Let us begin with a quotation from a politician who embodied the plutocratic approach to government. US Senator Boies Penrose (Republican) told his big business supporters how it was going to work:
"I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money ... and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money."
That was back in 1896, and in the subsequent century, Penrose’s strategy has become entrenched in the operations of political parties on the Right in the US, the UK, and many other countries too. The aim is to concentrate wealth more and more in the hands of the corporate elite. To do that, the earnings and job security of everyone else must be curtailed as much as possible. And to deflect public attention from the endemic exploitation, unions, immigrants, the poorest and the jobless are to be routinely vilified as scapegoats.
Instead of teaching how democratic ideals are supposedly upheld or how myriad government institutions function, each new generation of citizens should be taught how plutocracy has taken over the running of our state and society, and how the many will be made to serve the narrow interests of the wealthy elite until the relentless manipulation is finally exposed and overturned.
A historical case study is always handy: if we go back to Senator Penrose, we find him showing the way for others to follow in subsequent decades. In the run-up to the Presidential election of 1920, he discovered that the candidate in the lead to secure the Republican Party’s nomination was Leonard Wood, an advocate for profit sharing and employee share ownership, and supporter of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting policies [Note 1].
Penrose sent a message to Wood, offering to swing the remaining delegates behind him, provided Wood would in return give Penrose and his oil interest friends control of three business-related posts in his cabinet. After Wood refused, Penrose used his connections in the party to push enough votes in the direction of Warren G. Harding to get him the nomination.
Harding went on to win the 1920 election, and led a presidential administration mired in scandals, resignations and corruption. Every major policy was designed to please big business, with taxes cut for the rich, and workers enduring numerous wage reductions. Harding was followed as President by Calvin Coolidge, and then Herbert Hoover. Together their 12 years of plutocratic Republican Presidency brought the US and then the world into the Great Depression.
In response to Democrats’ efforts from F.D. Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to correct the de-stabilising bias of the Right’s plutocratic policies, the Republicans dedicated themselves fully to the Penrose doctrine of capturing government institutions solely to serve the superrich. In Britain, their ideological kin, the Conservative Party, has since the 1970s adopted exactly the same approach.
And these parties will go on convincing many people to buy into their exploitative agenda unless we begin to explain why in fact not all parties respect the interests of all citizens regardless of their wealth, and teach everyone about the dangers of plutocracy as a growing and highly corrosive force.
--
[Note 1: Although Teddy Roosevelt became US President for one term as a member of the Republican Party, his progressive policies proved too much for the party and when he sought re-election, he stood as the candidate for the Progressive Party.]
Saturday, 15 August 2015
Saturday, 1 August 2015
O Humanities, Where Art Thou?
The revival of interest during the Renaissance in what came to be referred to as the Humanities led to a watershed in how we think about the world and our place in it. Down the centuries since, it has been through the Humanities that we learn about our own potential as human beings – discovering why we can strive for a better future and how we must avoid the mistakes of our past.
So why is there a relentless move against the teaching of Humanities? Why do so many people in powerful positions want to see funding and time allocation cut for Humanities subjects? There are three inter-related reasons.
First, the rise of global plutocracy has fuelled the desire amongst those who have amassed the greatest wealth through rigged markets, to preserve the status quo. They do not want money to be ‘wasted’ on enabling people to think critically about how human interactions and social priorities may be altered.
Secondly, since only certain subjects are expected to contribute to the strengthening and expansion of corporate wealth and power, plutocrats want investment to target only these subjects.
Thirdly, instead of challenging the ideology of Mammon, all too many in the field of Humanities have simply retreated. Some have sought survival by mimicking the scientific-technological disciplines by conjuring up contrived quantification and equation. Others have shrunk their attention to micro-specialisms so they can have something ‘original’ to get published and make a claim for research funding.
The net impact is that the ineffectuality of the Humanities becomes more and more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of enriching our understanding so we can reflect on how we should live, any attempt to address that very question is deemed too broad to merit academic consideration, which must have a tightly disciplined focus.
But what can be done? One long overdue move is to bring forward intellectual perspectives that offer alternative conceptions of how we should respond to life’s threats and opportunities, and relate to one another in ways unbound by the prejudices of outmoded traditions or the free-for-all of contemporary plutocracy.
In order to do this, we need to draw on the resources of philosophy, literature, history, sociology, etc to develop ideas on how we should live. One such set of ideas, often termed ‘progressive communitarianism’, synthesizes insights on the value of reciprocity, the nature of reasoning and consensus building, and the connections between community bonds and inclusive decision-making, into a cogent alternative for reviewing human interactions.
What progressive communitarian ideas offer, is not a definitive theory, but a possible model for how we can rethink and re-organise human relationships in diverse institutional and societal contexts.
The only antidote to plutocrats filling people’s minds with the false notion that their Mammon-centric system of society is the sole option for humanity, is to present the world with a different vision. To see what such an alternative may entail, take a look at ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’.
So why is there a relentless move against the teaching of Humanities? Why do so many people in powerful positions want to see funding and time allocation cut for Humanities subjects? There are three inter-related reasons.
First, the rise of global plutocracy has fuelled the desire amongst those who have amassed the greatest wealth through rigged markets, to preserve the status quo. They do not want money to be ‘wasted’ on enabling people to think critically about how human interactions and social priorities may be altered.
Secondly, since only certain subjects are expected to contribute to the strengthening and expansion of corporate wealth and power, plutocrats want investment to target only these subjects.
Thirdly, instead of challenging the ideology of Mammon, all too many in the field of Humanities have simply retreated. Some have sought survival by mimicking the scientific-technological disciplines by conjuring up contrived quantification and equation. Others have shrunk their attention to micro-specialisms so they can have something ‘original’ to get published and make a claim for research funding.
The net impact is that the ineffectuality of the Humanities becomes more and more of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of enriching our understanding so we can reflect on how we should live, any attempt to address that very question is deemed too broad to merit academic consideration, which must have a tightly disciplined focus.
But what can be done? One long overdue move is to bring forward intellectual perspectives that offer alternative conceptions of how we should respond to life’s threats and opportunities, and relate to one another in ways unbound by the prejudices of outmoded traditions or the free-for-all of contemporary plutocracy.
In order to do this, we need to draw on the resources of philosophy, literature, history, sociology, etc to develop ideas on how we should live. One such set of ideas, often termed ‘progressive communitarianism’, synthesizes insights on the value of reciprocity, the nature of reasoning and consensus building, and the connections between community bonds and inclusive decision-making, into a cogent alternative for reviewing human interactions.
What progressive communitarian ideas offer, is not a definitive theory, but a possible model for how we can rethink and re-organise human relationships in diverse institutional and societal contexts.
The only antidote to plutocrats filling people’s minds with the false notion that their Mammon-centric system of society is the sole option for humanity, is to present the world with a different vision. To see what such an alternative may entail, take a look at ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’.
Wednesday, 15 July 2015
The Public-Private Divide
On reflection, any sensible person can see that there are things best left to people to do on their own initiative as they see fit, and there are other activities which need to be done collectively by a larger group. Where something only matters to a single individual, it is arguably no one else’s business to get involved. But where we have concerns that are relevant to society as a whole, then it has to be everyone’s business to help address them without exception.
In between these two types of scenario, there are a wide variety of issues that call for smaller or larger associations of persons, and each may require more or less involvement from a higher body with statutory authority.
Alas, ideologues prefer to dismiss this nuanced continuum of human endeavours, and insist that there is a sharp and simple ‘Public-Private Divide’. Worse still, some of them go on to insist that everything should be ‘public’, while others take the opposite extreme and demand everything be kept ‘private’.
Post-1989, the radical communist ideology of subsuming everything into the public domain now has few adherents. The total elimination of all sense of privacy and private ownership is problematic enough in its challenge to personal motivation and the need for autonomy, but it brings out the underlying paradox of having to enforce any kind of ‘everything is public’ system by means of vesting power and resources in the hands of an elite group of private individuals with little accountability to the wider public.
Unfortunately, the rampant laissez-faire ideology of leaving everything to the private realm is still alive and well. Its proponents have not quite done away with government institutions altogether, but they have come a long way in shrinking the state’s role in meeting public needs, and capturing government bodies for the sole purpose of directing them to serve the private interests of a wealthy elite.
One notable symptom of the ascendancy of the laissez-faire ideologues is the widespread acceptance of wealth-creating activities as inherently private. This is not a surprising ploy given that most present day advocates for laissez faire are plutocrats, and by positioning wealth as belonging to private individuals, they provide it with an ideological shield from public intervention.
But just as the extreme ‘all is public’ ideology is exposed and rejected, the same must happen to the unrestrained ‘all is private’ creed. Wealth is what has the potential to enhance the wellbeing of people. Yet by succumbing to the ‘only the private sector creates wealth’ myth, society goes along with economic measures that classify activities that boost cancer-causing smoking, prolong vindictive litigation, or increase pollution-causing production as ‘wealth creating’. Meanwhile, when public resources are organised to teach children, treat the sick, or care for the elderly, they are considered as a ‘drain’ on the nation’s wealth.
This dubious distinction gains some superficial credence from the fact the former are viewed as voluntary acts, even if conducted with harmful consequences; whereas the latter is enforceable by law and hence assumed to be coerced. But clearly not everything resulting from a collective process is undesirable, especially when it is underpinned by an open and democratic system of decision-making. And if people democratically agree to pool together a proportion of their country’s resources so they are more able to address a whole range of common concerns, that is not a matter of coercion or draining, but a productive move that delivers real benefits for all.
By contrast, given the deception, manipulation, and unbalanced bargaining positions, which often prevail in private transactions, the value of such activities is far from intrinsically good. For example, if some ‘entrepreneur’ manages to get people to waste their money on smoking themselves to an early grave, or gamble away the savings for their family, that is not a positive act of wealth creation at all.
Simplistic ‘public-private’ dichotomies are often framed to serve either those who want to be unaccountable custodians of everyone’s wealth, or those who want to be free from all legal constraints as they dupe and exploit others in order to amass ever greater wealth for themselves. In a democratic society, we need to remember that neither extreme is desirable, and we would all be better off if we learn to allow those activities most effectively carried out by an individual, a group, a federation, or a government to be taken forward at the appropriate level.
In between these two types of scenario, there are a wide variety of issues that call for smaller or larger associations of persons, and each may require more or less involvement from a higher body with statutory authority.
Alas, ideologues prefer to dismiss this nuanced continuum of human endeavours, and insist that there is a sharp and simple ‘Public-Private Divide’. Worse still, some of them go on to insist that everything should be ‘public’, while others take the opposite extreme and demand everything be kept ‘private’.
Post-1989, the radical communist ideology of subsuming everything into the public domain now has few adherents. The total elimination of all sense of privacy and private ownership is problematic enough in its challenge to personal motivation and the need for autonomy, but it brings out the underlying paradox of having to enforce any kind of ‘everything is public’ system by means of vesting power and resources in the hands of an elite group of private individuals with little accountability to the wider public.
Unfortunately, the rampant laissez-faire ideology of leaving everything to the private realm is still alive and well. Its proponents have not quite done away with government institutions altogether, but they have come a long way in shrinking the state’s role in meeting public needs, and capturing government bodies for the sole purpose of directing them to serve the private interests of a wealthy elite.
One notable symptom of the ascendancy of the laissez-faire ideologues is the widespread acceptance of wealth-creating activities as inherently private. This is not a surprising ploy given that most present day advocates for laissez faire are plutocrats, and by positioning wealth as belonging to private individuals, they provide it with an ideological shield from public intervention.
But just as the extreme ‘all is public’ ideology is exposed and rejected, the same must happen to the unrestrained ‘all is private’ creed. Wealth is what has the potential to enhance the wellbeing of people. Yet by succumbing to the ‘only the private sector creates wealth’ myth, society goes along with economic measures that classify activities that boost cancer-causing smoking, prolong vindictive litigation, or increase pollution-causing production as ‘wealth creating’. Meanwhile, when public resources are organised to teach children, treat the sick, or care for the elderly, they are considered as a ‘drain’ on the nation’s wealth.
This dubious distinction gains some superficial credence from the fact the former are viewed as voluntary acts, even if conducted with harmful consequences; whereas the latter is enforceable by law and hence assumed to be coerced. But clearly not everything resulting from a collective process is undesirable, especially when it is underpinned by an open and democratic system of decision-making. And if people democratically agree to pool together a proportion of their country’s resources so they are more able to address a whole range of common concerns, that is not a matter of coercion or draining, but a productive move that delivers real benefits for all.
By contrast, given the deception, manipulation, and unbalanced bargaining positions, which often prevail in private transactions, the value of such activities is far from intrinsically good. For example, if some ‘entrepreneur’ manages to get people to waste their money on smoking themselves to an early grave, or gamble away the savings for their family, that is not a positive act of wealth creation at all.
Simplistic ‘public-private’ dichotomies are often framed to serve either those who want to be unaccountable custodians of everyone’s wealth, or those who want to be free from all legal constraints as they dupe and exploit others in order to amass ever greater wealth for themselves. In a democratic society, we need to remember that neither extreme is desirable, and we would all be better off if we learn to allow those activities most effectively carried out by an individual, a group, a federation, or a government to be taken forward at the appropriate level.
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Lifelong Learning & Everyday Governance
Schools, without exception, devote the great majority of their time to teaching academic subjects such as language, literature, mathematics, history, chemistry, biology, physics, etc. Many have argued that however important it is to have a good grasp of these subjects, a much larger proportion of time should be spent on vocational training (e.g., craft, technology, engineering) or life skills (variously grouping together skills to handle personal, social, health, financial challenges).
But proponents of all three domains of learning (academic, vocational, life skills) tend to overlook one thing that everyone needs to learn about – the art of governance. This is not to be confused with the listing of citizenship rights and responsibilities, or a recounting of the features of political institutions and electoral arrangements. Governance is about how a group of people (of whatever size) can be held together and led to cooperate for their common good.
From local residents’ and community groups, through schools and hospitals, businesses and government organisations, to multinational corporations and global political arrangements, the effectiveness of their governance impacts on the people who live within their sphere of influence.
To understand what differentiates good from poor governance, and how to steer towards the former is critical to playing a positive role in any collective entity. This involves academic learning from the political ideas on how best to govern; vocational learning from management practices on getting the most out of organisational performance; and life skills learning from interpersonal experience on relating to people constructively in a group context.
While different individuals may benefit from knowing particular academic, vocational or life skills topics, they all need to acquire real competence in contributing to (or at least not hindering) effective governance of the many institutions they are involved with in their lives. The test of governance arises every day, and not only should it be taught systematically in schools, it should be a feature of lifelong learning made accessible to every member of society.
The current absence of governance education is one of the key reasons why most people have little idea of why certain companies behave irresponsibly, some public bodies are mired in errors, or the government under particular administrations let the citizens down. They view these outcomes as mere spectators, not recognising that they can make a difference by, at a minimum, discovering what is wrong with the governance in question and backing changes that will redirect it for the better. Indeed they can go further and actively engage in shaping new policies and practices.
But what is to be taught? Instead of just explaining what constitutes a system of governance, educators must set out what the ingredients of effective governance are. Drawing from the extensive findings in political theory, management analysis, and studies of human interactions, it can with confidence be said that those responsible for any institution (and as we will see, this incorporates all who are involved with the workings of the institution and not just a few designated ‘leaders’) must put in place and sustain the following nine elements:
• Shared mission
• Mutual benefits
• Coherent membership
• Collaborative learning
• Continuous re-evaluation
• Accessible information
• Joint decision-making
• Balanced power
• Open accountability
By teaching introductory courses in schools on what these entail, developing a deeper theoretical and practical understanding through further/higher education, and sustaining continuous improvement through lifelong learning, the everyday governance of the multitude of institutions that affect all our lives will be notably better, which in turn will lead to more optimal outcomes for everyone.
As to what constitutes the basis for these nine elements and what each of them involves, see the outline presented in ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
But proponents of all three domains of learning (academic, vocational, life skills) tend to overlook one thing that everyone needs to learn about – the art of governance. This is not to be confused with the listing of citizenship rights and responsibilities, or a recounting of the features of political institutions and electoral arrangements. Governance is about how a group of people (of whatever size) can be held together and led to cooperate for their common good.
From local residents’ and community groups, through schools and hospitals, businesses and government organisations, to multinational corporations and global political arrangements, the effectiveness of their governance impacts on the people who live within their sphere of influence.
To understand what differentiates good from poor governance, and how to steer towards the former is critical to playing a positive role in any collective entity. This involves academic learning from the political ideas on how best to govern; vocational learning from management practices on getting the most out of organisational performance; and life skills learning from interpersonal experience on relating to people constructively in a group context.
While different individuals may benefit from knowing particular academic, vocational or life skills topics, they all need to acquire real competence in contributing to (or at least not hindering) effective governance of the many institutions they are involved with in their lives. The test of governance arises every day, and not only should it be taught systematically in schools, it should be a feature of lifelong learning made accessible to every member of society.
The current absence of governance education is one of the key reasons why most people have little idea of why certain companies behave irresponsibly, some public bodies are mired in errors, or the government under particular administrations let the citizens down. They view these outcomes as mere spectators, not recognising that they can make a difference by, at a minimum, discovering what is wrong with the governance in question and backing changes that will redirect it for the better. Indeed they can go further and actively engage in shaping new policies and practices.
But what is to be taught? Instead of just explaining what constitutes a system of governance, educators must set out what the ingredients of effective governance are. Drawing from the extensive findings in political theory, management analysis, and studies of human interactions, it can with confidence be said that those responsible for any institution (and as we will see, this incorporates all who are involved with the workings of the institution and not just a few designated ‘leaders’) must put in place and sustain the following nine elements:
• Shared mission
• Mutual benefits
• Coherent membership
• Collaborative learning
• Continuous re-evaluation
• Accessible information
• Joint decision-making
• Balanced power
• Open accountability
By teaching introductory courses in schools on what these entail, developing a deeper theoretical and practical understanding through further/higher education, and sustaining continuous improvement through lifelong learning, the everyday governance of the multitude of institutions that affect all our lives will be notably better, which in turn will lead to more optimal outcomes for everyone.
As to what constitutes the basis for these nine elements and what each of them involves, see the outline presented in ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
Monday, 15 June 2015
Left at the Identity Checkpoint
2010 should have been a turning point.
That year, the aftershocks of the banking crisis hit Greece and led to a €45 billion EU-IMF bailout, triggering a rapid decline of share prices around the world while plutocrats sought to retrench their wealth advantages by backing austerity policies for the poor. At the same time, corporate irresponsibility was exposed in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill – one of the worst in history. The reckless pursuit of fossil fuels- related profits contrasted sharply with the timid and ineffectual outcomes of the 2010 UN Climate Change Conference. Later that year, WikiLeaks released documents that revealed US-led military action in the name of the ‘war on terror’ had killed a large number of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan and fuelled the increase in Taliban terrorist activities.
With that backdrop, one might have expected the political Left to rally the public in reining in those who used their excessive power to destablise and endanger the lives of ordinary people.
Alas, in the UK, 2010 saw the Conservatives securing enough support to lead a coalition government; and in 2015 they even won their own majority in Parliament to carry on their programme of redistribution from the poor to the rich. And in the US, the conservative Republicans have since 2011 obtained a majority in the House of Representatives; while in 2015, they took control of the Senate too.
Unless politicians on the Left recapture the legislature, the Right will go on imposing their law and disorder on society. One school of thought insists that this is above all a matter of ‘moving the Left to the Centre’ – in short, appealing to large corporations, avoiding confrontation with the media moguls, and winning the trust of ‘aspirational’ voters (code for those who are relatively better-off than those at the bottom and are more likely to vote).
This may be a coherent strategy – for those who want to take the New Democrats/New Labour project one step further to create ‘Moderate Republicans/Decent Tories’ as rivals to the dominant Right. In a sense they would still be on the ‘left’, since to the right of the established Right there are already the Tea Party Republicans/UKIP Tories.
But for those who identify with the values of the political Left because they are concerned with the wellbeing and security of all citizens, and not just the privileges and freedom of the powerful elite – the focus has to be on engaging with those who suffer from the policies of the Right but neglect to vote for a better alternative. Almost 50% of those eligible to vote don’t register to vote or turnout to vote. And there are many who vote on the misguided assumption that they and their families would have a more secure future under politicians who actually view their needs as subservient to those of big corporations.
The Right will always get more money for their campaigns because it will consistently prioritise the interests of those with the most money. But it is ideologically incapable of offering the majority of people a better and fairer deal when that conflicts with the selfish preferences of the wealthy elite.
So long as the Left understands that outreach is not about monotonously asking people to vote for its candidates every time an election approaches, but to listen, take on board suggestions, give feedback, and thus to build relationship, trust and cooperation, then it will find that there is a ready majority to back those who are truly on their side.
--
For examples of how to engage people sincerely and effectively to build relationships to improve public outcomes, see the resources compiled under our ‘Together We Can’ section.
That year, the aftershocks of the banking crisis hit Greece and led to a €45 billion EU-IMF bailout, triggering a rapid decline of share prices around the world while plutocrats sought to retrench their wealth advantages by backing austerity policies for the poor. At the same time, corporate irresponsibility was exposed in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill – one of the worst in history. The reckless pursuit of fossil fuels- related profits contrasted sharply with the timid and ineffectual outcomes of the 2010 UN Climate Change Conference. Later that year, WikiLeaks released documents that revealed US-led military action in the name of the ‘war on terror’ had killed a large number of unarmed civilians in Afghanistan and fuelled the increase in Taliban terrorist activities.
With that backdrop, one might have expected the political Left to rally the public in reining in those who used their excessive power to destablise and endanger the lives of ordinary people.
Alas, in the UK, 2010 saw the Conservatives securing enough support to lead a coalition government; and in 2015 they even won their own majority in Parliament to carry on their programme of redistribution from the poor to the rich. And in the US, the conservative Republicans have since 2011 obtained a majority in the House of Representatives; while in 2015, they took control of the Senate too.
Unless politicians on the Left recapture the legislature, the Right will go on imposing their law and disorder on society. One school of thought insists that this is above all a matter of ‘moving the Left to the Centre’ – in short, appealing to large corporations, avoiding confrontation with the media moguls, and winning the trust of ‘aspirational’ voters (code for those who are relatively better-off than those at the bottom and are more likely to vote).
This may be a coherent strategy – for those who want to take the New Democrats/New Labour project one step further to create ‘Moderate Republicans/Decent Tories’ as rivals to the dominant Right. In a sense they would still be on the ‘left’, since to the right of the established Right there are already the Tea Party Republicans/UKIP Tories.
But for those who identify with the values of the political Left because they are concerned with the wellbeing and security of all citizens, and not just the privileges and freedom of the powerful elite – the focus has to be on engaging with those who suffer from the policies of the Right but neglect to vote for a better alternative. Almost 50% of those eligible to vote don’t register to vote or turnout to vote. And there are many who vote on the misguided assumption that they and their families would have a more secure future under politicians who actually view their needs as subservient to those of big corporations.
The Right will always get more money for their campaigns because it will consistently prioritise the interests of those with the most money. But it is ideologically incapable of offering the majority of people a better and fairer deal when that conflicts with the selfish preferences of the wealthy elite.
So long as the Left understands that outreach is not about monotonously asking people to vote for its candidates every time an election approaches, but to listen, take on board suggestions, give feedback, and thus to build relationship, trust and cooperation, then it will find that there is a ready majority to back those who are truly on their side.
--
For examples of how to engage people sincerely and effectively to build relationships to improve public outcomes, see the resources compiled under our ‘Together We Can’ section.
Monday, 1 June 2015
Democracy at the Workplace
For centuries, progressives and reactionaries argued about the need to democratise the governance of society. Repression countered revolutions. Rhetoric battled with reason.
By the middle of the 20th century, with the comprehensive defeat of fascism in the Second World War, the dispute was settled. Even the most conservative-minded conceded that it was untenable to deny members of a society the right to shape how it was run. Opponents of democracy were henceforth on the defensive - but only at the societal level.
At the level of individual organisations, despite the mounting evidence from worker cooperatives, participatory partnerships (e.g. John Lewis Partnership), and employee-owned firms, that businesses which empower their workers to exercise control over them perform better on all key indicators, the case for democratisation has been very much kept to the margins.
One explanation for this is the authoritarian predilection amongst many owners and top executives who, like the petty princelings and egocentric emperors of old, hate the thought of having to share power with anyone else. But an equally important factor lies with a lack of understanding of what would constitute the effective democratisation of the workplace. Too many attempts have fallen down for being too superficial, poorly planned, or inadequately sustained.
Before a call goes out to develop a major research project to address this issue, it is worth checking back with the findings we already have. In this context, we all owe a great debt to Paul Bernstein who, in his book, Workplace Democratization, drew together what extensive research had found and distilled them into six key components:
[1] Meaningful participation opportunities for all in decision-making, either directly or by elected representatives. Profit-sharing without participation in decision-making is insufficient as when or how much is shared would still be decided by those with no accountability to the recipients.
[2] Frequent feedback of economic results to all workers, including the sharing out of surplus to be decided on terms agreed by everyone. Democratic decision-making cannot be stopped short at considering how the revenue generated by all is to be shared by all.
[3] Full sharing of management information with workers so there is a real shared understanding of what is going on. Workers need to know what is going well or not so well, and what changes are necessary if they are to develop informed views about what actions and decisions they are to propose and/or support.
[4] Guaranteed individual rights (akin to basic political rights) to speak out, organise, meet in groups, and question decisions. Without such rights being protected, workers may not participate for fear of being disciplined, demoted or even dismissed.
[5] An independent board of appeal in case of disputes (composed of peers as far as possible). Any kind of owners or management only set-up would breed distrust and deepen alienation.
[6] A sustained cultivation of democratic attitudes and values. This requires on-going, proactive activities to keep interest afloat in reviewing how the business in question is doing. Without imaginative engagement, workers’ attention may drift away and there is a risk of democratic atrophy setting in (just as it can happen in national politics).
For anyone interested in promoting workplace democratisation, focus on how to put these six components in place.
--
[For a detailed exposition of these principles, see: Bernstein, P., Workplace Democratization (1980), New Brunswick: Transaction Books]
By the middle of the 20th century, with the comprehensive defeat of fascism in the Second World War, the dispute was settled. Even the most conservative-minded conceded that it was untenable to deny members of a society the right to shape how it was run. Opponents of democracy were henceforth on the defensive - but only at the societal level.
At the level of individual organisations, despite the mounting evidence from worker cooperatives, participatory partnerships (e.g. John Lewis Partnership), and employee-owned firms, that businesses which empower their workers to exercise control over them perform better on all key indicators, the case for democratisation has been very much kept to the margins.
One explanation for this is the authoritarian predilection amongst many owners and top executives who, like the petty princelings and egocentric emperors of old, hate the thought of having to share power with anyone else. But an equally important factor lies with a lack of understanding of what would constitute the effective democratisation of the workplace. Too many attempts have fallen down for being too superficial, poorly planned, or inadequately sustained.
Before a call goes out to develop a major research project to address this issue, it is worth checking back with the findings we already have. In this context, we all owe a great debt to Paul Bernstein who, in his book, Workplace Democratization, drew together what extensive research had found and distilled them into six key components:
[1] Meaningful participation opportunities for all in decision-making, either directly or by elected representatives. Profit-sharing without participation in decision-making is insufficient as when or how much is shared would still be decided by those with no accountability to the recipients.
[2] Frequent feedback of economic results to all workers, including the sharing out of surplus to be decided on terms agreed by everyone. Democratic decision-making cannot be stopped short at considering how the revenue generated by all is to be shared by all.
[3] Full sharing of management information with workers so there is a real shared understanding of what is going on. Workers need to know what is going well or not so well, and what changes are necessary if they are to develop informed views about what actions and decisions they are to propose and/or support.
[4] Guaranteed individual rights (akin to basic political rights) to speak out, organise, meet in groups, and question decisions. Without such rights being protected, workers may not participate for fear of being disciplined, demoted or even dismissed.
[5] An independent board of appeal in case of disputes (composed of peers as far as possible). Any kind of owners or management only set-up would breed distrust and deepen alienation.
[6] A sustained cultivation of democratic attitudes and values. This requires on-going, proactive activities to keep interest afloat in reviewing how the business in question is doing. Without imaginative engagement, workers’ attention may drift away and there is a risk of democratic atrophy setting in (just as it can happen in national politics).
For anyone interested in promoting workplace democratisation, focus on how to put these six components in place.
--
[For a detailed exposition of these principles, see: Bernstein, P., Workplace Democratization (1980), New Brunswick: Transaction Books]
Saturday, 23 May 2015
The Meaning of ‘Pro-Business’
When we hear people waxing lyrical about the importance of being ‘pro-family’, ‘pro-freedom’, and of course, ‘pro-business’, we must ask: what do they really mean?
One of the commonest tricks in political rhetoric is to cover any ill-conceived or obnoxious proposal with a seemingly incontrovertible label. Who wants to be accused of being anti-family or anti-freedom? But we all know that we cannot allow parents to abuse their children or spouses to be beaten in the name of respecting the ‘family’. Loving relations make family valuable. And where such emotional bonds are missing or broken, changes are not only desirable, but in some circumstances, necessary.
So when it comes to the chorus of ‘we must be pro-business’, instead of blithely singing along, it is vital we take a look behind the label. If ‘pro-business’ means being supportive of everyone involved in business operations – for example, ensuring the people who work in them earn enough to live on; the business has a well-earned reputation that it will not harm the lives of those who use their products; the working practices are not injurious to those who work in them or destructive of the environment in which they operate; it generates sustainable benefits without deception or exploitation – then, let us all sign up to that ‘100% Pro-Business’ manifesto right now.
But what if when the smokescreen is blown clear, what we see is actually an agenda that is above all about giving even more power to the 1% most well-off executives in any industry to do as they please at the expense of everyone else – workers, suppliers, customers, local communities? What if ‘cutting red tape’ is just a code to liberate powerful executives to act irresponsibly? And the greater ‘freedom’ of the elite turns out to be a licence to impose pitiful wages and soaring prices on those who cannot stand up to them?
To champion such an agenda under the banner of ‘pro-business’ is not just disingenuous, but would undermine the development of productive enterprise. When rises in productivity are siphoned off, as they have done for decades in the US and UK, to fund astronomical salary increases for the few at the top, to leave stagnant wages for the rest, it destroys morale and deprives working people of the purchasing power to sustain a healthy economy.
So instead of parroting the calls to be ‘pro-business’, let us press those who hide behind this label to explain themselves. What is it that they propose to do to help everyone connected with business activities to do a better job and get a fair share of the benefits? If all they actually plan to do is to sidle up to the wealthy elite and offer them whatever they want, then their political position should be more transparently known as ‘pro-superrich’.
One of the commonest tricks in political rhetoric is to cover any ill-conceived or obnoxious proposal with a seemingly incontrovertible label. Who wants to be accused of being anti-family or anti-freedom? But we all know that we cannot allow parents to abuse their children or spouses to be beaten in the name of respecting the ‘family’. Loving relations make family valuable. And where such emotional bonds are missing or broken, changes are not only desirable, but in some circumstances, necessary.
So when it comes to the chorus of ‘we must be pro-business’, instead of blithely singing along, it is vital we take a look behind the label. If ‘pro-business’ means being supportive of everyone involved in business operations – for example, ensuring the people who work in them earn enough to live on; the business has a well-earned reputation that it will not harm the lives of those who use their products; the working practices are not injurious to those who work in them or destructive of the environment in which they operate; it generates sustainable benefits without deception or exploitation – then, let us all sign up to that ‘100% Pro-Business’ manifesto right now.
But what if when the smokescreen is blown clear, what we see is actually an agenda that is above all about giving even more power to the 1% most well-off executives in any industry to do as they please at the expense of everyone else – workers, suppliers, customers, local communities? What if ‘cutting red tape’ is just a code to liberate powerful executives to act irresponsibly? And the greater ‘freedom’ of the elite turns out to be a licence to impose pitiful wages and soaring prices on those who cannot stand up to them?
To champion such an agenda under the banner of ‘pro-business’ is not just disingenuous, but would undermine the development of productive enterprise. When rises in productivity are siphoned off, as they have done for decades in the US and UK, to fund astronomical salary increases for the few at the top, to leave stagnant wages for the rest, it destroys morale and deprives working people of the purchasing power to sustain a healthy economy.
So instead of parroting the calls to be ‘pro-business’, let us press those who hide behind this label to explain themselves. What is it that they propose to do to help everyone connected with business activities to do a better job and get a fair share of the benefits? If all they actually plan to do is to sidle up to the wealthy elite and offer them whatever they want, then their political position should be more transparently known as ‘pro-superrich’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)