooperatively creatively fulfilling their capacities consistently with each participant having a fair share of influence.

It has remuneration for effort and sacrifice, which translates to remuneration for the duration, intensity, and harshness of the work people do. It rejects remuneration for power, property, or even output. Instead of gargantuan disparities of income and wealth, a participatory economy has a just distribution of social product.

It also does away with markets which pit each actor against all others, destroy solidarity, impose class division, mis-price all public goods, ignore collective effects beyond direct buyers and sellers, violate ecological balance and sustainability, and have many other faults as well. In place of markets it utilizes a system of workers and consumers, through their self managing councils, cooperatively negotiating inputs and outputs for all firms and actors in accord with true and full social costs and benefits of economic activities.

In a short article it is impossible to make even a quick much less a compelling case for an entirely different economic system. I can only offer a brief list of participatory economics’ values and institutions. I know such brevity is vague and hard for unfamiliar readers to give substance to. But here we have no room for clarification, supporting argument, or detailed discussion. My apologies.

What I hope, however, is that readers who know from their own experience that capitalist economies routinely cause us to fleece each other, deny us having a say over our own lives or force us to dominate the lives of others, distribute massive outputs to those who do the most pleasurable or even who do no work at all and distribute meager outputs to those who do the least pleasurable and the overwhelming volume of work, will hope that participatory economics is a real alternative.

I can hope, in other words, that instead of quietly accepting rich people’s passivity-inducing mantra that “there is no alternative,” we will all seek something better, beyond capitalism, and that, moved by our aspirations we will carefully consider participatory economics on its merits. One place that you might begin, if you don’t accept that humanity is forever doomed to suffer gross inequality and hierarchy via capitalist ownership, corporations, and markets, is at the Participatory Economics website.

It was my first week of high school. I was sitting in my 9^th grade global history class. Had the room not been since renovated, I could point to the exact seat where I had been sitting in. Mr. Denton, my high school’s principle, came on the loudspeaker. “Would everyone please listen? I have some very bad news. A short time ago a plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Shortly thereafter, a second plane crashed into the other tower. There are also reports that a plane has struck the Pentagon. While it is still too early to tell, it’s being said that the crashes may be part of an ongoing terrorist attack. Please do not panic, we will keep you updated as events unfold.”

My heart sank. I had no idea what was going on. I was confused, disoriented, and scared. As the day would unfold, the severity of the attacks and more would become clear. My confusion would quickly turn to sorrow and anger.

And we all know what happened next… The red alerts. The presidential speeches. The reoccurring images of towers falling and planes crashing. The firefighter funerals. The church services. The community memorials. The anthrax scares. The duct tape and plastic sheeting. The “department of homeland security”. The red, white and blue – and yellow – covering everything. The fear. The hate. The sadness. The terror. The “War on Terror…”

More than anything I needed more information. I was buying newspapers and magazines everyday. I was reading articles on the internet. Though for all my reading, it still didn’t seem to make sense. The gap between what they were telling us and what I saw before me seemed to get wider by the day. The concept that anyone could “hate us for our freedom” sounded utterly preposterous to me.

Then I found an article that did make sense. It’s the only article I remember reading now almost six and a half years after that horrible day. It was titled “September 11 and Its Aftermath”. It was written on September 17 and published sometime in October. I realized only recently, re-reading the article which I had long forgotten about, that it had been written by two people who I now consider friends and personal mentors – Mike Albert and Steve Shalom.

The article started by outlining some context to the situation, the possible actors (Osama bin Laden, al Qaida, the hijackers), and then continued to dissect a myriad of questions that I and many other Americans were asking. “What should be the U.S. response?”, “What should be the implications for people who ‘praised” the attacks?”, “What should the U.S. do to protect ourselves from future attacks?”, and many others. Most significantly, like Z writers do meticulously, they understood what caused and drove emotions and actions, and pushed people to try to sympathize and understand the pain of others. They tried to explain everything from the joy of some people around the world in response to the attacks to the hyper-patriotism and “flag-waving” at home – both elements which sickened some portions of the American population. They urged thoughtful reflection, careful, thorough investigation, and tolerance and restraint. They presented the exact message that I – and many others – needed to hear during that dark period.

After reading that article, though I had read previous ones from Z before, Z Magazine and ZNet would slowly become a huge part of my life.

I generally advocated for peace and human rights before 911 happened. I had been involved in some liberal and direct service groups before, though I never had much political analysis on a grand scale. I had gained much of my progressive roots from amazing teachers the previous few years – veterans, queers, women, and others who had roots in social justice movements.

Much of this gave me a strong hatred for individuals like Saddam Hussein; hatred which, again without Z and other progressive sources, might have led me astray during the invasion of Iraq. While I can’t admit to this day that I am sorry for Saddam’s rule being at an end, I am much more horrified by what has occurred in Iraq under U.S. military occupation.

Around the end of March in 2003, ZNet and Z Magazine published a statement against the attack on Iraq entitled “We Stand for Peace and Justice,” which had been collectively penned by many Z authors from around the world. As soon as I read it I immediately agreed with it and signed the online version of the statement. I think it and much of what Z Communications publishes is a testament to both its accessibility and its relevance. As a liberal I agreed with the statement then. As a radical progressive I still agree with it today. That says quite a lot. The statement still gets to the roots of what my politics are. Here’s what it said:

“I stand for peace and justice.

I stand for democracy and autonomy. I don’t think the U.S. or any other country should ignore the popular will and violate and weaken international law, seeking to bully and bribe votes in the Security Council.

I stand for internationalism. I oppose any nation spreading an ever expanding network of military bases around the world and producing an arsenal unparalleled in the world.

I stand for equity. I don’t think the U.S. or any other country should seek empire. I don’t think the U.S. ought to control Middle Eastern oil on behalf of U.S. corporations and as a wedge to gain political control over other countries.

I stand for freedom. I oppose brutal regimes in Iraq and elsewhere but I also oppose the new doctrine of “preventive war,” which guarantees permanent and very dangerous conflict, and is the reason why the U.S. is now regarded as the major threat to peace in much of the world. I stand for a democratic foreign policy that supports popular opposition to imperialism, dictatorship, and political fundamentalism in all its forms.

I stand for solidarity. I stand for and with all the poor and the excluded. Despite massive disinformation millions oppose unjust, illegal, immoral war, and I want to add my voice to theirs. I stand with religious and moral leaders all over the world, with world labor, and with the huge majority of the populations of countries throughout the world.

I stand for diversity. I stand for an end to racism directed against immigrants and people of color. I stand for an end to repression at home and abroad.

I stand for peace. I stand against this war and against the conditions, mentalities, and institutions that breed and nurture war and injustice.

I stand for sustainability. I stand against the destruction of forests, soil, water, environmental resources, and biodiversity on which all life depends.

I stand for justice. I stand against economic, political, and cultural institutions that promote a rat race mentality, huge economic and power inequalities, corporate domination even unto sweatshop and slave labor, racism, and gender and sexual hierarchies.

I stand for a policy that redirects the money used for war and military spending to provide healthcare, education, housing, and jobs.

I stand for a world whose political, economic, and social institutions foster solidarity, promote equity, maximize participation, celebrate diversity, and encourage full democracy.

I stand for peace and justice and, more, I pledge to work for peace and justice.”

One thing that has always struck me about Z is that it is, as it advocates, participatory. What I mean by this is that, while many other left publications take weeks, or months to respond to an e-mail or phone call (if they ever respond at all), Lydia, Andy, Chris and Michael, or any of the various Z writers, often respond with a day or so – sometimes even within a few hours. They encourage new people to write – often for their first time – publishing articles, event postings, and major calls to action for thousands of grassroots activists, organizers, and citizen journalists every year.

Most recently I attended Z’s June 2007 Z Media Institute (ZMI). ZMI was a tremendously enlightening and powerful experience for me. It is a nine day progressive summer school held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. At ZMI, we studied, learned, discussed and debated what a better society might look like, explored the rich history of radical social movements, and contemplated what type of strategic goals our movement would need to win a better society.

It was probably the most rigorous (and rewarding) educational experience of my life. While the content was outstanding, the unique component was the pedagogy. Education was combined with long-term friendship building. Utopian vision deconstructed cynicism and skepticism about possibilities for progress. Strategy and political analysis began to highlight what movement trends kept us from moving forward. The entire program was connected to the practice of grassroots organizers and organic intellectuals.

The Institute culminated in an evening session which asked the question: “Why Are We Radical?” The session highlighted what brings people to the Left and why the work we do is so important. The invisible stories about what drives people to action – veteran stories, stories about race, stories about gender and sexuality, stories about political repression and torture, stories about alienation, and mainstream institutions which limit personal development. Our stories of personal survival and struggle are the real stories of our movement, or our organizers, and of Z.

I was born exactly 21 years ago, and while I know I have so much to learn, I am comforted knowing that a growing community exists that not only shines light into the darkness, but believes that a world without darkness is actually achievable.

We can all support the efforts to strengthen and expand the Z Community. Now is the time to ask ourselves how much strong alternative news sources and left networks like Z mean to us.

As we begin a New Year:

Join Z. Write for Z. Donate to Z.

Let us do this that the resistance might not just live on, but rather, that we might finally know victory and that our children and grandchildren might live in an era of peace and justice.

www.zcommunications.org

The following is a review I wrote for ZNet on April 21, 2007. It’s one of my favorite books and super relevant for building powerful movements for social change. Check it out:

Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism, a memoir by Michael Albert, published by Seven Stories Press, is a must read for every young organizer serious about winning long-term, systematic change in the world. It critically analyzes the social movements of the past with the goal of building the stronger, more explosive and powerful movements of the future. Rather than ignoring persistent movement problems, it asks the hard questions that far too many experienced organizers avoid. Its look at the sixties and decades since, addressing culture, political events, and especially activist organizing, presents history not only honestly, but as we need it. Its focus on vision and strategy challenges our current over emphasis on only critique. Its exploration of what type of society we really want by way of historical examples and experiences is truly remarkable.

How can we bring more people into our movements; even make our movements gravitationally attractive and compelling? How can we make it easier for people in the movement to lead normal lives? How can we relate to new and broader audiences? How can we frame reforms in a radical context, and direct them towards future social gains? What role should militancy play in the movement? What might a revolution in the United States look like (and how can we get there)? All of these pressing questions, and many more, are addressed at length and in depth in the book. Albert walks readers through decades-worth of practical lessons that can be immediately applied to their own grassroots organizing; whether in schools, in workplaces or communities, or in youth and student organisations such as the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) or Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

He explains how by thinking strategically and focusing on vision, we can provide the inspiration needed to overcome cynicism, counter critics, and draw masses of people into the movement- retaining instead of losing them, with an ever growing commitment.

Remembering Tomorrow is a true gift to young leftists- providing the knowledge they need to begin a life-long journey of political organizing and radical change. It is a timely addition to left organizing- at a point when the need for energetic young organizers to join in the development of vision, not only within the economic sphere, but also for kinship, culture, politics, and education, is greater than ever before. While each lesson from Remembering Tomorrow can be a powerful tool in and of itself, the central message of the book- that vision and strategy can give people the inspiration to fight and as such should be central to movement organizing- is a lesson that each of us should bring to broader audiences. Michael presents this theme perfectly, saying:

“If a person thinks a society promoting solidarity, diversity, equity and self-management is potentially attainable, then for him or her to say it should be morally off the agenda and therefore that people should not try to define it, explain it and forcefully advocate for it, would be to say that humanity should stop progressing…”

The memoir follows Michael Albert’s life, from his college experiences as a young organizer with Students for a Democratic Society, to his work as a founder of South End Press, and finally to the creation Zmag and Znet, and the development of Participatory Economics (Parecon)- the visionary post-capitalist economic model- with Robin Hahnel. It incorporates lessons not only from Albert’s life, but also from the lives of his friends, classmates, and fellow organizers. Drawing on his experiences at each stage of his life, Michael explores the positives and negatives of many trends in activist organizing- with an eye towards improving how we build movements. Analysing how we could forge a powerful Left formation- and what that would look like and require from us- is something that we do far too seldom.

While exploring the book, readers are engaged with diverse organizing experiences- from student organising at MIT, UMass Amherst, and the Harvard Education School, to teaching in schools, prisons, and eventually at Z Media Institute (ZMI)- a leftist summer institute. They will gain tremendous insights in the field of independent publishing and media, following Albert’s major role in South End Press, Z Magazine, ZNet, and Z Media Institute. Albert brings readers into his life, taking them around New England, the United States, and the globe; from his life as a student organiser, to his work as a lifelong author, activist, movement strategist, and visionary anticapitalist- at each step along the way, sharing with them his successes and failings, his insights and uncertainties.

Remembering Tomorrow provides countless examples of where strategic action could have yielded vastly different outcomes- from what was learned organising with SDS to that organisation’s tragic death; from the civil rights movement to the movement against the War in Vietnam; and from the Women’s Movement to advocacy for an entirely different form of visionary economic system. Albert is always up front where the movement could have acted more strategically, and his role in those actions, be they successes or failures.

Taking it further, Michael explores how Participatory Economics could be the economic basis for a future society; a society whereby humans could organize an advanced industrial society in a manner which promotes solidarity, diversity, equity, self-management and efficiency. Weaving together issues of sex, gender, race, and class, of what has been and of what could be, of people and their lives, places and their conflicts, and events and their implications, all culled from personal experiences, makes for a wonderfully human book that is also inspiring and edifying.

All-in-all Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism sheds light on many of the movements of the past; renewing debate on many so-called “settled” issues, and starting new discussions on the issues that many leftists fail to address. It serves as both an extraordinary introduction for new leftists and a sobering wakeup call for experienced ones. I recommend it for all those who are serious about struggling to win a better world.

Note: Readers who enjoy Remembering Tomorrow and wish to further explore the need for our movements to develop vision and strategy, should also consider reading ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, and Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism and visiting Zmag.org

by Michael Albert

Toward the end of last Summer I spoke at a National Green gathering about “movement building.” My initial idea was to discuss the progressive and left community’s outreach problem. We try to reach potential allies in society and to “reel them in” to full participation. Not enough people hear us. Our outreach problem involves our organizing methods, campaigns, and demands and how they appeal to people, but also our need for “a megaphone” loud enough to reach beyond audiences already seeking us out—our own progressive mass media.

But as I thought about movement building, I realized there was another problem that was even worse than outreach because it was more debilitating and we had less excuse for it. Think of the progressive/left community as a team, if you will, fighting against both apathy and outright support for the status quo. Call it Team Change. Size isn’t the only variable affecting Team Change’s strength, for sure, but without numbers we aren’t going far so we must reach out more widely. But as we do reach out and get people’s attention or involvement, do we then keep them committed? Call this the “Stickiness Problem.”

To win fundamental change, and that is our purpose, not solely to play well, Team Change needs a force field that draws potential team members steadily leftward ever more strongly the closer it attracts them. First a person hears about some facet of Team Change. There is an attraction, however slight. As the person is drawn closer the attraction must increase to offset counter pressures from society to avoid Team Change lest the person get away. Once a person joins Team Change, the attraction should sustain permanent membership.

Do we have this kind of community seeking change? To decide, we can look at (1) the historical experience that Team Change has had with potential recruits in the past, and (2) the characteristics of Team Change to see whether its attractive force escalates as people get closer to steady involvement.

Consider the past 30 years. How many people have heard about, come into contact with, worked with, or become part of Team Change who no longer have anything much to do with it? The number, I think, is in the millions, perhaps ten million. Remember this includes folks from the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the women’s movement. It includes those who have been No Nukers, in green movements, and in student movements. It includes everyone who has worked in truly progressive local projects and struggles of all kinds and in various left electoral campaigns. Anyone who has taken a course from a radical faculty person, read a left book, or been part of the anti Gulf War movement, the anti-apartheid movement, or the various Latin American solidarity movements counts. So do those who have been in gay and lesbian movements, in pro choice campaigns, in community and consumer movements, and in union organizing campaigns, labor struggles, anti-racist campaigns, strikes and boycotts, and also people who have gone to talks or demonstrations, listened to progressive radio or read progressive periodicals. Ten million is conservative. And of all these millions of people how many are still an active part of Team Change?

When I faced up to this gap between those reached and those actively involved, while preparing my talk for a very small Green National Convention, I was shocked. If you think in terms of a year or two, the left’s outreach problem seems paramount. How do we get beyond the choir? But if you think about a decade or two, the left’s stickiness problem demands attention. I’m being a little cute with the analogy and labels, yes, but this gap between possibility and actuality is at the heart of our prospects for social change.

Let’s come at it from another angle. Why should someone, once attracted to the logic, dynamics, behaviors, and programs of the progressive/left community, stick to it? Conversely, why do people feel steadily less attachment as time passes, only to finally return to the mainstream?

Well, think of a person getting more and more involved with progressive ideas and activity. Does this person merge into a growing community of people who make him feel more secure and appreciated? Does she get a growing sense of personal worth and of contribution to something valuable? Does he enjoy a sense of accomplishment? Does she have her needs better met than before? Does his life get better? Does it seem that she is making a contribution to improving others lives, as well?

Or, conversely, does this person meet a lot of other people who continually question his motives and behaviors, making him feel insecure and constantly criticized? Does she feel diminishing personal worth and doubt that what she is doing is making a difference for anyone? Does he suspect there is little accomplished, and no daily, weekly, or monthly evidence of progress? Does she have needs that were previously met, now unmet, and few new ones addressed? Is his life getting more frustrating, less enjoyable? Does it seem she is only bothering other people, rarely doing anything meaningful on their behalf? Does he find himself ever less aware of what “the left” is or stands for, repulsed by its vague, or bitter attributes rather than attracted to its clarity, insights, and success?

You might ask different questions than I have, but I think the point is clear enough. The stickiness problem is graphically defined.

Let’s stretch the Team Change analogy. Imagine a football, baseball, basketball, or soccer team. Whether it is high school, college, or professional doesn’t matter. Suppose it doesn’t improve its results as time passes. At some point the coach looks at the choices made, the strategies used, the norms employed and says, hold on, we have to make some corrections.

Okay, our Team Change has no coach and it needs to be participatory and democratic, so being self-critical is everyone’s responsibility. But Team Change must also play to win if it is concerned with more than mere posturing. And that means we need to reassess how we organize ourselves, the culture of our movements, what we learn as we become more committed, how we interrelate, and what benefits and responsibilities we have due to our political involvement. The alternative to doing much better regarding “movement stickiness” is another long losing season…two or three decades worth, I think, which, unlike for inflexible high school, college, and professional ball clubs, means hundreds of millions of lives unnecessarily ended for want of our greater success and final victory.

Let me put it this way. Being right about what’s wrong with society and why it is wrong, and even being able to convey all this to wide audiences, just isn’t enough. Movements must be clear about goals and strategy to retain a sense of purpose, confidence, identity, and integrity in the face of critique. They have to be structured and function in ways that not only enlarge but retain membership, and that not only contribute to change but do so clearly in all members’ eyes. They have to not only attack problems, but to meet needs for members and populations more broadly, and they have to win victories that meet needs but also create the conditions for still more victories to follow. The absence of all this is our stickiness problem.

I have my own notions about the causes of the problem having to do with our lack of compelling guiding vision and strategy, our unclear class allegiances, and our continuing inability to combine respect for desirable autonomies and for essential solidarities both in a single encompassing movement. Others will have different notions. Can we at least agree that a priority is to enumerate the possibilities, assess them, and then develop clear plans for how to do better in the coming years? If we don’t manage this much, I fear we will be running in ever narrowing circles with a movement of diehards rather than astute social critics.

Michael Albert, co-editor of Z, is the author of numerous books on economics, vision, and strategy.

“We are all butterflies walking. We may wear gold shoes. We may wear no shoes at all. In either case, it doesn’t have to be this way. As in 1965, so too now. We can escape the institutions that clip our wings. We can bring the ship in. That’s how it seems to me, at any rate, looking forward to tomorrow…” - Michael Albert, Remembering Tomorrow, A Memoir