It seems obvious enough that the proponents of Parecon will need adherents before this economic vision can be fulfilled in any large economy. Thus, any serious strategy for attaining a non-coercive, solidaric economy has to answer a huge question: What about labor? It's well and good that there are certain radical groups committed to the Parecon model, and even better that some have decided to implement it. But these are only on the fringes of society. Currently, those people who are either members of or support organized labor should be at the top of the list of those who might be attracted to a participatory economics system.

For those committed to the Parecon vision, it won't do to simply set up new economic structures along Parecon lines or convince radicals of Parecon's merits. This overlooks many people who, by their affiliation with unions, have shown that they at least have an inkling of class concerns. It's possible that non-unionized workers would be more susceptible to Parecon influence, but I doubt it.

And if we grant that we should get organized labor on board with Parecon, this raises another question: What sort of tactics should labor advocate? Should unionists simply use the established channels--in other words, union bureaucracy and legal battles--to win Parecon gains? I don't think so.

First, this approach would be problematic because the dominant unions--the AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc.--have structures that replicate corporate divisions of labor and heirarchy. This subverts Parecon values. Further, corporate structures and capitalism generally are resilient enough to resist sweeping reforms advocated by the mainstream unions.

Second, if unions integrate themselves into the establishment and follow conventional norms, becoming what's called "pragmatic" on the assumption that it's the only way to get things done, they send a message to corporations and the state saying that they are dependent on them in order to function. And in fact, they do become dependent. Quoting the IWA:

...It is like eating cheese in a mouse trap, you get immediate "advantages", but in practice you are caught!

The capitalists and the state need predictable opponents being dependent on the legal framework, structures, and subsidies. All in order to direct, control, reduce, split and eventually crush the organisations.

source: Defence of the IWA and anarchosyndicalism. Sept. 11, 2006 

We cannot have libertarian social transformation unless libertarian values guide it the whole way. For those that work for the major corporations, rather than outside them, they will have to adopt different tactics than the conventional ones that masquerade as reform but are really forms of class collaboration.

Certain strategies come to mind: wildcat strikes, slow-downs, occupations, sabotage, expropriation, propaganda efforts, etc. In other words, methods of anarcho-syndicalism seem appropriate for Parecon advocates, still forced to work within corporate systems, to subvert those systems in order to bring them in line with Parecon vision.

Of course, at the same time those actors should also not lose sight of Parecon's other emphases on kinship, polity, and intercommunalism. These are important. But many of the elements of the strategy that emerges, I think, would overlap with anarcho-syndicalist methods.

At least, this is my thought process explaining why syndicalism is, in an important sense, a strategy compatible with Parecon values (or, at least, for certain actors - in this case, those radicals working for corporations). I realize I'm playing fast and loose with much of this, but it's really just an idea I wanted to throw out there to discuss.

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved