The following fictional text deals with the question of how people should reasonably decide. In the text, various figures appear who, from their respective perspectives, attempt to clarify the value of participatory self-management. Democratic theory, communitarianism, autonomy and self-determination, ethical pluralism and justice, and, last but not least, discourse ethics are the five philosophical schools that each attempt to substantiate the value of participatory self-governance.
Characters:
Michael Albert
Michael Albert has been a constant participant in the project of bringing about another world for decades. Politically, he came out of the new left of the 1960s. After founding various organizations, teaching, writing and activism, he is now mainly the operator of the podcast RevolutionZ, emeritus collaborator on the ZNet project and a member of the still very young organization RealUtopia, as well as a frequent author. With Robin Hahnel, he co-authored the economic vision of Participatory Economy and is a tireless advocate of this and the broader vision of Participatory Society.
Nancy Fraser
Nancy Fraser is an American philosopher and social scientist who teaches at the New School for Social Research in New York. Her work focuses on social justice, feminist theory, and critical social analysis. Fraser is known for her theory of social justice, which focuses on the redistribution of resources and the recognition of cultural identities.
Robin Hahnel
Robin Hahnel is a professor emeritus at American University in Washington, DC, where he taught for 33 years. For the last 16 years, he has taught as a visiting professor at Portland State University, Lewis and Clark College, and Willamette University in Oregon. He is a co-founder of the post-capitalist model known as the participatory economy. Over the last half-century, he has also been active in many political campaigns, starting with the resistance against the US war in Vietnam.
Ökonomix
The character of Ökonomix is loosely based on the philosopher Ludger Heidbrink and his works. Despite some similarities, he is a literary character who is characterized by the fact that he represents rather conventional, liberal views and, despite some criticism of capitalism, considers it to be the best of all systems.
Martin Rössler
Prof. Dr. Martin Rössler is a professor emeritus of ethnology at the University of Cologne. He studied social and cultural anthropology, Arabic and Islamic studies, anthropology, Turkish studies, malaiology and oriental art history at the universities of Göttingen, Zurich, Cologne and Bonn. His research focuses on socio-economic change, political anthropology, religion (especially Islam), rituals and identity research. Prof. Rössler has conducted extensive field research in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia, as well as in West Africa, and has written numerous scientific publications.
Peter Seyferth
Peter Seyferth, born 1973 in Munich, is a political philosopher. In his teaching at various educational institutions, he covers political theory and neighboring fields. In his research, he focuses on utopias, anarchism, non-state democracy, and science fiction. He is particularly interested in structures, institutions, rules, and forms of organization that enable freedom and equality.
Socrates
Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher and one of the founders of Western philosophy. He developed the Socratic method, a dialogical approach to exploring philosophical questions. Although he left no writings of his own, his ideas and methods were passed down through the works of his students, especially Plato.
Ellen Meiksins Wood
Ellen Meiksins Wood was an important Marxist historian and political theorist. She taught at various universities and wrote numerous works dealing with the development and critique of capitalism. Her work focused on the political theory and history of capitalism, often examining the connection between capitalism and democracy.
The value of participatory self-management
Sokrates: What about decision-making? It takes place everywhere, and must take place everywhere. Which value should be your guiding star here?
Michael: Participatory self-management!
Robin: I also like to call it “economic self-management”.
Sokrates: Isn’t that a natural part of a democracy? Who would dare to proclaim: “We don’t want democracy in economic matters”? Who would dare to proclaim: “Only a few should decide on economic matters”?
Nancy: What does “economic democracy” mean anyway? We talk about it as a goal when there is little or no practice in it. Let’s talk about it at least.
Socrates: What I have learned about capitalism so far would suggest that everyone can do almost anything with their property.
Nancy: Does that also apply to legal issues? Should everyone be able to enter into any kind of contract with anyone?
Socrates: Should every person have a say in every economic decision? (Hahnel 2021: 14)
Ellen: That’s a lot of questions.
Robin: In our view, the concept of economic freedom, as practiced in most of capitalism, is unsuitable for an economic democracy because many economic decisions affect more than one person.
Socrates: Why is that?
Robin: There are numerous significant situations in which the economic freedom of one person collides with that of another.
Socrates: Where, for example?
Robin: If polluters are allowed to pollute, victims cannot live in a clean environment. If employers are allowed to use their productive property as they wish, employees do not have the freedom to use their labor as they see fit, since in most cases they do not have the means of production. If the wealthy are allowed to leave their children large fortunes, new generations will not have the same economic opportunities. If bank owners are exempt from a government-imposed minimum reserve requirement, ordinary depositors cannot save securely.
Michael: If I may summarize, this means that the goal of maximizing people’s economic freedom in terms of their choices only makes sense in a context in which these choices do not contradict each other. So it’s not enough to simply shout, “Let economic freedom ring,” as tempting as that may sound.1 (Hahnel 2021: 14)
Sokrates: That makes sense to me. What form of self-management do you have in mind? What scope should it cover?
Nancy: If I may, I would like to make a brief comment in an attempt to focus your, dear Socrates, all too important question. In our previous investigation of capitalism, we focused primarily on the question of its ability to be democratic. Now, we should not let go of this yardstick, but keep a close eye on it in participatory economics as well. This seems particularly appropriate to me with regard to the value of self-management. What about our crucial question? What about power and self-determination in participatory economics?
Socrates: Let’s approach this question carefully so that we don’t miss anything. The allocation of decision-making power and the corresponding measure for it are certainly critical points. What possibilities are there here? What norms for allocation can we identify and distinguish?
Michael: I would see three:
- Vest most power in a few actors and leave the rest very little say over decisions that affect them.
- Distribute power more equally, with each actor always having one vote in a majority-rules process.
- Vary the way power is distributed depending on the relation of each actor to specific decisions. Sometimes you get more say, sometimes I get more say. The issue then becomes defining the criteria that determine how much say any of us have in one decision as compared to another« (Albert 2004: 39).
Sokrates: The first option is capitalism. I have learned that in the meantime.
Peter: Capitalism would be one example of that.
Martin: At least as far as the economy is concerned.
Nancy: Capitalism is a social system!
Sokrates: I can remember that we actually went along with Nancy’s argument.
Peter: In general, we call the first norm authoritarian.
Martin: That makes sense, since authoritarian comes from the French »where it has the meaning of ‘authoritative’« (Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie/Ritter 2017: 373). The Duden dictionary also does not offer any flattering meanings: »totalitarian, dictatorial, demanding absolute obedience« (Dudenredaktion 2019). The synonyms given are »anti-democratic, bossy, dictatorial, imperious«.
Peter: »In the political realm we call it dictatorship or oligarchy and generally reject it as being incompatible with respecting the rights of all humans« (Albert 2004: 39).
Socrates: By Zeus, that cannot possibly serve as a norm for a democratic economic system.
Michael: The second option is the democratic ideal.
Peter: At least the generally accepted one. I had already explained that the prevailing models are mostly hybrids that lean heavily towards oligarchy.
Socrates: Could you help me with an example? I no longer know who or what puts my words in the right order when there is so much talk of decisions.
Michael: Let’s imagine that someone is writing a thesis in philosophy about Parecon. This person types up his text. Should someone now be allowed to decide on which computer this is done? When he turns on his desk lamp, or whether he opens the window, or leaves it closed?
Sokrates: Of course not, Ares! That would be even worse! Here, the human being may of course decide authoritatively.
Nancy: We can think of many other such situations. One vote for each does not declare everything for general decision-making situations. That became very clear.
Peter: And it applies even more in the economy and society. It seems to me that very few decisions in these areas are suitable for an all-encompassing majority decision.
Ökonomix: Indeed! The employees at Bosch should not vote on an equal footing when the people at the bicycle shop around the corner from me take their lunch break. That requires a hierarchy of its own, where someone tells the employees what to do.
Socrates: It doesn’t help, as long as he is a member of the FDP2, we can’t come up with arguments for him. Let’s move on to the third norm.
Michael: The third norm seems to me to be the only sensible one.
Socrates: What was it again?
Michael: Everyone should be able to influence certain decisions according to their level of personal concern.
Peter: We should take a closer look at that. This differentiation offers a weighting of votes from tiny to very large. (Albert 2004: 39)
Nancy: So you foresee a range for participation. That seems to me to be a wise approach. It affords equal respect to all participants and gives them equal access to power (Albert 2004: 40).
Martin: Which doesn’t yet say how the whole thing can be implemented.
Robin: That’s absolutely right, but at least we have a clear vision of the goal by which the institutions that are supposed to enable our economic life should be measured (Hahnel 2021: 15).
Nancy: We could and should give this value a philosophical basis, since, in contrast to capitalism, we seem to be dealing with an extraordinarily democratic model.
Peter: I can think of five different schools of thought and concepts that would support this value. These are democratic theory, communitarianism, autonomy and self-determination, ethical pluralism and justice, and, last but not least, discourse ethics.
Socrates: One step at a time, please!
Peter: The value of participatory self-governance can be classified in the tradition of democratic theory.
Socrates: Why is that?
Peter: It emphasizes the importance of participation and co-determination of all parties concerned in decision-making processes.
Socrates: What is its view on this?
Peter: This theory argues that democracy is not only a political practice, but also an ethical value based on equality, freedom and justice. Thus, participatory self-governance promotes democratic principles by ensuring that all members of a community or organization have a voice in decisions that affect them.
Socrates: Which philosophers represent this direction?
Peter: John Dewey, an American philosopher and pedagogue who emphasized the importance of democracy as a way of life and the role of education in fostering democratic values (Dewey 1954).
Nancy: I would also like to mention Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher and sociologist who developed the theory of deliberative democracy based on communicative rationality (Habermas 2007). However, he also plays a crucial role in another approach, discourse ethics. But more about that later.
Peter: The second philosophical direction that underpins the approach of self-management would be communitarianism.
Socrates: What does that have to do with self-determination?
Peter: Communitarianism, which emphasizes the importance of community and social bonds, also resonates with the value of participatory self-governance. This perspective emphasizes that individuals exist in a social context and that communities are strengthened by shared values and goals. Participatory self-management supports the idea that people strengthen their social ties and sense of responsibility by actively participating in community decisions.
Socrates: Who would you name as representatives of this idea of communitarianism?
Peter: One is Michael Sandel, an American philosopher known for his critique of liberalism and his emphasis on the role of community in ethics (Sandel 1996). Another would be Charles Taylor. He is an Canadian philosopher who has written extensively on the intercultural dimensions of identity and the role of communities in the modern world (Taylor 2002).
Sokrates: That leaves three philosophical schools of thought in philosophy.
Peter: Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill both advocated autonomy and self-determination. From the perspective of autonomy, participatory self-management is closely linked to the concept of individual self-determination. Philosophically speaking, autonomy is often considered a core value that emphasizes the ability of the individual to decide independently and freely about their own lives and actions. Participatory self-management enables individuals to exercise this autonomy collectively and to actively shape their living conditions.
Socrates: Would you like to briefly introduce them to us as well?
Peter: Not really, because I don’t particularly like Kant. But I do see that you are looking for knowledge, not to my taste. So I’ll introduce him to you briefly – but I’ll criticize him in the process. Kant introduced the concept of autonomy in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Kant 1964). In Kant’s view, there can be neither ethics nor political participation without autonomy. To be autonomous means to be independent and self-determined. In my view, self-determination is a fine thing, but I believe that it is the result of equal political participation and should not be the prerequisite for any say in the matter, as Kant intended. Kant was a philosophical opponent of despotism and advocated a republic in which citizens determine political affairs themselves. But those who are dependent on others, such as workers, women, children, etc., are, according to Kant, dependent and thus incapable of participating in a republic. Citizens can therefore only be men who make other people dependent on them (and who succeed in concealing their own dependence on the reproductive work of their wives and servants). Kant’s concept of autonomy therefore always assumes a fundamental, identitarian inequality, according to which autonomy should be a privilege for the few. This does not mean that autonomy is a bad thing – but I do think that the exclusivity of Kantian autonomy is a bad thing. And unlike Kant, I am not opposed to democracy in its radical form. (P. Seyferth, personal communication, July 2, 2024)
Socrates: I have never visited my colleague Mill.
Peter: If I could, I would do that. He was an English philosopher who emphasized the importance of individual freedom and self-determination in a liberal society in On Liberty (Mill 2007).
Nancy: And its role in a participatory democracy. That needs to be added!
Socrates: The idea of self-determination receives quite a bit of support from philosophy.
Peter: I have already explained why it has not been fully implemented. Unfortunately, most democracies are hybrids of state forms. We still have a long way to go on the road to self-determination.
Robin: That’s why we are trying to revive this idea with participatory economy.
Socrates: What about the fourth attempt?
Peter: In this approach, the value of participatory self-management can also be considered in the context of ethical pluralism and justice. This approach recognizes that there are various legitimate values and perspectives that must be taken into account in a just social system. Participatory self-management provides a framework in which different voices and interests can be heard and integrated, contributing to more just and inclusive decision-making.
Nancy: There are several very famous philosophers in this tradition. One is John Rawls, an American philosopher who, in A Theory of Justice, developed a theory of justice that emphasizes the idea of a fair balance between different values and interests (Rawls 1971).
Peter: In this book, the principles of justice emphasize the fair participation of citizens in social decision-making processes.
Nancy: Then there is Martha Nussbaum, another philosopher who grew up in the United States and who, together with Amartya Sen, developed the capability approach, which takes a pluralistic approach to evaluating human well-being.
Peter: In Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Nussbaum emphasizes the importance of capabilities and participatory self-governance for human well-being (Nussbaum 2013).
Nancy: Dear Peter, may I jump ahead?
Peter: Of course, dear Nancy!
Nancy: I think we agree that we must definitely mention discourse ethics. In the tradition of discourse ethics, as developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, the value of participatory self-governance plays a central role. Discourse ethics emphasizes the importance of rational discourse and the equal participation of all stakeholders in decision-making. Participatory self-governance promotes such discourse by institutionalizing participation and dialogue in decision-making processes.
Peter: Dear Socrates, have you heard of these two?
Socrates: Of course, but if you could introduce them to the audience, I think it would do us credit.
Peter: We are already familiar with Jürgen Habermas. He not only developed the concept of deliberative democracy, but also developed discourse ethics. In this, he emphasized the importance of rational discourse and communicative rationality for democratic legitimation.
Nancy: In doing so, he brought important factors for participatory self-government into play.
Peter: Karl-Otto Apel was also a German philosopher who, together with Habermas, founded discourse ethics and dealt with the normative foundations of communication. In Discourse and Responsibility, he develops the foundations of discourse ethics, which is based on participatory self-government and communicative rationality (Apel 1988).
Nancy: Regarding discourse ethics, we should definitely also talk about Seyla Benhabib. She is a Turkish-American philosopher who further developed discourse ethics and dealt with issues of deliberative democracy and intercultural communication. In her book The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era, Benhabib discusses the role of participatory self-governance in negotiating cultural identities and democratic legitimacy (Benhabib 2002).
Sokrates: I think that from this synopsis, the value of participatory self-governance can be philosophically situated as a concept that supports democratic participation, social justice, individual autonomy, and ethical pluralism. It also promotes collective and inclusive decision-making that takes into account and respects the needs and perspectives of all members of a community.
Bibliography
- Albert, Michael (2004): PARECON: LIFE AFTER CAPITALISM. New Edition. London: Verso Books.
- Apel, Karl-Otto (1988): Diskurs und Verantwortung. 1. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
- Benhabib, Seyla (2002): The claims of culture. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Dewey, John (1954): The public and its problems. Denver: Swallow.
- Dudenredaktion (2019): Duden – Deutsches Universalwörterbuch: Das umfassende Bedeutungswörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 9., überarbeitete und erweiterte. Mannheim: Duden.
- Habermas, Jürgen (2007): Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Repr. Boston, Mass: Beacon Pr.
- Hahnel, Robin (2021): Democratic Economic Planning. London: Routledge.
- Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie/Ritter, Joachim (2017): Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie online. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.
- Kant, Immanuel 22 04 1724-12 02 1804 (1964): Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York u.a.: Harper & Row.
- Mill, John Stuart (2007): On liberty. [2. Aufl.]. New York [u.a.]: Pearson Longman.
- Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2013): Creating capabilities. 1. Harvard Univ. Press paperback ed. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.
- Rawls, John (1971): A theory of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts ; London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Sandel, Michael J. (1996): Democracy’s discontent. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: Belknap Press.
- Taylor, Charles (2002): Sources of the self. Repr. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Start the discussion at forum.participatoryeconomy.org