Looking Forward. By Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel Go to Table of Contents 1.Work Without Hierarchy

I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the 'oughtness' that forever confronts him. -Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobel Prize Speech 'Incapacity of the masses.' What a tool for all exploiters and dominators, past, present, and future, and especially for the modern aspiring enslavers, whatever their insignia -Nazism, Bolshevism, Fascism, or Communism. ‘Incapacity of the masses.' This is a point on which the Reactionaries of all colors are in perfect agreement with the communists.' And this agreement is exceedingly significant. -Voline The Unknown Revolution The discipline which Lenin has in mind is driven home to the proletariat not only in the factory, but in the barracks, and by all sorts of bureaucracies, in short by the whole power machine of the centralized bourgeois state... It is an abuse of words to apply the same term 'discipline' to such unrelated concepts as the mindless reflex motions of a body with a thousand hands and a thousand legs, and the spontaneous coordination of the conscious political acts of a group of men. What can the well -ordered docility of the former have in common with the aspirations of a class struggling for its emancipation? -Rosa Luxemburg

PE: Sure, let workers decide so long as we impose a market that insures that workers will hire you and your friends to run their workplaces. Mark, you conveniently ignore that markets create conditions that compel workers to decide things which would not be in their interest if they could eliminate markets. And Cent, you don't want capitalists but you do want bosses. You throw a sop to workers' pride by praising their efforts. But you neglect to tell them that you also think your job is more important and you think you deserve better housing, more vacations, a nice car, and better schooling for your children. Cap makes your point more honestly. Why not maximize output by letting some people specialize in management and rewarding those who excel with power and wealth... CAP: Exactly. PE: My answer is that making economic decisions is not like swimming, running, or answering quiz questions. There is no winner in the race to make decisions, nor only one right answer to economic questions. Instead, the best economic answers nearly always involve merging the wisdom of diverse perspectives and implementing more than one policy to compare results. Moreover, participation wouldn't be a waste even if it didn't always yield better decisions because it pays off in workers' increased knowledge, confidence, solidarity, and fulfillment. I'm not saying you always have to maximize the number of voices heard. But we should create channels that allow all voices to express themselves with power and conviction. CAP: You're incorrigibly romantic. Job balancing would just waste time. Workers can't get equal benefits from doing different activities any more than everyone can benefit equally from listening to a Mahler symphony. Some people are too dumb to be more than a receptionist. You think people will work harder to make others happy. Where do you get such ideas? CENT: Rotation can build respect for what others do. But we shouldn't destroy lines of authority or waste talent. And we shouldn't forget that some people enjoy being just receptionists. PE is right that workers can be motivated by more than greed, but material incentives are always going to matter most. MARK: Right. Some people will choose to be receptionists. We should let people work at whatever they want, for whatever reasons. PE: Yes, Cap, musically trained people will get more out of Mahler than you or 1. But while everyone needn't learn everything, we all need to learn how to make plans, coordinate activities, and weigh alternatives. We won't all do these things equally well, but we will all do them well enough to bring our own particular experiences and insights to bear on decision making, especially regarding our own circumstances, which we do inevitably know best. Even you think everyone should learn to read despite the undeniable fact that some will do it faster and with more comprehension. I want the same for conceptual work and decision -making, that's all. People get different pleasure from many important things because they have slightly different dispositions or prepare differently or even have different capacities. But for sex or sports we don't say that only the "best" should participate. That should be true for using one's head too. CAP: But letting everybody participate in sports isn't the same as letting everyone play in the big leagues. And that's what you're suggesting when you say everyone should participate in important economic decisions. PE: I just answered that when I said decisions are not like races. Expert results require participation of all concerned. And I never claimed people shouldn't be trained in and practice to get better at economic decisionmaking. Creating balanced job complexes is fair, humane, and productive. Other than people who are truly disabled, everyone is obviously capable of more than answering phones and taking messages. The myth that most people are incapable of intelligent participation no matter what training they get rationalizes an economic structure that forces most people to fill debilitating roles so others can rule. Sure, Cent, people can get pleasure out of doing just about any job well. You might even learn to enjoy real work. But no one enjoys doing the same rote tasks over and over with no say and no opportunity to diversify. It doesn't matter how much you patronize their contribution. And Mark, of course some people will choose to be a receptionist in today's economies. But you can't believe that if we had an effective school system and climate of equality anyone would opt to sit and take messages for you all day instead of having a diversified work complex. Would you choose to be a receptionist for crummy wages? For your current wages? Even for a substantial raise? MARK: How substantial? PE: The issue isn't only that everyone should have conceptual elements in his or her job complex. Your fear is no doubt that I am saying that even the greatest scientist or musician should do some manual work to balance his or her job complex. And you are right, I am saying exactly that. CAP: See I told you so. CENT: You're right, he's out of his mind. PE: No I'm not. The scientist struggling to find a cure for cancer, the doctor able to perform the most delicate operations, or the author able to write the most uplifting novels are extreme cases. The real issue is most workers, not a few exceptional talents. But I do believe that the argument applies even to the most extreme cases. For by adopting the principle that everyone does a balanced complex we tap an important human potential in the great majority that would otherwise lie dormant if they only did rote work. Moreover, by creating respectful, egalitarian environments, we reduce the waste associated with elites trying to defend their position. The time that goes into class warfare can be enormous, and even the most exceptional scientist may benefit from a more egalitarian environment. Her total scientific contribution may increase even if some time that might have gone to research goes to less creative labors so long as time and emotional energy that now goes into defending status and dealing with bureaucracies no longer has to. And if this isn't so for some genius, then society could choose to grant a special dispensation every so often. I myself would vote to sacrifice output for more important social value. Perhaps others would decide differently. Fine. But it's getting late. We ought to quit. We'll have time to talk more about motivation after you let me describe participatory allocation where the broader implications of these choices become clearer.