...and worthy of a read. I was reading a Paris 68 book last night (When Poetry Ruled The Streets? Something like that), and it was the first such book I have seen that tried to outline what was going on in organisational terms in the May mini-revolution. I hadn't heard before of the farmers surrounding Paris and blockading it with tractors, of the farmer's committees organising with the workers' and students' committees to ensure that food got through to the people, the setting of prices at cost (to which those who wished to 'distribute' food had to agree), the student groups going round the shops and market stals ensuring the prices weren't rising. Above all, whist it can be claimed the revolt didn't achieve lasting societal change, the emphasis was above all on stimulating and permitting a leader and vanguardist-free on-going discussion as to what needed oding, amongst as many memebrs of the public as possible, organised into neighbourhood and worplace and college aciton committees: the model for devevloping (and it is/would be a constant develpment, just as the present ysstem is) of a revolutionary (not POST-revolutionary) society. Many visions, no blueprint....

No, we do NOT need an all emcompassing "social theory". All of us being social animals and having been raised in at least one society have some ability to judge by "pattern recognition" and "seeing" a description of a society can tell if it would "work". Where we would be likely to err is the other way around, judging "visions" too different from our own experience to be "impossible" when in fact the6y would represent totally viable societies to children raised within them.

You claim no need for "vision" and misdescribe a sense of "the goal" as a detailed prescription of how to get there. No such thing is meant by the proponents of "vision". What they are saying is that without a clear compelling snese of some "better world that is possible" why would anybody risk what little they now have --- better the devil they know.

Vision here DOESN'T necessary mean some detailed description. It means a "sense" of what is going to be different/bettter in this new way of living and why. It means a sense of shared goal, a shimmering destination but not at likely a roadmap for getting there. Perhaps just a general sense of which direction to try to go. Like hell "vanguardism" -- that's YOUR problem with your "religious" beliefs in "historical determinism". A "vision" for "leaders isn't what this is all about but a shared sense of vision for the masses of people.

Look at your own thinking. You don't believe we need any sense of which way to go, no sense of this "New Jersulasem" we are to fight and die for, no need to know which way to go because YOU believe "the only roads that exist miraculously lead to somewhere better". Well gee, how about all of us who do not share your wonderful "faith", who believe that some roads lead to worse hell holes than the one which we now inhabit.

a simple point first - have you not noticed the power of the internet ? If they are fair-minded, the owners of the Znet site have only to put a prominent link to your hypothetical Australians website, and the disparity of power evaporates. No problem to have links to various competing "visions", and lots of rational discussion about their relative merits.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

And now - the main topic...

......though I haven't given these questions enough thought to really contribute - my initial position is that truly complex systems (society, human body) can only achieve stability and avoid chaos by utilising inbuilt automatic feedbacks.

This is why capitalism I suppose.
In theory it should mimic nature, and like nature it should ensure every ecological (economic) niche becomes filled.

Ideally it should be so much more efficient than disconnected systems, or than planned systems, that the extra surplus should allow the lives of the "less economically fit" to be raised well above the level they would achieve under an in-principle "fairer" or more equitable system.

But of course we know that it has all gone horribly wrong with loyalties attaching to the state and not humanity, and with warfare feeding on its economic benefits regardless of human suffering. And the new means of universal communication being used to brainwash populations etc etc.

(Presumably it's because the body lives or dies as one, whereas human society can decide for itself the size of the "survival unit". So evolution forces individual cells in a body to cooperate or die, but individuals may choose for themselves the boundaries of their home "loyalty unit". The DNA provides the "vision".)

I don't know what alternatives might work - how stabilising feedbacks would be incorporated. I can imagine a new "vision" forged on a good understanding of our new situation and our past mistakes - but yes, that would necessarily be drafted at least in part by an elite, however consultitatively.

Could we find our way through to a new, better, fairer situation of stability - without any controlling vision, but simply by the unco-ordinated actions of groups of grass-roots individuals?

I would love to think so, but it seems to defy common sense. Particularly bearing in mind that at least half these "unco-ordinated actors" will be working towards building their own criminal empires and enslaving others. Without some communally agreed "vision" what force would there be to resist them ? Without the "DNA" wouldn't the body collapse into a cancerous slime ?

It seems that the natural state of the world is to be like Afghanistan, carved up by competing warlords. In that case it needed a "vision" as total and as unbending as the Taliban to bring stability. Now that is gone, chaos has returned and the alien capitalist "vision" of the US is proving inadequate to the task.

However unjust our society is, at least in the west it is enabling us to feed and protect our blind, old, sick, and feeble. My fear is that all this is more fragile than it appears. Once gone it could not be put back together.

So - very reluctantly, I plump for careful, progressive change. To be a reformer. But I am open to persuasion.

It makes sense to outline visions of a future society, because:

1) People need to be sure that a future society, one constructed on the proposed lines, CAN actually work. People allege that participationary democracy cannot work, so complex models of how it WOULD work are useful to prove that it will work.
2) People need to know what kind of thing can NOT be done, eg. delegates shouldn't be given too much power, or they might be corrupted, make all the decisions, and democracy will become just rubber-stamping.

Besides, these 'visions' are just possibilities, they are not huge monolithic plans covering everything from the South American peasants to wherever, they are just different ideas as to how things could be done.

An interesting thread of comment for once (or am I just too academic?)! Just a couple of responses:
"Could we find our way through to a new, better, fairer situation of stability - without any controlling vision, but simply by the unco-ordinated actions of groups of grass-roots individuals?", well, I'd say take a look at Indymedia, the slime-mould technique, ant colonies etc etc. Complex and inter or intra-dependent systems can be observed built up on a local level with fairly simple rules, we see this organisationally in practice in affinity groups, spokes councils etc in 'the movement'. The question of how these arrangements transfer to wider society is a valid one. Crisis seems to bring it out 'automatically', so the 'permanent revolution' would bring out the same?

"It seems that the natural state of the world is to be like Afghanistan, carved up by competing warlords. In that case it needed a "vision" as total and as unbending as the Taliban to bring stability. Now that is gone, chaos has returned and the alien capitalist "vision" of the US is proving inadequate to the task." Fair enough analysis, it was obvious to anyone who knew anything of Afghanistan's history what the role of te Taliban was, and what would result when it was removed. However, Afghanistan is no more the 'natural state of the world' than anywhere else, it is a particular society with particular institutions and customs, in this case a religious, tribal society which has got hold of a lot of guns and RPGs through being at war for a quarter century. I think that might have more to do with it...why not point to the Sami, or the Bushmen, or the Aborigines as 'the natural state of the world'? From before Hobbes the western enlightenment tradition has equated authoritarianism with a functioning society, and anything else (no matter how well it works) as 'anarchy' or 'the state of nature'.

"However unjust our society is, at least in the west it is enabling us to feed and protect our blind, old, sick, and feeble. My fear is that all this is more fragile than it appears. Once gone it could not be put back together." on the backs of the rest of the world we support our weak, whilst the money traded every day could support the whole population for a year. It's not as fragile as it seems, more people in the UK do voluntary work than salary work, society is already held together by mutual aid and altruism. Imagine if we freed up the profits of the multi-nationals to support this basically extant @narchist society, and to develop it further. And why would we want to putput the same back together if it so unfair. Try something else?

Marko (  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283004.html ) has two
large reasons for not only disliking my advocacy of parecon and vision
in general, but for thinking that such advocacy by myself and others is
downright harmful. Moreover, these reasons are not unique to Marko, but
prevent a great many anarchists and libertarian activists from even
looking at proposed visions, much less working on creating, elaborating,
or advocating them. I therefore much appreciate Marko enunciating his
reasons so clearly and openly, and Indymedia UK publishing them online.

The first reason Marko offers is that pursuing vision can't yield useful
results. We can't generate worthy vision because we don't know enough
about humans and social institutions. Pursuing vision inevitably
oversteps existing or even possible knowledge.

The second reason Marko offers is that to produce vision is an elitist
undertaking, likely dominated by a narrow group of elite figures.
Moreover, it will replace and otherwise obstruct the truly essential
process of having movement aims emerge from the widest possible practice
and participation.

To be very clear - I agree with Marko that IF thinking about,
presenting, debating, elaborating, refining, and finally advocating
vision is (a) ignorant and futile, and (b) elitist and likely to impede
essential popular processes, then no one should do it. But I think both
these claims are false.

First, can vision have merit and be useful?

I and others claim that movements need compelling descriptions of
central institutions for various parts of social life for two central
reasons.

(1) We need vision to inspire hope against cynicism.

People who think there is no alternative to capitalism, racism, sexism,
and authoritarianism, will often see entreaties to fight these ills the
way we see entreaties to blow against the wind or to fight gravity or
aging: as being a fool's errand. They know these systems oppress us, but
they take them as inevitable and they see our opposition as futile. They
tell us to grow up, face reality, get a life. It is what we might say to
someone telling us to join their movement against aging. Vision can
provide reason for struggle and the absence of vision clearly causes
hopelessness.

(2) We need vision to provide insight for criticizing and
transcending ill conceived aims and strategy as well as to orient our
own strategies so that they lead where we desire to wind up, rather than
causing us to wind up somewhere we would rather never have gone.

Movement struggle isn't undertaken simply for the sake of struggle, nor
even to be able to face ourselves in the mirror, nor to fight the good
fight. We engage in struggle to win liberation by way of changing
structures and relations in society. But what changes should we seek,
and by what means?

Vision can help us see how our modes of organizing and reaching out, how
our values and analyses, and how our organizations and demands fit into
a trajectory of change taking society in a new direction. In contrast,
lacking vision and lacking analysis of how our acts tend to propel
movements and institutions in new directions, there is every possibility
we will go in circles or will create great change that leads to new
systems barely better or even worse than those we now endure.

If vision exists but is held privately, and if it fact celebrates
oppressive ends, of course the danger is even greater. But if we have
publicly and widely shared and regularly updated visions, and if we
understand the necessity that our daily, weekly, and yearly tactical and
strategic choices should embody and lead toward our visions, then the
likelihood that our movements will take society to draconian ends or
even to other than the ends we seek, will be greatly reduced.

Second, regarding process, I and others who urge the need for vision
claim that arriving at vision needs to be a public, open, transparent
process. The idea is for visions that bear on different sides of life to
be offered, debated, etc. They must be presented clearly and made easily
available. They need to disseminate widely, if worthy, so that they are
finally owned by whole movements, including having been refined and
adapted, rejected or accepted, and continually modified in light of
collective lessons with everyone understanding their logic and able to
contribute to their refinement and advocacy. We claim that if this type
of broad and open interaction and shared result doesn't occur, then, as
in the past, the rank and file membership of movements will aspire to
wonderful values while leaders will tend to hold essentially secret aims
that are horribly contrary.

My disagreement with Marko should be clear. I think people can conceive
worthy vision and that it can help us in diverse ways. And I think the
process of conception, debate, refinement, and advocacy can be open and
collective - and indeed, that it will only be that if it is undertaken,
of course.

Okay, so disputing these arguments, Marko quotes me saying that "the
advocates of long term vision aren't looking for everyone to conceive
and advocate institutional alternatives for a new society, we are only
arguing that some people ought to do it." He fails to note, however,
that in context this particular statement is pointing out that while I
think it is important for people to do vision, I am not saying it is the
only important thing people can do so that everyone ought to drop
everything else to do it.

I repeatedly urge that we need vision for economics, politics, culture,
and kinship - and probably regarding narrower domains as well. We don't
need (nor could anyone sensibly produce) blueprints, but we do need
broad vision that encompasses key defining institutions. It ought to be
utterly obvious that of course not everyone is going to work on first
drafts of such visions, nor is any one person likely to work seriously
on visions for every domain. That seems evident. But Marko fails to note
that I also repeatedly point out that those who do work on offering
vision have a responsibility to set out their views in clear and
straightforward language so that broad movements and indeed, if after
refinement the visions prove worthy of it, the whole public can assess,
revise, or reject them, as the case may be.

What Marko is upset by is setting vision to paper. He thinks it should
emerge from activity without having percolated through minds and unto
pages with authors. It is as though if something gets written down it
means it didn't arise from collective insight. Why is that?

Take Parecon...the economic vision that I advocate. Yes, it was first
written down by two people. But it is of course a distillation and
presentation of insights gleaned by looking at a century of practice as
well as via direct participation in a few decades of practice, including
not only movement opposition but also the creation of alternative
institutions. Writing down ideas that emerge from all that, after
thinking long and hard about them and their presentation, is but a
little tiny step in a long long process. And what that tiny step does,
in fact, is to facilitate subsequent debate and discussion, not curb it.
What would curb debate and discussion, is to have vision or anything
else written only in abstruse academic language, or to have it not
written at all, but only discussed by narrow circles in their private
enclaves. But to work aggressively for the widest possible presentation
fosters the collective participation Marko rightly desires.

So I wonder why Marko fails to mention that I repeatedly urge that if
vision isn't being set out for public debate and assessment, then it
will exist privately in the hands of a few, as has been the case in the
past. The choice is not for movements to have some vision or to have no
vision -- because we know there will be vision. The choice is whether to
have vision that is widely and openly assessed and owned, or vision that
resides only in the hands of a few -- a Vanguard. How does publishing
and disseminating vision proposals curtail debate about vision, I
wonder?

So what is Marko's case. First, Marko says that we can't answer
questions about what we want because "our knowledge of human nature and
the massive complexity of human societies do not permit us to answer
that question satisfactorily."

Maybe that is so, contrary to my beliefs, but if it is so, then Marko
and others should have no trouble showing how Participatory Economics,
or, for that matter, any vision offered for economics or for any other
sphere of social life -- polity, culture, kinship -- overextend our
knowledge and flimsily fall apart when scrutinized. That would be a
compelling thing for Marko to provide, but he doesn't.

Yes, I agree that if someone were to put forth some kind of gigantic
detailed blueprint asserting that every feature was perfectly conceived
and essential, it would not only overextend what we can plausibly
foresee, it would also be an act of gargantuan hubris, which, if
unchecked, might well cut off exploration to everyone's detriment.

But for us to say here is our alternative to private ownership of
productive property, to markets, to corporate divisions of labor, and to
remuneration for property and power -- here is our alternative to
capitalist economics -- isn't to go too far, I believe.

But how can we determine that it doesn't go too far?

Well, one possibility is when someone puts forward such an alternative
publicly, Marko and others could look at it, think on it, and indicate
where it is making unwarranted or even outrageous assumptions that
transcend our knowledge. But, if they can't find such problems, then
shouldn't they be pleased that it is possible to generate vision, and
shouldn't they turn to the problem of how to have movement members
participate in elaborating and utilizing worthy vision, both to rally
interest and support and to orient strategy, rather than having only
tiny groups monopolize vision.

But Marko says, a priori, that we can't do it. He doesn't' say he has an
intuition that we probably can't do it. He asserts that no one should
even try.

It is Marko, in other words, who is saying I know something - that human
nature and society are too complex for vision to be anything but hubris
-- and because of this knowledge that I assert without even a sentence
of justification for the claim, I know that anyone who dares to try to
answer such questions must be foolish or ill motivated. Marko doesn't
care to look at what is offered to see its merits or its failings. He
knows, a priori. Moreover, he tells everyone else they should have the
same dismissive attitude toward vision. I agree that someone in this
exchange is overstepping the bounds of what people currently know, but I
think it is Marko.

Marko quotes me saying..."if we have long term economic vision, however,
we can say...here is how we could accomplish economic productivity and
distribution in a new society without profit seeking and without
markets. Here are viable economic institutions that can accomplish
production and allocation..."

He replies "Notice that this is something Albert, and others, cannot
achieve." He tells us that "to do so we need a detailed social theory;
of how human nature and our innate sociality enables us to formulate
complex societies and the manner in which we do so. No such social
theory has been formulated, and is even near being formulated. It is
highly likely that it's not in principle something that humans can
formulate."

Okay, this is a viewpoint. The key to it is the assertion that offering
up a worthy vision has as a prerequisite possessing a master social
theory, which prerequisite can't be met. Of course this is just an
assertion -- there is no argument showing why such level of
comprehension is required -- but, okay, it is on the table.

I reply that there is no such need. One can develop a broad vision of
defining institutions in various spheres of life without having an all
powerful theory of humans or of social institutions. We need have some
understanding of social institutions and of people, yes, of course, but
not omniscience by any means.

Isn't my reply just as much a statement without evidence as Marko's
claim. Yes, except I do on to say...here is parecon, a vision for
economics. Let's test your claims and mine. If you are right, Marko, you
should be able to show, quite easily, where parecon relies impossible to
know things, where it ignorantly oversteps realism, and thus why what I
have offered is horribly flawed. But Marko doesn't bother to do this. He
feels he doesn't even need to look at parecon or any other vision. He
can say -- without looking -- all vision is beyond our ken.

Well, okay, I guess he is entitled to that opinion. But I wonder where
the real hubris lies. Is it me, saying that it is critically important
for folks to utilize our best accumulated insights about social
institutions and human needs and capacities to work on and then to offer
vision, clearly and openly for movements to assess it, test it, refine
it, reject it, or advocate it? Or is it Marko saying no, no one should
do that, because I know it won't work and it will be elitist?

Marko has some more arguments to offer. He says a vision offered with
the best of intentions can lead to horrible outcomes. That's true
enough. But the solution isn't for there to be no vision, or, more
likely, a vision only held by those insensitive to the problems of power
and hierarchy. The solution is for there to be open, continually
challenged and improved vision.

Moreover, in the grotesque cases of anti-capitalist movements yielding
horrible subsequent relations that Marko alludes to, it wasn't
libertarian vision that was at fault. In fact, those movements got what
they sought: one party states and coordinator ruled economies. The
movement rank and file wanted real liberation, to be sure, but the
guiding concepts and vision of their movements led elsewhere, not by
mistake or by accident, but because that's where they were aimed. The
injustices of the past aren't an argument for anarchists and others to
forego vision -- leaving it, again, to those with less liberatory
intentions. They are an argument to grab hold of vision, challenge it,
refine it, advocate it widely, and make it the property of everyone in
our movements.

Marko notes that I admit, in fact that I assert that even without vision
we are warranted in struggling against injustice. True, I do. But I add
that without vision we are far less compelling and insightful about our
own choices than we would be with vision. The question isn't should
someone who asks us, what do you want? and who gets no answer
immediately join our movements anyway, out of pure oppositional energy.
The question is what do we do about the fact that most people won't rush
to join a visionless movement and will instead be hindered by their
doubts of any alternative better world being attainable. I think what we
should do is produce worthy, collectively tested and refined, widely
shared, compelling vision.

Next Marko says parecon was first put to paper by two folks. How can
what two folks wrote be seriously proposed as a vision for a country, or
many countries, or a world, he wonders? Well, if something offered were
to be jammed down the throats of humanity, that would be horrendous, of
course. But that something is offered for evaluation and refinement, is
different. Yes, two people put the proposed vision to paper, but a
century and more of activists labored and analyzed to arrive at the
accumulated insights that informed the effort.

Marko says vision won't come from the populations of poor countries, or
communities. I don't know how he knows this. But even if it was
true...it would be all the more reason for those in other parts of the
world or in communities who were, for whatever reason, able to do so, to
offer vision openly and clearly -- rather than to hold it close to the
vest until implementation time. But the fact is, as I never tire of
indicating, generating vision doesn't require elaborate tools or
resources. Nor does it require particularly great knowledge. The only
hard part is delinking oneself from the familiar, and, I have to say,
overcoming opposition to even trying.

Marko says, "For Michael Albert everything is to be participatory except
the vision itself; I want to live in a society where I have decided its
contours in free association with others. I don't want to live in a
society whose detailed architecture has been drawn up by 'some people'.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone, anyone, putting forth
in print a proposal for a vision - and doing so clearly and in simple
language, and urging the need for widespread discussion and refinement,
and trying to provoke and facilitate that, and noting that if what is
offered is shown unworthy, folks should go back to the drawing board,
and noting that the only vision that matters is vision that goes through
wide assessment and becomes collectively elaborated and advocated by
participatory and freely associating movements -- is somehow doing
something inconsistent with Marko's wish. Marko, your deciding the
contours in free association with others doesn't require and isn't even
abetted by no one ever setting out in print proposed visions. It would
be hurt by that, in fact.

Marko says, "Anarcho-Syndicalism demands that the detailed thinking
about a future economy is to be decided by the liberated working class
itself, not by a prior group of intellectuals. That is working class
"self-emancipation."

When should working people start deliberating the issues - after their
councils are obliterated by leaders with a vision contrary to their
interests? Certainly not. Okay, then how about their doing so as early
as possible in the development of movements and struggle? Isn't that
facilitated by vision being set forth clearly and openly?

Marko feels that a vision like Parecon will only be discussed by
intellectuals and will be their property, inevitably. Ironically, with
this particular vision, parecon, getting "intellectuals" to pay
attention at all is almost impossible. And the reason is evident: the
vision eliminates the class perks that some intellectuals hold dear.
Parecon is the antithesis of a program for what I call the coordinator
class, including elite academics.

Finally, I hope others will look at parecon and other offered visions
for themselves. My great worry, a kind of ironic flip side of Marko's
concerns, is that most anti-authoritarians will continue to forego
attention to vision, for Marko's reasons or others, and as a result,
like in past years vision will be conceived by people with far less
concern about power and hierarchy who then hold their vision privately
and implement it over the far more liberatory aspirations of whole
movements.

Had some problems with the format; hope this works. I would like to make some brief points on Michael Albert's reply;

Now he, Albert, begins by making point (a). But this is just a reformulation of what I termed in the article the "alternative question". Albert here merely restates his position, nothing more nothing less. In the article I stated my position on this and I will briefly revisit it here; The argument for vision essentially is a demand that to provide hope and so on and to get others involved in the movement you have to present an alternative "vision"; that is a vision of a post-capitalist society. But as I argued this is not enough, for to truly answer the "alternative question" one must demonstrate that such a detailed vision is possible and feasible. If it is not possible and feasible then you undercut the entire reason for being involved in the movement because if you accept the claim that the "alternative question" must be dealt with, but discover that it cannot be dealt with, then you have entirely undermined the case for social change.

OK. In response Albert states, "maybe that is so, contrary to my beliefs, but if it is so, then Marko and others should have no trouble showing how Participatory Economics, or, for that matter, any vision offered for economics or for any other sphere of social life -- polity, culture, kinship -- overextend our knowledge and flimsily fall apart when scrutinized. That would be a compelling thing for Marko to provide, but he doesn't." Notice that Albert misunderstands what I am saying; I am not saying that a particular vision, in this case Participatory Economics, but that the demand to produce a vision in principle is unable to do what it claims to do, namely give a proper answer to the "alternative question". At any rate, see the last paragraph here.

Contrast Albert's statement here with his concluding remarks in "Help Me Out" (cited in my article above), "I would like to reply to those who reject long term vision by saying, back to them hey, of course vision can outstrip reasonable deductions from of our knowledge, of course it can be elitist and sectarian, of course it can be pie in the sky and divorced from implications for current program and strategy -- but here is participatory economics and I believe it hasn’t succumbed to those failings. So what is your reaction not to vision in the abstract, but to this particular vision". He goes on,"But I understand that many critics of long term institutional vision feel that to look closely at a particular vision such as participatory economics would be a waste of time and also ratify a pursuit they don’t want to legitimate. Fair enough. But how about discussing the three points for long term vision, the four points against long term vision, and particularly the response to the latter that is offered above?"

Quite right, my take is "fair enough". But now he repudiates this and wants me to go into his detailed vision rather than look into the question of vision in principle, the concern of my article. To delve into participatory economics would require me to first accept the principle of vision construction, then evaluate his "social theory" (the theory of the four social sectors [economy, culture, kinship, polity] and their autonomy), then examine the claims he makes in one sphere the economy (his 3 class theory and that the ruling class in the "socialist states" was the "techno-managerial" class or the "coordinator" class and that in SFR Yugoslavia that "self-management" because of the market led to the advent of coordinator class rule [the Wetzel claim, presumably shared]), then we would be led to the actual vision namely "participatory economics".

Clearly the reader will note a certain contradiction in the details, for instance the claim that the "techno-managerial" or "coordinator" class became the ruling class in SFR Yugoslavia and that because of the market this class was able to achieve this even under "self-management". Albert also, including as well Wetzel, has made the claim that the "coordinator" or "techno-managerial" class was the ruling class in the USSR and that in a sense Marxism-Leninism is a conducive ideology for them. See the contradiction?

From 1945-1948 Tito was the USSRs most loyal satellite, he implemented the Soviet model. So, presumably the "techno-managerial" or "coordinator" class was the ruling class. In 1950 "self-management" was introduced. Market style reforms were introduced by the "liberals" after the fall of Rankovic (1966) and these market principles consolidates the "techno-managerial" or "coordinator" class. What this means is that from 1950-1966 "self-management" was working; when the communist party said it was transferring sovereignty to the "united Yugoslav working people" it meant what it said but then came the "liberals" in the party with their market and bang the ruling class status of the "techno-managerial" or "coordinator" class was consolidated.

So, what is the "vision" then given this? It is that we should have a state ruled by the communist party who will introduce "self-management" like SFR Yugoslavia between 1950-1966 without making the mistake of having markets. But this is not the vision which he professes, so we have a contradiction.

After this aside, let me return to the "alternative question". Albert in his reply states, "I repeatedly urge that we need vision for economics, politics, culture, and kinship - and probably regarding narrower domains as well. We don't need (nor could anyone sensibly produce) blueprints". OK. That may be Albert's personal position but notice that it is mistaken. The whole point of the vision argument is to produce a vision in answer to the "alternative question". Recall my point that in answering this question that one must provide a vision that is feasible and so on; that requires a detailed "blueprint". Wetzel in response somewhere claimed that what is only required is an abstract set of minimal principles.

That is wrong; the point is to answer the alternative question. Nobody is going to be convinced by an abstract set of minimal principles, to convince those who demand an answer to the alternative question will require a detailed blueprint in order to test the vision's claims to feasibility. You do NEED blueprints to answer the "alternative question". Those already in the movement might not need them, but they don't need them not because of the vision but because of their prior recognition that the capitalist system is inherently unjust.

Given this I submit that my take on the "alternative question" is valid, as Albert has conceded a detailed blueprint is not viable ("nor could anyone sensibly produce"). Hence Albert's attempts to convince those who answer the "alternative question" must fail and granting legitimacy to the "alternative question" demand means that you have effectively undercut the case for social change.

Capitalism is morally wrong, for a number of reasons; the market, such as it exists (for the poor), is an abomination; millions of kids starve to death. Those who ask the "alternative question" can go get stuffed.

On the question of elitism, Albert states "I can't for the life of me understand why someone, anyone, putting forth in print a proposal for a vision - and doing so clearly and in simple language, and urging the need for widespread discussion and refinement, and trying to provoke and facilitate that, and noting that if what is offered is shown unworthy, folks should go back to the drawing board, and noting that the only vision that matters is vision that goes through wide assessment and becomes collectively elaborated and advocated by participatory and freely associating movements -- is somehow doing something inconsistent with Marko's wish". There is nothing wrong with this for the emancipated working class; this is something that the working class may end up doing and would constitute their final self-emancipation but what I am saying is that as things exist now there is only one class in society that has the required freedom and privilege to do so, and that is not the working class but rather the intellectual classes; whatever they produce will be in their interests. The working class can do these things but first it must be free. If society is indeed divided into 3 classes then the demand to produce a vision in such a society is something that is most conducive to the intellectual classes, that is that class in society which is a class by virtue of its claim to knowledge. I think that should be clear; it is for this reason that indeed Marxism is an ideology that can be conducive to this class, one reason being the Marxist claim about "the unity of theory and practice"; it is this that the znet demand to produce vision in such a class based society must reproduce, irrespective of Albert's desires in the matter.

Of course, Albert would prefer that the vision that is produced will reflect the interests of the working classes. He may not be responsible for what his followers, such as some assorted self-styled "intellectuals of the new generation", will do with it; just as the classical liberal thinkers like Humboldt are not responsible for neo-liberalism. It is quite possible that "parecon" will be hideously distorted to serve other ends other than working class emancipation...although one may also argue that this is a predictable consequence of the vision demand in an unfree 3 class society, in which case he would share a measure of guilt for the sins of his followers; I subscribe to the latter view.

A number of people in Washington have a "vision"; to produce a "democratic" middle east characterised by "free markets" in order to "combat terrorism"; also a vision about a lighter military (in theatre) able to engage in quick fire interventions at the same time across regions. Many in the military shared this vision, some expressed misgivings such as Army chief of staff General Shinseki. One of the things that every officer in the US military was taught was surely the truism that "no plan survives contact with the enemy". Something that the neo-conservatives are starting to be confronted with. Why is this? It is because of what Clausewitz referred to as "the fog of war". But what does the "fog of war" reflect? It reflects that the game of understanding human beings and society is a matter fraught with uncertainties. Suppose someone was to say to the peace movement. OK you oppose the visionary Wolfowitz, but what is your alternative pal? My response? Get stuffed...I don't have to produce a detailed blueprint of an alternative system of world order, founded on a broad social theory, in order to oppose the certain killing of pregnant women for a power hungry clique.

I sincerely hope that the global justice movement does not repeat the visionary style of politics and learn, like the neo-conservatives are now learning, that no plan survives contact with the enemy. An econometrician is confronted with understanding the present day economy, an economy largely constructed for the interests of the capitalist ruling class, yet their predictions of what the EXISTING economy will do are invariably wrong; they don't understand the present day economy. Yet to answer the "alternative question" we must satisfy ourselves about a FUTURE economy. Hence it is very simple to state that "participatory economics" oversteps the bounds of knowledge: nobody understands how the economy works now, even econometricians, so how can anybody purport to present a feasible picture of a future economy?(recall to answer the "alternative question" one must require a detailed blueprint)

The claim that one can is either hubris or folly...or both.

Let me just say another point in clarification. Perhaps this explains things better; Albert at one point would have me demonstrate that participatory economics as a vision cannot work. He misunderstands my point.

He thinks I am an atheist when it comes to participatory economics, that it won't work period. Firstly I take myself to be a revolutionary, not reformist, with respect to capitalism. Secondly I oppose the market (to the extent that we have a "market economy", which isn't much) and thirdly I broadly favour the anarcho-syndicalist path to working class emancipation. However I am not an atheist with respect to participatory economics; I am an agnostic. This is clear from my position above; I do not know whether it is feasible or not just as I do not know, or anybody else can know, how the present economy works or how a future economy will work.

But in being an agnostic I am not a theist; I do not know whether "parecon" will work period. But to answer the "alternative question" you must be a theist with respect to participatory economics but as I have argued this is an untenable position. And because no blueprint of a future economy can satisfy anybody who asks the "alternative question" I believe that the theist position with respect to participatory economics is invalid, hence undercuts the demand to produce "vision" thereby becoming a conservative argument against social change as outlined above.

When it comes to the existence of God the agnostics have the better of the argument over their theist and atheist opponents. So it is with participatory economics or any other detailed vision for social change.

Marko, first off thanks for sparking an interesting discussion, and for a well-written article. A few comments: as far as anarchist tendencies go, the anarchosyndicalists have historically been the great proponents of "vision". The vision of the anarchosyndicalists, as laid out by the great anarchist historian Rudolf Rocker in his 1938 pamphlet "Anarcho-syndicalism", is built around the idea that the industrial unions are the backbone of a new society, and that in a fully-developed society of the future, these unions, with their council structures, would run the economy. This is more or less what actually happened in Catalonia 1936-39:

Their organisation is accordingly constructed on the following principles: The workers in each locality join the unions for their respective trades, and these are subject to the veto of no Central but enjoy the entire right of self-determination. The trade unions of a city or rural district combine in a so-called labour cartel. The labour cartels constitute the centres for local propaganda and education; they weld the workers together as a class and prevent the rise of any narrow- minded factional spirit. In times of local labour trouble they arrange for the solidaric co-operation of the whole body of organised labour in the use of every agency available under the circumstances. All the labour cartels are grouped according to districts and regions to form the National Federation of Labour Cartels, which maintain the permanent connection between the local bodies, arranges for free adjustment of the productive labour of the members of the different organisations on co- operative lines, provide for the necessary co-operation in the field of education, in which the stronger cartels will need to come to the aid of the weaker ones, and in general support the local groups with council and guidance.

Every trade union is, moreover, federatively allied with all the same organisations in the same trade throughout the country, and these in turn with all related trades, so that all are combined in general industrial alliances. It is the task of these alliances to arrange for the co-operative action of the local groups, to conduct solidaric strikes where the necessity arises, and to meet all the demands of the day-to-day struggle between capital and labour. Thus the Federation of Labour Cartels and the Federation of Industrial Alliances constitute the two poles about which the whole life of the trade unions revolves.

So, this is the anarchosyndicalist organizing structure for struggle against capitalism. Once capitalism is on the run, it becomes the basis for the liberated economy:

...each community presents a type by itself and adjusts its internal affairs in its own way, but settles its economic questions through the agency of its Federation. Thus there is preserved the possibility of free enterprise, inciting new ideas and mutual stimulation. One-fourth of the country is in the hands of small peasant proprietors, to whom has been left the free choice between joining the collectives or continuing their family husbandry.

In addition, the anarchosyndicalists historically were the great practitioners of vanguardism within the anarchist tradition, with the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) set up as a conscious vanguard of committed anarchists to ensure that the National Confederation of Labour (CNT) industrial union stayed ideologically sound. I am not making any judgement about the relative merits of either Parecon or Anarchosyndicalism, but considering that the proponents of Parecon have not advocated for or set up an actually-existing vanguard organization, whereas the anarchosyndicalists did, it seems to me that your arguments about "vanguardism" lack historical awareness.

Also, it seems to me that your discussion of atheism, agnoisticism, etc., is missing the point of Albert's reply to you. You have said that the activity of proposing any relatively detailed vision (such as Parecon) is futile because to do so he would need a "detailed social theory; of how human nature and our innate sociality enables us to formulate complex societies and the manner in which we do so. No such social theory has been formulated, and is even near being formulated. It is highly likely that it’s not in principle something that humans can formulate."

Albert replied that if it is in fact the case taht (a) we would need such a Grand Theory to have vision, and (b) that such Grand Visions are impossible, then you should be able to easily say exactly where his more limited vision (Parecon) goes wrong. He has challenged you to do so quite directly, not in order to discuss Parecon per se, but to get you to prove your contentions about "detailed social theory". That is, if such a theory is needed, and he doesn't have one (as he admits), then his economic vision should be easily attacked, and you have proved your point about the basic futility of visions for the future. So, if you can't find any basic troubles with his detailed institutional proposals, your case is severely undermined.

One last thing that struck me. One interesting example of people who have "vision" is the Zapatistas. Now, ideologically speaking, the EZLN is a very strange thing; as I understand it, it was originally a Maoist / semi-Trotskyist group that was "polluted" by contact with Mayan indigenous people who had no time for the grand visions of university educated radicals until said radicals were somewhat humbled by dysentery and hunger, and started acting a little less like a vanguard. I would argue that the EZLN are among the most impressive proponents of "vision" in the world today, and I would also say that they are without a doubt the poorest people in continental North America, rather than the Northern "coordinators" that you say will have vision. The Brazilian MST and Argentinian Piqueteros are similarly inspiring. I think you are making a mistake if you think that these groups are incapable of formulating an idea of the future society that they would like to live in, or that they don't have visions. They share their visions with us, we share our visions with them, and maybe we all come up with a world we can live in together. All radical movements that have ever amounted to anything in the world have done this, including the Anarchosyndicalist one. Conscious theorists often play an important role in the formulation of ideas (Bakunin, Fanelli, and Montsenys in the CNT case); I agree with you that we shouldn't necessarily place too much weight on the intellectuals, and that the self-activity of working people is more important in the final analysis, but I do think that Albert's vision is interesting and that it warrants a further investigation, just as the visions of many other people do. I am not at all afraid of some Albertist OGPU unit forcing me to take part in a Parecon; at this point he's just a guy who writes stuff on a website, what we make of that is up to us.