self-management, anarchism and democracy

Self-Management, Anarchism and Democracy (1993) by Donald A. R. George

via 11 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/donald-a-r-george-self-management-anarchism-and-democracy]

notes/quotes:

3

1 – intro

Economic ideas do not exist in a political and ideological vacuum and it is therefore *important to consider how the idea of self-management is related to various broader ideologies and to ask which ideologies, if any, provide a basis from which self-management as an economic system can rationally be supported. ..This, in turn, leads to an analysis of **how self-management might be promoted in existing societies. These are the issues dealt with here.

*unless ie: bachelard oikos law ness.. keeping the confines of economy ness (aka: any form of m\a\p) is not ie: broad aka: deep enough

**if talking self manage as in free people.. as in the dance: the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

Self-management can provide a new form of social ownership which could generate a desirable and viable alternative to both private and public enterprise as at present understood.

so.. along with self manage ness.. you’re assuming money.. and all the forms of m\a\p.. ooof.. cancerous distraction

4

2 – anarchism

It might be argued that economic self-management is a form of social organisation consistent with the ideology of anarchism, the fundamental principle of which is the rejection of authority, with the possible exception of ‘natural authority’, exercised by persuasion or force of example.

oi.. grazie anarchy vs archy ness

5

The worker is always free to leave the firm (slavery being prohibited) and to seek employment in an alternative firm or even to start a new firm.

if still working ness.. still slavery ness.. oi..

Anarcho-communists, unlike the Marxists with whom they argued so vigorously, place great weight on a particular notion of human nature. ..Firstly the ‘natural’ relationship between human beings is one of cooperation and solidarity rather than competition and aggression.

actually.. coop and solidarity ness are same song as competition and aggression.. irrelevant s (so cancerous distractions) to the dance

he often mentioned difficulties of decision taking without coercive management would be of little significance if the anarcho-communists’ view of human nature is correct.

lots of things would be/become irrelevant s.. if we could/would just get out of sea world.. hari rat park law.. et al

6

Anarcho-communists would not accept the idea of self-managed firms competing with each other in a system of markets. Neither, for obvious reasons, would they accept state command planning. *There remains, therefore, the problem of coordinating economic activity both in the sense of imposing consistency on the decisions of countless different producers and in the sense of transmitting to producers the wishes of consumers. Anarcho-communists have frequently argued that replacing capitalism with an anarchist society would release a vast productive potential hitherto repressed by capitalism. The consequent increase in productivity would make goods available in much greater abundance than was the case under capitalism. Moreover, capitalism creates many artificial wants (perhaps through activities such as advertising and marketing). For these reasons anarcho-communists have often argued that the problem of economic coordination would be very much less serious in an anarchist society than it is under capitalism. Nonetheless,the anarcho-communists’ solutions to the problem of economic coordination have been somewhat vague, to say the least, though some notion of their solutions can be derived from their attempts to implement their ideas in practice.

*imposing consistency on decisions.. oooof.. and.. rather.. wishes of whales who buy things as cope\ing mech ness..

While there have been countless experiments in anarchist-inspired communal living, from Godwin to the present-day post-hippy generation, perhaps the most interesting was related to the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in pre-Civil War Spain. Well over one thousand collectives were formed both in agriculture and industry and were responsible for a substantial proportion of the output of the Spanish economy. *Within each collective goods were sometimes simply placed in a large storehouse and each member allowed to take whatever he or she needed. S..*The anarchist ideal of reciprocal giving met with little success in practice and was usually replaced by barter or straightforward cash transactions, both forms of market activity.

*yeah.. something like that.. ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. [again].. for (blank)’s sake..

**not ideal if still reciprocity ing

3 – marxism

7

There remains the question as to whether self-management can be regarded as a stable system or whether it must ultimately transmute into capitalism or state socialism. Marxists have tended to place the emphasis here on the role of markets, sometimes suggesting that any introduction of markets into a socialist economy will lead to a reversion to capitalism, regardless of the nature of the individual enterprise (see, for example, Bettelheim, 1976). It follows from this position that self-managed firms will not survive for long in a market economy. It has often been argued that self-managed firms within a market economy will ultimately be forced into behaviour and organisational patterns indistinguishable from those of capitalist firms. This proposition is often referred to as the ‘degeneration thesis’. It is worth noting that Marxists have traditionally viewed socialism as a transition stage and argued that the state will eventually ‘wither away’, leading to communism. This view was developed by the Yugoslav communists (among others). It leads Marxists to a position not dissimilar to that of the anarcho-communists and with the same central difficulty. How is economic activity to be coordinated without markets or a plan?

4 – democracy

8

 It is the question of democracy and its extension from the political to the economic sphere which must lie at the heart of any analysis of the relationship between self-management and the various broader ideologies.

ooof.. whalespeak

5 – politics

10

The introduction of a self-managed sector into existing economies would require government intervention. It will be a theme of this book that, in capitalist societies, this intervention will have to be largely in the capital mark

then not the dance.. not the unconditional part of left to own devices ness as self manage ness

11

6 – conclusions

Self-management then can rationally be supported from many different ideological perspectives. *There is some reason to believe that it accords well with the ideology of anarchism, particularly in its ‘Left’ or anarcho-communist variant. ..The viewpoint of participatory democracy provides a powerful basis from which to advocate self-management since it can be seen as a natural extension of democracy from the political to the economic sphere. .. Governments wishing to introduce a self-managed sector would have to be prepared to intervene politically to balance the interests of various pressure groups such as professional managers and trade unions, in addition to making any economic intervention which may be required.

*then from words here.. then neither ‘self manage’ ness nor ‘anarchism’ ness are about legit free people

______

_____

______

_____

______

_____

_____

___