8/20/2019 Commune 31

1/12

issue 31 december 2012 thecommune.co.uk

commune  t  h  e

simon

hardy andthe acipage 3

 what’s wrong withiops?page 6

michaelalbertinterviewedpage 7

8/20/2019 Commune 31

2/12

2  uncaptiveminds@gmail.comtwitter.com/thecommuneukfacebook group—the communethecommune.co.uk

editorial

editorial by Adam Ford There's no easy time to be a communist

in a capitalist society of course, but 2012

has been extremely tough going. 

2011 started with the popular

overthrow of governments in Tunisia

and Egypt, the near-general strike in

Wisconsin, and continued with Occupy,

big student demos and occupations, the

Sparks electricians, a growing public

sector struggle, and even the

spontaneous elements of anti-state and

anti-rich mobilisations in the summerriots. While all of these had important

limitations, on what might be called the

left there was a feeling that momentum

was building, and a global reckoning

with the bankers at their governments

might be in the making. 

This year, all that impetus has

dissipated - or rather, it has been

repressed in some cases, and

misdirected in others. The new bosses in

Tunisia and Egypt might not be exactly

the same as the old bosses, but theyhave very similar material interests, and

they are backed by the same imperial

power. Liberals in Wisconsin were ableto channel the anger at state Governor

Walker in an attempt to replace him

with a right wing Democrat - and even

this eventually failed due to an

understandable lack of enthusiasm.Occupy eventually collapsed under the

weight of weather, police brutality and

its general orientation away from the

wider class. The student struggle also

izzled out due to its isolation in the faceof government intransigence, and union

tops sold out public sector pensions - 

largely contributing to a much-reduced

London demo in October. The Sparks

actually won - but that was back in

February, and feels like a long time ago. 

That's not to say there haven't been

other promising struggles - the growing

resistance in Greece, Spain and South

Africa looks very positive. But by and

large, 2012 has felt like banging our

collective head against a brick wall. 

In this context, it's no surprise that: a)

The Commune have gone through a bitof a shakeup, and b) our irst issue in a

few months has a slightly inward-

looking feel - looking at different forms

of working class organisation.

Sometimes it is useful to pause and take

stock, many of us have given huge

amounts of our time and energy to

various struggles, and putting so much

in with little success can quickly lead toburnout. 

So Simon Hardy of the new Anti-

Capitalist Initiative argues that it is timefor unity to be built on the left, and he

has the model of SYRIZA - Greece's main

opposition party - in mind. An interview

with Michael Albert sets-out the

perspective of his group - theInternational Organisation for a

Participatory Society - based on self -

management, equity/justice, solidarity,

diversity, ecological stewardship andinternationalism - all aims that

communists would share. But also John

Keeley examines the problems he sees

in Albert's vision - particularly its

throwing "the Marxist bath out with the

Leninist bath water", and losing its

"materialist foundations". 

The Marx-Bakunin conlict is recalled by

David Adam, who reveals that it wasn't

the straight battle between "absolute

liberty and authoritarianism" that isoften painted. An understanding of this

can have a bearing on the struggles of

today if self -identifying Marxists and

anarchists can ind common ground. 

Finally, Roy Ratcliffe offers his thoughts

on the organisation question, arguing

that we should not to attempt to

substitute ourselves for the working

class, and offer some kind of idealist

blueprint or perfect example for others

to follow, but to organise where we are,

and: 

"To my mind the task of revolutionary

anti-capitalists is to work alongside such

workers [in struggle] and convince themby discussion and by the results of their

defensive and reformist struggles that

the capitalist system holds no future

well-being for themselves, their

neighbours, their offspring or theplanet." 

As I wrote in a recent blog article titled

'Why Isn't There A Working ClassMovement in the UK' (http://

tinyurl.com/atrd6m2): 

"Amidst the bankers' crisis, things will

continue to get worse for our class in the

UK, in Greece, Egypt, South Africa and

around the planet. Working class people

will increasingly feel they have little to

lose from ighting, and everything to

gain. Despite the machinations of the

union hierarchies and fake left parties, a

new working class movement mustcome, and sooner rather than later.

What should it look like? Well that's a

subject for another time... " 

That time will come in the next edition

of The Commune. In the mean time,

keep ighting. Our time is coming. 

8/20/2019 Commune 31

3/12

3the commune

december 2012

 All articles reflect the authors’ own views,not necessarily collectively-held positions

thecommune.co.uk

aci

 what is the

commune?

We are communists. We ight for anew self -managed society based on

collective ownership of the means of

production and distribution and aneconomy organised not for proit but

for the well-being of humanity, in

harmony with our natural

environment. Communism willabolish the system of wage-labour so

that our ability to work will cease to

be a commodity to be sold to anemployer; it will be a truly classless

society; there will be no state, no

managers or organisations superior

to those of workers’ self -

management. This will entail a form

of democracy which will not coexist

with economic exploitation as incapitalism. Communism is about

replacing both the international

state system and the increasinglyinterlinked network of capitalist

corporations with global, regional

and local networks of democraticself -managed workers’ councils and

cooperatives.  

«The commune produce a paper,

pamphlets and post articles from

members and invited guests on a

website — thecommune.co.uk. If youwant an article to be considered for

publication, send it to

uncaptiveminds@gmail.com 

The urgent need for unity on the radical

left is something that has been

eloquently put forward by Dan Hind on

the Aljazeera website. Asking a very

pertinent question as to whether there

can be a SYRIZA-type organisation in

Britain, Hind draws out some of the

most important lessons of the Greek

struggle and poses a challenge to the

British left — can we break out of the

ghetto as well?[1]To plot a possible

trajectory we have to be clear of thepolitical alignment that has emerged forthe left under the Conservative Party-

Liberal Democrat coalition government.

While Ed Miliband’s Labour Party might

be surging ahead in the polls, the

possibility of a Labour left revival is

simply not on the cards. The Labour

Party is hollowed out and

bureaucratically controlled and all the

best intentions and actions of Labour

left activists will not change that. The

Labour left is reduced to the old

argument that there is nothing credible

outside the Labour Party. They

mockingly point to all the twisted

contortions of the far left in Britain in

the last decade (Socialist Alliance,Scottish Socialist Party, Respect, Trade

Union and Socialist Coalition, Left list,

Respect renewal, etc.) to forge a new

unity and conclude that the Labour

Party is the only show in town.  

But this is not an argument made from

the Labour Party left’s strength, it is an

argument about the radical left’s

weakness. They cannot point to anymeaningful gains made by the Labourleft in recent years because there hasn’t

been any. Even the Labour

Representation Committee (LRC), the

only signiicant bastion of the socialist

left in the party, has failed to grow. On

the crucial issue of the coalition

government’s spending cuts they

couldn’t even get any commitment from

their municipal councillors to vote

against cuts to local government

budgets. Some have claimed that the

Labour Party could act as a dentedshield against the coalition onslaught,

but the truth is that the Labour Party is

no shield at all. 

The most signiicant recent pressoffensive by the Labour Party has been

to force the government to re-examine

the west -coast mainline rail franchise

deal, not to re-nationalise it but to try

and keep Richard Branson’s Virgin

Trains on the line. Yet barely a peep

about the privatisation of the National

Health Service, including privatising the

pharmacies, some of which are also

being taken over by Branson’s Virgin

company. 

The Labour left is generally principled

on issues like privatisation and ightingausterity, but they are drowned out by

the party apparatus, which isoverwhelmingly neoliberal and anti-

socialist. John McDonnell’s failure to

even get on the leadership ballot in

2010 speaks volumes. As does the

obvious non-growth of the labour left

activist base. The magazine Labour

Briefing, which recently became the

oficial organ of the LRC, probably has a

readership of around 500-600 people,

smaller than some of the revolutionary

left newspapers. 

This is not to say that the Labour left

has no role to play – far from it – they

should just face reality squarely in the

face and realise that reclaiming the

Labour Party is a dead-end project. 

But there is some truth in their criticism

of the revolutionary left. Even where we

have built new organisations that

looked like they were about to achieve

lift off (Respect, SSP), they collapsed inignominy, usually caused by ego clashes

and ridiculous control freakery by

various organisations. While some of us

criticised the political basis of these

projects, the reality is that the political

weaknesses barely even had time to

come to the surface –the inveterate

problems of the far left ran these

initiatives into the ground long before

they even had a chance to be put to the

test of any kind of political power. 

So a Labour left that can’t get anywhere

and a revolutionary left that can’t get

anywhere. 

What lessons can we draw from these

”realities”? Certainly pessimism,although understandable, would be the

wrong conclusion. The lesson of SYRIZA

shows what can be done if the left gets

its act together, puts aside its own

‘to fight austerity we need unity’ Simon Hardy of the Anti-Capitalist Initiative argues for the radical left to unite

http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftn1#_ftn1http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftn1#_ftn1

8/20/2019 Commune 31

4/12

4 the communedecember 2012

thecommune.co.uk

aci

empire-building projects and tries to do

something that might actually make adifference. We have to start from the

objective situation and work backwards

– the reality of the cuts and a potential

lost decade to austerity needs to

sharpen our minds and our resolve.Starting from the necessity of a united,

credible left we can work backwards to

imagine the steps that we can take to get

there. 

I would go so far as to say that anyone at

the present time who opposes attempts

towards greater unity is, perhaps

unconsciously, holding back the

movement. The crisis is so acute and the

tasks of the hour so urgent that we haveno time for people who spend theirhours constructing excuses for

fragmentation, isolation and weakness.

They are the past, and we desperately

need a future. 

Dan Hind is right and his voice joins agrowing chorus of others who see the

need for unity on the left. Does this

mean every sect and group can just get

together? No, of course real differences

emerge. But there is so much that unites

us in the current political context that itis criminal – absolutely criminal – that

none of the larger groups are seriously

talking about launching a new united

organisation. The three-way division of

the anti-cuts movement is the bitter

fruit of this backward attitude on the

British left — a situation that should

deservedly make us a laughing stock in

other countries. 

If the success of SYRIZA raises thebenchmark for what the left can achieve

then the natural next question is, “Howcould we create an organisation like

SYRIZA in Britain?“ I think this question

should dominate the discussions on the

left in the coming months. But let’s be

clear – I am not saying we should just

transplant SYRIZA’s program and

constitution and graft it onto the British

left. Such an attempt would be artiicial.

An organisation like SYRIZA means a

coalition of the radical left, united

against austerity, united against

privatisation, united in action and

united in ighting social oppression. The

kind of program that any new initiativeadopts is largely the result of who is

involved in it, certainly it should have an

anti-capitalist basis, though it can leave

some of the bigger questions

unresolved, at least initially. 

Let’s focus on the goals that Hind

identiies: “campaign for an end to the

country’s predatory foreign policy, forthe dismantling of the offshore network,

for democratic control of the central

banks, urgent action to address the

threat of catastrophic climate change,

and reform of the national media

regimes.” 

Each constituency does not need to

dissolve itself, we just need to ensure

checks and balances to prevent

“swamping” of meetings. Each local unit

of the organisation would retain certain

autonomy while a national committeewas permitted to adopt political lines,

within the remits established at a

conference. If an organisation or

individual does not like any of the

policies then they should have full

freedom to speak their mind about it,

while accepting that there is unity in the

campaigns and actions the organisations

agrees to pursue. 

Everyone has to accept that they might

be minoritised at some point. But they

also have to understand that

abandoning the organisation over a

constitutional dispute or over this or

that policy means abandoning the vital

struggle for building a credible radical

left in this country. Do people want us to

live in glorious isolation for another

decade or more, as people’s living

standards plummet? 

We also have to overcome the very real

difference in size between constituent

parts on the left. The Socialist Workers

Party (SWP) for instance is still the

largest group on the radical left inBritain, although it is much smaller than

it was when I joined the left in 2001.

Members of the SWP argue that

launching a new party is not practical

because, as they will

numerically“dominate it”, it would cause

problems (as it has in the past). But

there are a number of ways to overcomethis, if there is a political will to make it

happen. Changing the culture on the left

also means changing how we

“intervene”into campaigns or broad

organisations, and taking a more openapproach, transforming sects into

networks and “giving of yourself” for the

greater need of the new organisation,

these can all be thoroughly healthy steps

to take. 

Possible alternatives, deinite pitfalls 

The danger is that the left attempts

some kind of united initiative, but limits

it to an electoral coalition – replicatingthe Socialist Alliance (1999-2004) but

without the enthusiasm. While agenuine socialist alliance would be a

step forward from the current situation,

it will suffer the same crisis as the last

version, where all the left groups did

their campaigning work under theirown banners but stood together only in

the election. 

Let’s put it bluntly, British people

generally don’t vote for electoral

coalitions. They are here today and gonetomorrow, people respect the concept of

a party or at least something more

tangible that looks like it is going to last

beyond the next internal spat. The

Scottish Socialist Party was credible

because it was united and forced thesmaller groups involved to campaign as

SSP activists irst and foremost. Putting

party before sect is essential to the

success of any project, just as it was in

the early days of the Labour Party orany of the Communist parties

internationally. 

The Respect debacle shows the danger

of personality politics (the“great man”

view of politics, when the entire project

is hung around one person’s neck). But

its fragmentation also shows what

happens when large constituent groups

(in this case the SWP) act like control

freaks and treat a coalition like their

personal property. Although they

blamed the disastrous outcome on John

Rees, the fact is that the entire party was

complicit in the mistakes that were

made, both opportunism in political

terms and bad practice in the

organisational centre of the party. It was

a feeling of loss of control when

Galloway started to criticise the SWP’s

handling of Respect that led the SWP

leadership to “go nuclear” in the words

8/20/2019 Commune 31

5/12

5 the commune

december 2012

thecommune.co.uk

aci

of one protagonist.[2] While we can be

critical of the conduct of Galloway andsome of his positions, the complaint

about organisational manoeuvres andpeople swamping meetings is one that

many on the left will be sadly familiar

with. This kind of practice must stop. 

The political problem with Respect was

not so much its “liberal”program, at the

end of the day it was largely old Labour

social democratic in much of what it

said, the unstable core at the heart of it

was the drive for electoral success withpeople who had no real interests in

extra-parliamentary movements and

struggles. A temporary alliance with

careerists can come back to bite you, as

it did for Respect in the east end ofLondon, where Respect councillors

jumped ship, irst to the Tories and

Liberal Democrats and then to Labour. 

Again this points up the importance of

political movements on the streets andin the workplaces as being paramount,

with elections as a subordinate part of

that strategy. Moreover, it means a

much more democratic and

accountable relationship between any

elected representatives and the rankand ile members, one where they are

subordinated to the wider organisation

and struggle, and not seen as its

“leaders” merely because they have

been elected to a position within thecapitalist state. This is a point that

SYRIZA will also have to debate out in

the coming months. 

Today the remains of the cycle of left

unity initiatives exists in the form of theTrade Union and Socialist Coalition

(TUSC), an electoral alliance betweenthe SWP and the Socialist Party (CWI),

as well as a handful of independents.

But again the TUSC only exists for

elections and has no activist base. It

seems to be doubtful that the TUSC can

be transformed into something better;

rather it appears to be a marriage of

convenience for the two bigger

Trotskyist groups. Its last conference

had less than 60 people at it, despite

the fact that the combined membership

of the constituent groups must be over

1000– real decisions are of course

taken by the SWP and SP party

leaderships. 

While the past should not be forgotten,

it can be forgiven, if people can prove

their earnest support for a new

initiative. Otherwise we are locked in a

vicious circle with no way out. 

Differences with SYRIZA 

Regardless of the subjective problems

of the British left’s sect -building ethos,

there are two objective problems if we

consider ourselves in relation to what

the Greek left has achieved. The irst is

that SYRIZA’s success is clearly the

result of a country in complete

meltdown. Wage cuts of 40% and

closure of important services is at a

qualitatively higher level than anythingwe have in Britain… so far. We

shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that only

around 10% of the cuts have gone

through, so worse is to come. 

Second, Syriza was launched in 2004

and has had the best part of a decade to

build up its support in elections before

the explosion in 2012. In most elections

they received around 5% of the vote,

which to the British left would be

nothing short of a breakthrough.

Patience and a long-term view of

politics is essential to make such a

project work. But then, maybe the

British“explosion” will happen soonersince any new organisation built will beinvolved in tenacious struggle against

austerity from day one. 

We also could not limit ourselves to

electoral politics as SYRIZA seems to

have an inclination to do. While some ofthe more radical elements within the

coalition are organising forums and

initiatives outside of the parliamentary

process, it is essential as part of our

strategy to see elections as a

subordinate part of the wider struggle,not the primary focus. If SYRIZA

imagines that it can really reverse the

austerity measures and revive Greece

only through governing the capitalist

state they will be in for a rude shock.

When it comes to Greece’s political and

economic future, the European Central

Bank and the leaders of France and

Germany, not to mention the Greek

capitalist class, are all in a far more

powerful position than the parliament

in Athens; removing their support and

control mechanisms would be a crucialtask for any radical government. 

Campaigning for a united, radical leftformation in Britain should be an

essential part of the Anticapitalist

Initiative’s (ACI) work in the coming

months and years. Even more so, 2013

should be the year that serious stepsare made to bring together a re-

alignment on the left. We have had ouringers burnt in the past, but we cannot

let past failures haunt us. If we fail to

rise to the challenge, then we will

deserve the defeats inlicted on us by

the ruling class. 

But the working class and the poor do

not deserve them. It is not their fault

the left is so weak – it’s ours. Now we

have to get our house in order so thatwe can create a movement that can

ight austerity and challenge capitalism. 

[Simon Hardy is a member of the new

Anticapitalist Initiative (ACI), which,

according to its website,  seeks "tosearch out avenues for unity and co-

operation that presents radical and

socialist ideas in a way that is more

appealing to new layers of activists. We

will promote activity and struggle thataims to overcome division and

sectarianism and points the way to a

new type of society without

exploitation and oppression." 

Notes 

[1] Read Dan Hind’s article here

http://aje.me/U5lUOj. It subse-quently drew a critically examina-

tion from Socialist Workers Party

member Richard Seymour at his

 Lenin’s Tomb blog http://

www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-

 problem-of -left-unity.html. 

[2] Seehttp://www.socialistunity.com/

galloway-on-respect/ and also http://

www.redpepper.org.uk/Car -crash-on-

the-left. 

http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftn2#_ftn2http://anticapitalists.org/http://anticapitalists.org/about-us/http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftnref1#_ftnref1http://aje.me/U5lUOjhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftnref2#_ftnref2http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-lefthttp://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftnref2#_ftnref2http://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.htmlhttp://aje.me/U5lUOjhttp://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftnref1#_ftnref1http://anticapitalists.org/about-us/http://anticapitalists.org/http://thecommune.co.uk/2012/10/15/britain-to-fight-austerity-we-need-a-united-left/#_ftn2#_ftn2

8/20/2019 Commune 31

6/12

6 the communedecember 2012

thecommune.co.uk

iops

What is IOPS? 

IOPS is the International Organisation

for a Participatory Society. It offers a

vision of a society where people have agreater say in the decisions that affect

their lives. The general principle is

people have a say in proportion to the

extent that the decision affects them.Its core values are: 

1.  Self -management  

2.  Equity/Justice 

3.  Solidarity 

4.  Diversity 

5.  Ecological stewardship 

6.  Internationalism 

What is the theoretical foundation

of IOPS? 

Michael Albert has been the key igure

in shaping the theory. Analysis is

divided into four spheres: 

1.  Community/culture  

2.  Kinship/gender 

3.  Polity/power 

4.  Economy/class  

These four spheres have two contexts: 

1.  Ecology 

2.  International Relations 

The institutions of the four spheres

generate relations of power, wealth,privilege & status. 

Economics is just one of the four

spheres & the two class analysis ofMarxism (capitalists & workers) is

rejected in favour of a three classanalysis that includes a coordinatorclass. These are the people who have

the empowering jobs, such as bankers,

accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc. The

argument is that these people,

although not capitalists, are an

obstacle to a classless society. Taking

the means of production away from

the capitalists will not create a

classless society unless the

empowering work is not shared outalong with the repetitive, mundane

tasks. It is not just about removingprivate property but abolishing the

division of labour. 

What is IOPS strategy? 

IOPS, or at least Michael Albert, is verymuch aware of the importance of

language. Being labelled a communist

is a handicap anywhere in the world,

but particularly in the USA. The samegoes for the terms Marxist, socialist,

anarchist, etc. All these words become

obstacles to the central message of

participation & having a real say over

the decisions that affect us. Hence the

emphasis on transcending 20th centurycentral planning & not having an

ideological driven blueprint. Rather to

promote a revolutionary organisation

that is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-

sexist & anti-authoritarian. It aims to

win a better world by: 

1.  Flexibly exploring & advocating

long term vision 

2.  Building the seeds of the future in

the present  

3.  Empowering the lives of its

members 

4.  Organising in an internally

classless & self -managing way 

5.  Winning changes in society that

better the situations 

So what’s wrong? 

By trying to avoid the label of Marxist/Communist IOPS throws the Marxist

bath out with the Leninist bath-water.

This then runs the risk of the

theoretical analysis losing itsmaterialist foundations. A scientiic

analysis of human existence shows

that societies are historicallydetermined by the development of the

forces of production that shape

productive relations. In otherwords,

pre-agricultural societies didn’t havethe economic classes that agricultural

societies had (e.g. feudal lords & serfs)& later capitalist societies have in theform of capitalists & workers. This

arguably can be extended to include a

coordinator class, as much as Einsteinbuilt on the work of Newton (pre-

agricultural societies still had

hierarchies of power). It certainly

doesn’t mean that Marx should bediscarded. The four spheres of life

mentioned above may all be important

& interact, but it is the economy which

is the most important by far. 

Albert perhaps implicitly realises this,hence why it is participatory

economics (parecon) that has been

given the most attention. Participatorypolitics (parpolity) is starting to catch

up, but there is no par-kinship or par-

culture, at least to my knowledge. 

So is this just a tactic? Does Albert

really recognise the importance of

Marx privately, but publically prefers

the impression of clear blue water?Maybe, & if so you can see the sense in

the tactic. Note how being an anti-capitalist is no longer the obstacle it

once was. Marx has made a comeback.

The BBC’s economics editor even made

a TV programme on him. Theimportant thing to do is to distinguish

between Marx’s analysis of capitalism

& the one-party dictatorships of the20th  century, most notably the Soviet

Union & China. This is where the

concept of the coordinator class haspower, rightly or wrongly. 

Another issue IOPS have is thedominance of one man, Albert. IOPS &

Albert appear to be almost one & the

same. It would be healthy to generate

 What’s wrong with iops? John Keeley examines

8/20/2019 Commune 31

7/12

7 the commune

december 2012

thecommune.co.uk

iops

more discussion about theory, vision

& strategy, & for Albert to be defeated

on something. This would show IOPS

isn’t coordinated by one man,

however able & dedicated he may be.The more IOPS grows & starts to

organise, no doubt the more this will

happen, & Albert would probably be

the irst to celebrate this. 

Compared to other revolutionary

gatherings IOPS appears to have more‘normal’ people. Apart from some

notable exceptions they seem to be

very inexperienced though. They may

not be so encumbered with language

& therefore the potential to become

sectarian, but can they organise & get

things done? Again, this will come intime & the culture of diversity &

helping others to grow is encouraging.

It will mean that those more use to

debating revolutionary politics will befrustrated, even horriied by

‘incorrect’ points of view, but suchdyed-in-the-wool revolutionaries

would do well to learn to be able to

talk in everyday language to everydaypeople rather than setting themselves

apart as the ‘experts’. I know this

includes me. 

So what next? 

Personally, I’m encouraged by the

approach of IOPS. It feels very much

like the libertarian/council

communism of the Commune. I need

to learn more about parecon, but the

basic concept of workers & consumer

councils seems sensible. Engaging

with IOPS will only encourage us to

examine our language, make us

explain our concepts in an easier to

grasp way, ask ourselves just how

sectarian we really are, & most

importantly what does it really take to

change the world. That’s after all what

it’s all about. 

interview with Michael albert

Michael Albert came to England at

the end of October to promote IOPSJohn Keeley asked him some ques-

tions. 

John Keeley (JK) -  Michael, you are

coming to England to speak at the

Anarchist Bookfair to promote IOPS,

what is the key message you want to

get across? 

Michael Albert (MA) -  I am speakingthree times at the bookfair, I believe,

once on Anarchist economics, once

on a three book set called Fanfare for

the Future, and once about IOPS. For

that matter, the trip is also taking me

to Norway, Sweden, Belgium, France,Germany, and Denmark for broadly

similar talks.For the anarchist eco-

nomics panel, my focus will be that to

be anarchist economics ought to un-

derstand existing economic relationsand their implications but with spe-

cial emphasis on the structures thatimpose restrictions on people con-

trolling their own lives, including, in

particular, markets and corporatedivisions of labor – not simply pri-

vate ownership. 

The Fanfare talk, I suppose, is to in-troduce the books, so I will focus on

trying to explain their motivation and

broadly what they encompass, in-

cluding how they try to provide the

tools needed for full and effective

participation in analyzing currentrelations, envisioning and advocating

goals, and developing organization

and program for reaching thosegoals. I will also try to summarize a

cross section of the insights in the

books. 

The third talk, the IOPS presentation,

is where I will try to make a case that

IOPS visionary, strategic, and organi-zational commitments are, or at least

in my view ought to be, highly con-

genial to anarchists. I will discuss thefeatures that I think justify that claim.

There will also be time, and I look

forward to answering questions that

raise people’s concerns about IOPS. 

JK- What makes IOPS different from

other revolutionary organisations? 

MA—For one thing, a large set of

such organizations are Leninist, or,

even if not calling themselves Lenin-ist, are organized in a fashion that

more or less mimics typical power

structures in society – including in-

corporating hierarchies of inluencerooted in racial, gender, political, or

economic residues from past oppres-

sive relations. IOPS, instead, elevates

the ideas of not only solidarity andmutual aid, but also, and perhaps

most critically self management anddiversity. 

The emphasis on self management isabout each participant having a say

in decisions broadly in proportion as

they are affected by them. This is of

course anarchistic in the best sense,and wildly different from the way

most organizations operate. 

The emphasis on diversity includes

welcoming internal dissent and pre-

serving contending viewpoints andproviding space for their being re-

spected and developed. These com-

mitments are not only quite contrary

8/20/2019 Commune 31

8/12

8 the communedecember 2012

thecommune.co.uk

iopsto what is typically found in Leninist

revolutionary organizations, and, butmany others, as well. 

The emphasis on self management anddiversity not only explain the IOPS

structure of local chapters, national

branches, and an international federa-

tion, which is far from distinguishing,but, more important and more distinc-

tive, they also explain the IOPS empha-

sis on supporting and respecting inter-

nal dissent and contending viewpoints,

using self managing decision making

procedures, and facilitating the involve-ment of all members in organizational

activity – with high consciousness and

conidence. 

Another main difference with most oth-

er revolutionary organizations is that

IOPS not only elevates race, gender, po-litical, economic, ecological, and inter-

national issues all to prominence, with-

out a priori claiming or urging that anyone is prior to or more critical than the

rest, IOPS also emphasizes having broad

vision for each, having program foreach, etc. Indeed the underlying concep-

tual commitments of IOPS are designedto cause its members to become aware

not only of the concerns that arise mostdirectly from their own personal experi-

ences, be those about gender, race,

class, or power – but alo the concerns

that are more distant from their own

personal experiences, for example the

three that they don’t feel so acutely, butnonetheless equally central to social

change. 

JK - Perhaps the key difference between

your position & Marxism is the role you

ascribe to a third class, the coordinator

class, can you explain more? 

MA—The marxist approach to class typ-

ically says that classes arise from andrelect ownership relations and then, in

light of that, goes on to emphasize two

classes because those two are deemed

most centrally important to under-

standing the world in order to win

classlessness. The two emphasized clas-

ses are, of course, capitalists and work-ers. Of course these two classes do both

exist and are both critical. No argument

there. 

But the approach that I favor doesn’t

stop at that realization. Instead, it saysthat while ownership relations can in-

deed produce class differences, other

structures in the economy can do so aswell. Then in answering the question

what classes are most critical to high-

light on the road to winning classless-

ness, this approach says there are three,

not two: owners, the coordinator class,

and workers. 

The coordinator class, located between

labor and capital and typically about

20% of all economic actors, gains itsposition, according to this approach,

due to having a relative monopoly on

empowering tasks and situations in dayto day economic activity. The claim isthat this group’s empowered circum-

stances, which stems from their position

in the division of labor as managers,lawyers, doctors, engineers, account-

ants, and so on, gives them a different

set of class motives and different con-sciousness then owners above or work-

ers below. This, in turn, has important

implications inside capitalism to how it

works. Even more important, it has crit-

ical implications for projects seeking toget beyond capitalism because beyond

capitalism there is not only a desirableclassless economy, but there is also an

economy that elevates the coordinator

class to ruling status while workers re-main below. That is, we have to not only

ight against capitalism, we also have to

ight for classlessness, which means forthe speciic institutions that guarantee

classlessness, lest we wind up, as has

historically repeatedly happened, with

what we don’t want, a new boss in place

of the old boss. 

JK – You are well known for promotingparticipatory economics, would this

require a form of direct democracy? 

MA—I think the phrase “direct democ-

racy” is rather vague, or at least to me it

is. If in the economy, it means peopleshould participate in determining eco-

nomic outcomes, and should do so with

a say proportionate to effects on them –

which I like to call self management –then yes, participatory economics, or

parecon, is conceived to deliver that.

But if “direct democracy” means every-one passes direct judgement on, say, all

the work that gets done in some plant,

on which person there does it, and so

on, then, no, of course not. Not only isthat level of comprehensive involve-

ment in everything that happens in a

large economy impossible, it also isn’tneeded or warranted, either morally or

economically. I didn’t get a direct say in

your choice of socks this morning, nor

should I have. So we have already estab-

lished that decisions are taken by differ-

ent groups, based on their involvement

– not with everyone having a direct say.At the talks you are asking about, there

will be time limits, but no one will inter-

vene to tell me I have to use a stop

watch, or a portable phone, or anything

else as my way of keeping myself to the

time. 

But let’s take another more subtle and I

also think, in real practical experience,

far more important point. Suppose 100of us work in some plant. Perhaps the

owners give up and leave (as happened

in hundreds of plants in Argentina someyears ago) or perhaps we throw the

owners out, or perhaps we create a new

workplace, from scratch. In any case,

owners are gone. So we opt for what we

call “direct democracy.” We set up aworkers council and it is our forum for

deliberation and decision making. Hav-ing understood the point raised earlier,

we don’t say that the whole group dis-

cusses everything about each person’sor teams daily choices. We say, instead,

that the workers council discusses

hours of work and schedules, produc-tion policies, remuneration, and other

broad issues. In other words, the council

as a whole sets policies, but then teams

and individuals function within those

policies making countless decisions forthemselves without anyone else directly

involved. So far, so good. We may optfor one person one vote majority rule on

such policy matters that affect the

whole workplace, or we may, I think farbetter, opt for self management which

would often mean majority rule, but

sometimes might require different deci-

sion norms such as consensus, twothirds, etc. – and different durations and

modes of deliberation as well. Still, so

far, so good. 

Now, however, suppose we retain the

old corporate division of labor. Perhapswe do this just by habit. Perhaps we all

think it is more effective. Perhaps we do

8/20/2019 Commune 31

9/12

9 the commune

december 2012

thecommune.co.uk

iopsit because some people, those who will

be managers, designers, etc., force it

through. Whatever caused us to do it,

we wind up with about 20 of us doing

all the empowering day to day taskssuch as design, inances, and whatever

those tasks may be in our workplace.

The empowering tasks convey to 20 of

us conidence, social skills, infor-mation, access to levers of inluence,

and so on, not to mention being more

pleasant, fulilling, etc. The other 80 ofus do rote and repetitive tasks which

induce only boredom, diminish our

conidence and social skills, reduceour knowledge, atrophy our experi-

ence of having inluence and instead

make us endure habitual acts of obedi-ence. The claim of the new approachIOPS members favor is that the 20%,

not by their genetics, or even malevo-

lently, will, due to their circumstancesin the workplace, so dominate the set-

ting of agendas and discussions and

decisions that are reached, and the 80will be so exhausted and alienated and

unprepared to participate other than

as observers, that, in time, the old crap

will come back – as the saying goes –and the 20 will be a class above and

dismissive toward the 80. The 20 willmake decisions that aggrandize them-

selves at the expense of the 80 and

that ensure their continued domina-

tion over the 80, all the while tellingthemselves they are loyally serving the

80. 

If it sounds like class rule is is because,

this view says, it is, at least writ large

across society, class rule. Of course

more needs to be said about the cor-

porate division of labor imposing classrule (and about markets and central

planning doing so as well), but what

ultimately emerges and distinguishes

the IOPS approach on these matters

from that of many other revolutionaryorganizations, is that with these views

one is moved to envision a new econo-

my that is truly classless, not an econ-

omy most of whose members want

classlessness but which retains corpo-

rate divisions of labor and/or markets

that prevent arriving at classlessness

and instead guarantee coordinatorclass rule. It also yields as an approach

that if one sees the need to embodythe seeds of the desired future in the

present in order to attain that desired

future, then one needs movements

that are aware of coordinator class /

working class dynamics and that self

consciously overcome the tendency

toward enforcing the old corporate

divisions of labor and markets thatproduce and preserve those dynamics.

This is analogous to working hard to

eliminate racist residues in the move-

ment lest they yield racist results in anew society, except in the case dis-

cussed here the issue is classist resi-

dues, and, in particular, residues inmentalities and especially structures

that elevate the coordinator class. And

it is why and how having a positivevision helps inform activity, by deter-

mining what new structures are need-

ed. And yes, as you say in your ques-tion, this added set of insights is alarge step away from usual marxist

conceptualizations of current society,

and particularly from their conceptu-alizations -and even more so their

practices – regarding what we need if

we are to have classlessness. 

Finally, one last point. Participatory

economics, and the above mentionedand related attitudes about economic

institutions, is not all that IOPS is

about. So when you ask about “direct

democracy” you may also have inmind political issues, of in families, or

culture, and so on. I think the same

broad issues as those above exist. Onewants self management, cooperative

negotiation and resolution of policies

with appropriate say for all affected.Arriving at, say, new political or other

institutions that embody and fulill

that aim, whatever other aims they

also fulill, of course also needs to be a

priority, and is, for IOPS. IOPS itself is,one might say, more an example of a

political institution than an economic

one, and nonetheless, all that we have

said, including about eliminating inter-

nal old style (or new style) hierarchiesof power, applies. 

JK – To achieve a participatory societyrequires overcoming the institutions

of capitalism, does this mean building

the new institutions required now? 

MA—Overcoming capitalism, yes – but

also racism, patriarchy, political au-

thoritarianism, etc. And yes, buildingnew institutions in the spaces we can

navigate even in current society is cer-

tainly part of what it winning a new

world requires and IOPS, for example,

is very serious about the slogan plant

the seeds of the future in the present.

This is why IOPS itself, a new institu-

tion in the present, seeks to be class-less, without political hierarchy, with-

out racist and sexist hierarchy, and so

on. It is why, not only in creating a

revolutionary organization, but also increating a production unit, a media

operation, etc., or addressing those

that the left already has, for that mat-ter, IOPS members would typically

argue for not incorporating (or retain-

ing) or for at least steadily overcomingresidues of past hierarchy producing

structures – including, those that yield

coordinator domination – which is anemphasis not so clearly prioritized bymost other revolutionary agendas. 

But I would like to also note that for

IOPS members getting beyond capital-

ism to classlessness isn’t just about

building the new classless institutionsnow – at least in the sense of starting

from scratch outside existing struc-

tures and creating new and separateones of our own. I have certainly done

that, And I believe that that is im-

portant to do, to provide models that

inspire and from which we can learnmore about our aims and also meet

various current needs. But people also

work in existing institutions, live inthem, study in them, celebrate in them,

vote in them. So a second part of the

project we face, that is easily as im-portant as building new institutions

with features that we desire, is to

wage campaigns and struggles inside

existing institutions to win changes

that meet needs and that also createconditions for winning still more

changes, all the while increasing con-

sciousness of injustices and especially

of positive alternatives, while also

growing movement membership andeffectiveness. 

8/20/2019 Commune 31

10/12

10 the communedecember 2012

thecommune.co.uk

organisation

Among the anti-capitalist left there hasbeen much debate of what is an

appropriate course of action in the

present circumstances of developing

capitalist crisis. A great deal of conlict

exists together with considerable

impatience. Discussions and debates

among the ‘left’ are tending toorientate around assisting and

initiating class or population wide

actions, and this via competing formsof organisation. Such attempts are

largely by either invigorating existing

ones, such as trade-unions andpolitical parties, (e.g. the Labour-Party

in the UK) or initiating new ones such

as Occupy and Syriza in Greece.

However, some of these initiatives

stem from a mistaken view, that small

groups, with the correct orientation

and ideas can stimulate signiicant andsustained actions, involving large

numbers of people – before the vast

majority of the population are ready todo so. In this case, they are bound to

fail. And of course, simply turning out

in large numbers to demonstrate or

vote will be insuficient to solve thispresent structural crisis. A parallel

problem is that promoters of these

initiatives generally appear to haveinsuficient understand of the

dynamics and evolution of protest,

uprisings and revolutions. In particular, a number of ‘left’

initiatives also suffer from an overlysubjective and bourgeois view ofhistory. They tend to exaggerate the

importance of leadership and talented

individuals as key motive forces of

changes in economic, social and

political affairs. Bourgeois historical

methodology predominantly focuses

upon the great igures in history –kings, statesmen, military leaders –

and imagines it is these characters

that galvanise, stimulate or create thedevelopment of important events and

historic transformations. From thiselevated viewpoint, the ordinary

people, the microscopic incrementalsocial changes, the day to day

processes of production, the moods of

the population are inevitably held inthe background whilst these igure-

heads, relecting hero worship oraspirations in that direction, are

posted in sharp focus and placed upon

various historic pedestals. 

This same phenomena is manifest

within some sections of the anti-

capitalist movement as former

’leaders’ (such as Lenin and Trotsky)are treated to the same bourgeois

form of elevation to hero or guru

status, while the real dramatispersonnel – the workers and others –

are absent or appear only in blurred

grey streaks across the historicalrecord. One of the rare personalities in

the anti-capitalist movement, who did

not follow (or aspire) to this tradition

was Karl Marx. He rarely credited any

individual, including himself, with any

such pivotal position of importance.

Although occasionally recognisingsome outstanding contributions by

individuals, in all his researches, he

concentrated upon classes, economiccategories and historical processes, as

being the real motors and engines of

economic, social and political

developments.  Accordingly, when informed of the

contents of a planned workers

congress in Zurich he respondedcritically in a letter. He considered its

organisers had their ‘heads in the

clouds‘, and were contemplating‘phantom problems’ when he wrote

the following; 

“What should be done at any deinitemoment in the future, and done

immediately, depends of course

entirely on the given historical

conditions in which one has to

act…….The doctrinaire and inevitably

fantastic anticipation of the

programme of action for a revolutionof the future only diverts one from the

struggle of the present.” (Marx to

Nieuwenhuis. February 1881.) This letter contained useful advice

which still has contemporaryrelevance. The letter clearly warns

against adopting doctrinaire positionsand ‘fantastic’ anticipations of

programmes of action and revolution.

It also suggests formulating proposalsafter giving serious thought to the

given historical conditions. Forrevolutionary anti-capitalists, those

conditions involved a realistic

appraisal of the economic, social and

political elements of contemporary life

at the time, not one or other variety of

wishful thinking or anticipation of an

impending revolution. If we considerthese historic conditions today we

cannot avoid including the following. 

A) A fundamental, structural andepisodic, economic and inancial crisis. 

B) The complete abandonment of any

serious anti-capitalist positions amongall the major political parties in

Europe and North America along with

the modern trade union movements. 

C) The spectre of Stalinist

sectarianism and its post -capitalist

form in the Soviet Union, China and

elsewhere which continues to damageand inhibit the post -capitalist project. 

D) A divisive and debilitating residue

of Leninist and Trotskyistsectarianism and vanguard elitism

within the revolutionary anti-

capitalist tradition, which further

distorts the anti-capitalist viewpoint. E) The almost virtual absence of any

serious anti-capitalist economic

theory among the vast majority of thepopulation, including that proportion

organised within the trade union

movement. For those anti-capitalists who accept

that the above ive aspects of thecurrent historical conditions are of keyimportance, certain things should

follow. If we also accept that the

capitalist mode of production is one

which is destructive of the welfare of

large numbers of humanity and the

planet’s ecological balance, then

certain responsibilities also attendthat understanding. The irst task, I

suggest, is that of widening the

understanding of the nature of thecurrent crisis. Without this

understanding only varieties ofKeynesian and neo-liberal policies are

likely to be pursued. I suggest that thiseconomic understanding is best

guided by the forensic economic

analysis of Karl Marx, in Das Capitaland other of his associated documents. 

crisis! so what else can we do?Roy Ratcliffe offers his thoughts on organisation

8/20/2019 Commune 31

11/12

11 the commune

december 2012

thecommune.co.uk

organisationA study of the history of the anti-

capitalist movement suggests that DasCapital was not well understood even

by various 20th century intellectuals

within the anti-capitalist movement,

let alone those workers who at the

time could barely read or write. Given

the neglect of Marx after the sectarian

distortion of anti-capitalist theory andpractice, an economic vacuum of

radical criticism exists. It is not

surprising therefore, that Keynesianand other bourgeois doctrines persist

among the organised and unorganised

working class for many workers todaydo not understand the real and

fundamental nature of the current

crisis. All mainstream economic,inancial and political observationsand suggestions are therefore dealing

primarily with the symptoms rather

than causes and workers are left

considering and pursuing solutions to

the ‘appearances‘ presented to them

by those who oppose to their interests. This in turn is leading to workers,

workers organisations and suffering

interest groups only making proposals

to deal with one or other symptoms of

the crisis, rather than the cause. Adegree of that misunderstanding is

inevitable, but it is logical that thatdegree should be reduced where

possible. Only a revolutionary anti-

capitalist perspective can begin tocounter this form of ideological

confusion and to counter it – it needs

to exist in larger numbers than atpresent. 

Although a minutely detailed

economic understanding of capital is

not necessary for all those involved in

anti-capitalist activity, the basic

principles do require a wide level of

understanding among all anti-capitalists. Dissemination of such a

critical understanding of economic

production under the capitalist mode,is being hampered by the fact of

sectarian divisions among the left. It is

further hampered by the impatience of

those on the left who wish to leap over

this step and prioritise the immediate

building of defensive organisations. 

Yet the history of revolutions

demonstrates that masses do notmove into large-scale protest

movements until their situationbecomes extremely desperate. Even

then the general perspective of the

masses for a deinite period of time is

one of challenging the existing

economic and political system to

change its direction, modify itsprogramme and ameliorate their

worsening situations. Revolutionary

transformations do not automaticallyoccur under the impetuous of large-

scale demonstrations, general strikes

or even mass uprisings. 

The latter, where they occur, aremerely akin to the seismic trembling

of the earths crust – which may or may

not result in a large-scale volcaniceruption or serious tectonic plate shift.

This noted initial trend of workers and

others making demands upon theexisting system has been repeated in

the 21st century by the examples of

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria in themiddle east and North Africa, alongwith Greece, Spain, Italy, France,

Portugal in Europe and to a lesser

extent in the UK. The mis-labelling of

middle-eastern uprisings as

revolutions indicates this confusion

exist among the bourgeois as well asmany left commentators. 

The fact that the majority of the

citizens are as yet only stirring into

sectional activity and subject to at

least some democratic illusionsconcerning the system they live under,

makes it a mistake to focuspredominantly upon agitation to

organise large-scale sectional actions.

When workers and others are ready,they will stir themselves and begin to

act on mass. When they do so they will

be better equipped for the struggle ifthey (or at least many among them)

have absorbed an understanding of

the economic essence of the capitalist

mode of production and the need to

champion all oppressed sectors ofsociety – not just their own! 

To my mind the task of revolutionary

anti-capitalists is to work alongside

such workers and convince them by

discussion and by the results of theirdefensive and reformist struggles that

the capitalist system holds no future

well-being for themselves, their

neighbours, their offspring or the

planet. That task of convincing others

cannot be done unless those anti-

capitalists are capable of

understanding the system itself and ofbeing able to work positively (in a non

-sectarian fashion) alongside workersand non-workers. 

Of course, part of that society-wide

learning will be by their own direct

experience, but another part should be

played by being informed of the

history of class struggle against capitalalong with the lessons learned. The

responsibility for the dissemination of

that history and the lessons learnedduring it lies at the moment with those

anti-capitalists who are part of a non-

sectarian, non-elitist milieu. It would

be of considerable assistance toworkers if a milieu developed who see

their task, not as authoritarian leaders

with the solutions already in theirpockets, but as egalitarian facilitators

of the self -activity of working people

and the oppressed. In addition to theabove need to understand and

disseminate more fully the economic

contradictions of the capitalist system,the further tasks of such individualsand groups I suggest should be; 

2. To fully understand, explain and

overcome in practice, the sectarian

heritage of the anti-capitalist tradition. 

3. To help facilitate, extend and

develop an international, non-sectarian network of anti-capitalists

and workers. 

4. Where possible, to assist and

support anti-capitalist, anti-

globalisation and anti-

ecological-

destruction issues and campaigns. 

5. To share with all those in anti -capitalist, anti-austerity and anti-cuts

struggles those above-noted

understandings and critical re-appraisals to begin to positively

reassert the humanist possibilities of a

post -capitalist form of economicsociety which produces for need

rather than greed. 

That task has begun in a number of

places around the world, but as yet it

is sporadic and few in numbers. Itwould be useful over the coming

months if a network of internet sites

and contacts, could be created among

those who share this or a similar

perspective. In this way the pooling ofknowledge and sharing good practice

could be developed. If one already

exists – all the better – please let me

know! It is to be hoped that others will

soon join in and assist in creating a

critical-mass which will in various

ways be able to make an effective

contribution to clarifying the struggleagainst the champions of capital and

resurrect the struggle for a post -capitalist society. One which fully

understands how to avoid replicating

the disasters of previous attempts. 

8/20/2019 Commune 31

12/12