An exchange between John Griffin and Takis Fotopoulos
on pragmatic "anarchism" and the Inclusive Democracy project
Total Liberty review, vol. 2, no. 1 (1999)
Dodgy Logic and the Olympians
by JOHN GRIFFIN
Towards an Inclusive Democracy by Takis Fotopoulos 1997.
380 pages published by Cassell, 55 hardback, 18.99 paperback
Whilst considering this book and Richard
Griffin's (no relation) article in TL4 about science and
“postmodernism,” my thoughts strayed to the earliest of the
ancient Greek philosophers, those who came before Socrates.
A good deal of what they had to say really lay in the realm
of science, as we would now call it, for their purpose was
to grasp what made the world tick. As the centuries
unfolded, the sciences developed as separate branches of
enquiry, and philosophy increasingly concerned itself with
how we humans fitted into the world, that is with mind.
Faced with contemporary disasters like Marxism and nuclear
bombs, one branch of “postmodernism” has made the separation
with science the more emphatic by expressing disenchantment
and even hostility towards it.
I persist in using the inverted commas
because I'm not sure what “postmodernism” is. If it were
limited to a critique of the philosophy and science spawned
by our authoritarian cultures ― the inhuman bigness,
reductionism and needless gadgetry ― I would have no quarrel
with it. Richard and others however, go further and cast
doubt upon the scientific method itself. To give creedence
to a dodgy logic, in my view tending toward Nihilism and
Luddism, Richard then turns to science (!) and enlists
Chaos/ Complexity theory (CT) to support his argument. Yet
CT has none of the vacuousness of “postmodernism”: we are
talking about very practical hard science. Because it
handles randomness, rejects reductionism and embraces
holism, CT is not “less certain,” it is good science.
Furthermore, to me personally it is exciting, it makes me
feel that my philosophy "works" because it moves as the
world moves, thereby going some way to reconciling “mind” ―
my mind at least ― with everything else, a symbiosis between
Anarchism and cutting edge science.
With this rather heady methodology at the
back of my mind, I focused upon the economics contained in
“Towards an Inclusive Democracy,” here is a set of proposals
so determinedly “modern” as to constitute a “blueprint” of a
revolutionary future. The book is well organised, accessible
(if you can afford it) and clearly written. Earlier chapters
are critiques of capitalist development, state socialism and
the ecological crisis. Assuming readers to be too familiar
with these matters, I’ll pass on quickly to the positive
proposals, elaborated upon in much detail in the latter
pages.
The broad outline encompasses the
familiar system of recallable delegates applied to workplace
assemblies, local community assemblies and a confederal
assembly. These are to function together in a society which
is stateless, moneyless and in harmony with the natural
world. With consumption to be directly related to need,
there is a powerful whiff of anarchist communism here but I
can’t see many communists being enthused by the more
detailed proposals ― as has so often been the case in the
past things begin to unravel once you look at the economics.
Having been told there is to be no money
or market, we learn that the factories etc are to be “owned”
by the general community, and “leased” to the “employees”
for a “long-term contract.” Passing over these confusions in
terminology ― Fotopoulos is principally concerned with
resolving the problem of community control ― there is also
to be a means of exchange which is not money. Access to
goods is to be through the use of a voucher system.
The economy is to be split into a basic
sector (food, clothes etc) and a non-basic sector
(lollipops, CDs etc); basic and non-basic vouchers are to be
used accordingly. People with special needs, the disabled
for instance, will be able to have them met directly by
presentation of the appropriate vouchers. The issue of the
vouchers, together with the number of hours of work required
for the production of goods, is to be determined by the
various assemblies; supply and demand are thereby to be kept
in balance. The core idea is that Fotopoulos proposes
ongoing economic planning meetings, to replace the billions
of decisions made by individuals in the market, and instead
of tax and benefit arrangements for welfare. It is hoped
that contemporary co-ops and LETS may act as stepping stones
towards these ends.
My objections to these truly sweeping
proposals are as follows:
1) The voucher system is intentionally
less flexible than a cash economy. Heavily bureaucratic, it
is burdened by additional operating costs, and likely to
collapse under the weight of all those meetings.
2) The vouchers will clearly regulate
demand and consumption, but one wonders how exchanges
between factories and suppliers of raw materials would be
affected. What form does capital for investment take, and
how is overseas trade to be carried out? Only the later
problem is dealt with, and dismissed in three lines, with
vague talk of “bilateral or multilateral agreements.”
3) Fotopoulos rejects not only the
market, tending, perhaps deliberately to confuse it with the
capitalist market, but also the gift economy. Yet totally
unregulated expressions of mutual aid have always made a
valuable contribution to the economy and to social life
generally. Why throw it all away?
4) Having made a commitment to the
ecological society, there is no discussion of what might
constitute sustainable levels of consumption, but the
voucher system could obviously be used to ration goods.
5) The key reason for using the vouchers
is to make the hoarding of capital, and therefore a
reversion to capitalism, impossible; but psycho-social
tendencies like power seeking and greed, are surely not
going to be “engineered” out of existence by monkeying
around with the currency.
I found “Towards an Inclusive Democracy”
to be strongly reminiscent of “Workers Councils and the
economics of the Self-Managed Society” by Cornelius
Castoriadis, 1972, and “Social Anarchism” by Giovanni
Baldelli, 1971. What is astounding to me, as a practical
man, is that anyone can be so reckless as to propose
throwing away all the pieces of the existing economic
jigsaw, in favour of just one untried system, yet Fotopoulos
follows the above writers and does just that. All seem blind
to the fact that the market, and the informal unregulated
economy, are concrete realities because they work, and have
been working effectively for centuries ― since the Greeks in
fact. Do these people ― note the Greek names of two of them
― sense an Olympian greatness flowing in their veins as they
take up their pens and fresn sheets of paper? I have my
tongue in cheek here, but you can see what I mean.
Libertarian economics is desperately
under theorised. The gap will not be filled with
“postmodernist” waffle, but is surely an error to contrive
narrow, reductionist models like that of Fotopoulos, in the
belief that they are theoretically rigorous. As I've tried
to make clear, modern science, some of it at least, suggests
multi-stranded, flexible, practise based ideas, but why
should some anarchists wish to follow other paths?
Total Liberty, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Summer 2000)
Pragmatic
"Anarchism" or
Anarchism? ― A response to John Griffin
By TAKIS FOTOPOULOS
John Griffin’s
review of my book Towards An Inclusive Democracy
(Cassell, 1997) ― Total Liberty (Vol. 2, No. 1,
summer 1999) ― is so full of distortions and
misrepresentations that one wonders whether this is due to a
deliberate attack by a “pragmatic” anarchist or just to the
fact that the author never went further than reading a
couple of chapters of it (which he also manages to
misrepresent)! This is obvious from the author’s decision to
ignore the entire first part of the book, on the grounds
that “earlier chapters are critiques of capitalist
development, state socialism and the ecological crisis;
assuming readers to be too familiar with these matters, I'll
pass on quickly to the positive proposals, elaborated upon
in much detail in the latter pages.” All this, when the
first part was not just a critique of capitalist development
as he (mis)represents it, but an attempt to devise an
alternative libertarian economics on the emergence of the
market economy and its development into the present
internationalised market economy — an economics which is
based on power relations rather than the usual Marxist
categories. As the same author in an earlier issue of TL
(Vol. 1, No. 3) was lamenting the fact that in libertarian
theory “there is no thorough going economics, just
smatterings from Baldelli and Castoriadis,” it is really
strange that when he came across the first modern attempt at
the development of a libertarian economics he did not manage
to perceive it as such.
However, this
fact may not be as strange as it looks prima facie.
His concluding statement below is not only a monument of
errors and distortions, but also indicative of the sort of
pragmatic "anarchism" its author suggests:
I found
“Towards an Inclusive Democracy” to be strongly
reminiscent of “Workers Councils and the economics of
the Self-Managed Society” by Cornelius Castoriadis,
1972, and “Social Anarchism” by Giovanni Baldelli, 1971.
What is astounding to me, as a practical man, is that
anyone can be so reckless as to propose throwing away
all the pieces of the existing economic jigsaw, in
favour of just one untried system, yet Fotopoulos
follows the above writers and does just that. All seem
blind to the fact that the market, and the informal
unregulated economy, are concrete realities because they
work, and have been working effectively for centuries ―
since the Greeks in fact.
I will list the
errors/ distortions in this statement.
I. The economic
model proposed by Castoriadis has almost nothing in common
with the Inclusive Democracy model since the former
presupposes a real market and money economy whereas the
latter, following the anarchist/ libertarian tradition is
explicitly based on a moneyless, marketless and stateless
economy.
II. The model
suggested by Baldelli differs significantly from the
Inclusive Democracy model, as I made obvious in the book in
which I only used one idea from Baldelli (assessing
desirability for each type of work) which I expanded and
changed into a complex index of desirability.
III. An even
stronger example of his reckless reading, however, is his
statement that, following Castoriadis and Baldelli in
rejecting the market (which he adopts as a concrete reality
“because it works”!), I tend “perhaps deliberately to
confuse it with the capitalist market.” All this when I
spent a significant part of the first chapter of the book
drawing the crucial difference between markets, (which
indeed did exist for centuries) and the system of the market
economy ― which is a broader term for capitalism ― and only
has a history of two centuries!
As I make clear
in the book, the reason I argue for a moneyless, stateless,
marketless economy is based on the historical analysis
offered in the first part of the book which shows that
today’s market economies have nothing to do with the
pre-‘market economies’ (i.e. pre-capitalist) markets. Since
the time of the industrial revolution, the socially
controlled markets of the past have been converted into the
systems of market economies of today for the reasons I
explain in the book. Therefore, any current talk about going
back to pre-industrial markets which would be socially
controlled etc betrays a complete lack of understanding of
the dynamic of the market economy, which has inevitably led
to the present globalised (or better internationalised)
market economy. The establishment of a true economic
democracy securing equal distribution of economic power
among all citizens is incompatible with markets, money and
states. It seems however that Griffin’s “pragmatic”
anarchism (and unfortunately this characterises several
people in the British anarchist movement) can live with a
market economy based on money ― a stand which is not that
different from the one supported by the demoralised Left
today!
No wonder that
Griffin supports the need for a money economy on the grounds
that “psycho-social tendencies like power seeking and greed,
are surely not going to be "engineered" out of existence by
monkeying around with the currency” (point 5 of his specific
comments). It seems that for “pragmatic” anarchists people
are born greedy and are not made greedy by the money/ market
economy, as libertarians used to believe before the
discovery of pragmatic “anarchism.” If this is anarchism,
one wonders, why bother with it and not join, instead, the
left wing of the Labour party. This way we would be even
more “effective,” and effectiveness seems to be the litmus
test for any theory of action, as far as this sort of
pragmatic “anarchism” is concerned.
To return to the
book, the first part, which was ignored by my reviewer, is
critical in understanding the second part. This is because
the proposal for an inclusive democracy is not just another
utopian libertarian proposal. It is seen as perhaps the only
way out of the present crisis which, as this part of the
book shows, is due to the concentration of power at all
levels to which the present system based on the market
economy and the nation-state has led us.
In the rest of
this response, being conscious of the space constraints, I
will try to deal briefly with some of the specific points of
“criticism” raised by John Griffin.
1. It is an
absolute distortion that the core idea of the libertarian
model of the economy proposed by the book is “ongoing
economic planning meetings, to replace the billions of
decisions made by individuals in the market,” and that the
voucher system, which is characterised as “heavily
bureaucratic,” is burdened by additional operating costs,
and “likely to collapse under the weight of all those
meetings.” In fact, the opposite is the case! The voucher
system has been proposed as an effective way of replacing
the real market ― which is singularly unable to meet the
needs of all citizens (in fact, the majority of world
citizens) ― with an artificial market. A way which avoids
the bureaucracy of the planning mechanism and at the same
time secures freedom of choice and the meeting of the needs
of all citizens. The billions of decisions Griffin refers to
will still be made by individuals, through vouchers, and
only the overall allocation of resources will be decided by
the assemblies. It seems, however, that the pragmatic
“anarchism” of John Griffin cannot do without money and
markets, despite the fact that most important anarchist
writers, from Bakunin and the other classical anarchists in
the past, to Bookchin today, have always talked about a
moneyless and marketless economy!
2. As regards the
question of how the exchanges between factories on raw
materials etc would be effected and what form investment
would take, I have described in the book (p. 267) the
general principles behind the way in which the production of
such “intermediate goods” and technology would be
determined.
3. I never
“rejected” the gift economy, as my critic asserts. People
can use the goods they obtain by means of non-basic vouchers
for whatever purpose they like, including, of course, the
expression of mutual aid. What I ruled out was a “moral”
economy which does not provide for any mechanism of
allocation of scarce resources because I think that such an
economy belongs to the communist fiction of a post-scarcity
society.
4. The reason why
“there is no discussion of what might constitute sustainable
levels of consumption” is that this cannot be determined in
advance, without knowledge of the specific circumstances and
the time/ place constraints. This is a decision to be taken
democratically by citizens’ assemblies and I have explained
in the book why the institutional framework of an inclusive
democracy is highly likely to raise the level of ecological
consciousness. This is so because, in contrast to today’s
market/ money institutional framework (which pragmatic
“anarchists” do not reject), in an inclusive democracy there
will be no institutional pressures for the production/
reproduction of a growth economy.
In conclusion, I
would like to stress that, to my mind, it is not accidental
that British anarchists have for the most part either
ignored or attacked the inclusive democracy project, as has
been expressed in the book Towards An Inclusive Democracy
(which has already been published in Italian and Greek and
is being translated into Spanish) as well as in Democracy
& Nature: The Journal of Inclusive Democracy, of which
five volumes have been published (15 issues of about 220
pages each). The reason is that British anarchism is
unfortunately dominated by “pragmatist” or irrationalist
tendencies, which are inimical to any idea of a radical
remaking of society on the basis of a genuine democracy. But
it is at least ironic that the same people who lament the
desperate “under theorisation” of libertarian economics
should dismiss and attack an attempt (as far as I know the
only attempt at the moment) to remedy this, not by engaging
in a rational debate about it but by simply distorting and
misrepresenting it!
Takis Fotopoulos
Editor, Democracy & Nature: The Journal of
Inclusive Democracy
Total Liberty, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Autumn 2000)
Dear Editor
Takis Fotopoulos feels that I have misrepresented his book,
“Towards an Inclusive Democracy,” when I reviewed it in the
Summer ‘99 issue. However, T.F. has not properly answered my
criticisms and I stand by them, excepting only the comments
on the gift economy. I welcome T.F.’s confirmation of its
usefulness, and apologise for my misreading of page 270. We
are also united in rejecting Bookchin’s post-scarcity
economics.
It is good to see more contributions to the economics
debate, but I do not have to agree with them, especially
when the proposals are as far removed from established
practice as are those of T.F. The scope and complexity of
his book makes it difficult to review comprehensively, and I
did make it clear that I had concentrated on his alternative
economics. I thought that T.F.'s reply only confirmed his
muddled thinking concerning the nature of the market and
social/ psychological structures.
T.F. must be confusing “Workers Councils” by Castoriadis
with some other, maybe later work; based on Marx’s Labour
theory of Value, it hardly depicts what T.F! calls a “real
market.” Castoriadis wants to use “tokens,” T.F. wants
“vouchers” and Baldelli wants “credits.” All three use
economic planning via various assemblies, none use cash or
market mechanisms. Such a viewpoint cuts across communist,
collectivist and individualist positions, so the
unpopularity of T.F.’s book is hardly surprising. That said,
it and the others referred to are unique and should be read.
What is surprising is T.F.’s suspicion of my part in some
conspiracy against his work. I resent this, as well as his
grotesque portrayal of my views as being comparable with
those of the Labour Left. What rubbish! The Spring 2000
issue of Total Liberty, which carries T.F.’s reply also has
an article of mine which links anarchist shortcomings in
economics with sectarianism …depressing.
Yours
John Griffin
Total Liberty, Vol. 3, No. 1 (autumn 2001)
Dear Editor,
It is depressing indeed to see
self-declared anarchists like John Griffin (TL, Autumn 2000)
not only misrepresenting my attempt in Towards An
Inclusive Democracy to renew libertarian thought on
economics and to revive the discussion of a liberatory
project but, even when caught doing so, coming back and
asserting ― without a shred of evidence ― that I have not
properly answered his criticisms and that he stands by them.
This fact alone would leave no doubt that his
misrepresentation of the book, far from being accidental or
due to a mistaken reading, was in fact a deliberate
distortion of it by a “pragmatic” anarchist (readers can
decide for themselves by reading the exchange in its
entirety rather than in instalments if they visit the
Democracy & Nature’ website <www.geocities.com/democracy_nature>
in which the complete exchange is hosted). This of course
does not mean that I think there exists “some conspiracy
against my work” as JG would want the readers of Total
Liberty to believe. The misrepresentation of ideas doesn’t
have to be part of some “dark” conspiracy: the mere will to
silence any serious liberatory project, that doesn’t add up
to pragmatic “anarchism,” is enough.
But what is entertaining is that whereas
JG admits that he rejects my proposals because they are “far
removed from established practice,” at the same time he
protests about my “grotesque portrayal of (his) views as
being comparable with those of the Labour Left.” However, my
comparison of his pragmatic “anarchism” to the Labour Left
(as it used to be) is not related to the issue of a
transitional strategy, which obviously has to take the
existing system for granted ― on this we agree. My
comparison is based on the fact that JG also rejects my
proposal (based on the dominant tradition in the anarchist
movement since the time of Bakunin) for a future society
founded on a stateless, marketless, moneyless economy, on
the grounds that, as he puts it, “psycho-social tendencies
like power seeking and greed, are surely not going to be
"engineered" out of existence by monkeying around with the
currency.” I assume that anarchist readers would find it
very hard indeed to see what the difference is between a
“pragmatic” anarchism which takes the system of the market
and money economy for granted and, for instance, what Tony
Benn has always preached!
As for my supposed “muddled thinking
concerning the nature of the market” it is obvious that JG
is unable to understand that today’s market economy is in
fact the inevitable outcome of the evolution of a system
that was established two hundred years ago, and that markets
and money are inseparable characteristics of this system
(the pre-capitalist markets existing before the emergence of
this system have nothing to do with the present market
economy ― see for instance Polanyi) and not options that we
may adopt in a libertarian society. Furthermore, unable to
see that the book offers a new method of economic regulation
(for a sophisticated contemporary economy) based on economic
democracy, he proposes to keep the markets and money,
ignoring their dynamic towards the concentration of economic
power. The reason for this is, as he puts it, that “they
have been working effectively for centuries” ― minus (one
may add) the starvation of almost half the Earth’s
population and the present ecological destruction!.
Finally, as regards my “confusion” of
Castoriadis’ Workers’ Councils with his adoption of a real
market, Castoriadis implicitly assumed a real market in this
work (see my exchange with David Ames Curtis (D&N, Vol. 5,
No. 1, March 1999) and he explicitly made this clear in a
later work (Radical Philosophy, Vol. 56, Autumn 1990). As
far as JG’s attempt to degrade my book by talking about its
“unpopularity,” I wonder where he got his information
because, according to my information, the book was not only
successful in the Anglo-Saxon world and has also been
published in Italian and Greek and translated into Spanish
(as I mentioned in my previous reply to him), but it is
currently being translated into German, while a French
version of it is due to be published by Seuil of Paris ― all
of them during 2001 (I hope that my defence against JG’s
unsubstantiated claims will not give him the idea to come
back blaming me for “advertising” my book!).
Yours
Takis Fotopoulos