[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

[Tayssir John Gabbour]

On 7/11/07, Mike Ballard <swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> A worldwide system of production needs coordinaton.  This does not
> mean that coordinators cannot be delegated to do what the associated
> producers want them to do and to be subject to removal.  The concept
> of "coordinator class" automatically assumes bureaucratic control of
> production/consumption a la the old USSR.  A grassroots, democratic
> co:operative commonwealth is perfectly consistent with what Marx
> wrote about in terms of socialism.

Yes, Parecon explicitly adds ideas which are apparently lacking from
Marxism. Parecon advocates claim that you can have nicely democratic
systems, consistent with what famous 19th century philosophers like
Marx claim, but still have strong institutional tendencies towards
repressive authoritarianism and hierarchy. We can wish that the system
will stay democratic, but will it?

This is not new. In the first issue of Monthly Review back in 1949, a
commentator (Einstein) asked:

    "Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy

    is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied

    by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of

    socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult

    socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the

    far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to

    prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening?

    How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a

    democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

    http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

(Of course, Parecon may very well have such holes. In fact, Michael
Albert teaches "radical theory," [1] which explains that any such
social model inevitably has missing concepts. Absent some crazy
revolution in our understanding of the world. People who fall into the
trap of economism will unnecessarily cripple their worldview, in spite
of whatever profound insights they may have.)

I agree that coordination is obviously necessary, but that's distinct
from the notion of a coordinator economic class -- which by (their)
definition has areas of antagonism with other classes, has the
incentive to monopolize empowering work, etc.

I currently believe that an economic theory without the notion of a
coordinator class is too weak for my uses. Because it just pops up in
the real world too often.

Tayssir

[1] http://www.zmag.org/instructionals/rtinstruc/id2.htm
There's also audio versions of a class he taught, maybe at
OneBigTorrent or somewhere.