Mark Evans | ukwatch.net

Education for Economic Justice

Ellie Keen — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:57:50 +0000

Introduction

Education is the starting point for all progressive movements. All activism has to be guided by ideas and all organising has to be built upon a foundation of popular knowledge and shared understanding. This said, what should be the educational priorities for the trade union movement struggling to revitalise itself?

I will attempt to answer this question from the perspective of a UK based trade union activist with broader concerns for social justice on an international scale. To begin with I will try to illustrate the nature and extent of the current trade union crisis by drawing on several well informed sources. Drawing further on these sources I will argue that our current situation is the result of a crisis of identity brought on by a loss of vision and perspective. We will then briefly look at some signs of dissatisfaction within the trade union movement. Using this understanding of the current crisis, and hopefully building on this dissatisfaction, I propose the need for education for revitalisation – an education program run by and for trade union activists in which we collectively learn to conceptualise economic justice as a means of recovering a common identity based on an alternative vision of society and thus overcoming our crisis.

The Nature and Extent of the Current Trade Union Crisis

“There is no question today that the labor movement is in crisis” said Dan Gallin at a Global Unions, Global Justice Conference in 2006¹. He then went on to describe the nature and extent of the current crisis as follows:

What we are facing is: ...

serious loss of membership in most countries of the world, especially in the unions’ industrial heartland in Western Europe and North America;

an inability to organise the huge and growing mass of unorganised workers, not least in the informal economy;

the lack of political and industrial power to resist and defeat repression, either in the form of a systematic campaign of murders, as in Colombia, or of State policy, as in China and many other authoritarian States, or of anti-labor legislation backed by a hostile government, as in the United States or in Australia;

lack of capacity to resist the dismantling of social protection, of social services and of public property, an agenda carried out by conservative and social-democratic governments alike (as in most of Europe, North America, Australia and Japan, and, under pressure from the IMF, in Africa, Asia and Latin America).

More specific examples of the crisis are found in an article by George Monbiot discussing the relationship between the (UK) Labour party and the affiliated trade unions². Monbiot writes that Gordon Brown’s government “has room for no professional trade unionists.” However, he continues referring to Digby Jones (previous head of the Confederation of British Industry and current minister for trade and investment) “it does contain their sworn enemy.” It was Digby Jones – who Monbiot informs us “refuses to join the Labour party” but has “been permitted to enter the government on his own terms” – who “campaigned to freeze the minimum wage, neuter the EU’s working time directive, block corporate killing laws, promote privatisation, cripple environmental rules, and curtail maternity leave.” He has also said of trade unions that they are an “irrelevance”, “backward looking” and “not on today’s agenda”.

Despite this disgraceful situation Monbiot points out that “some important victories have been won since 1997”. For example we now have “a minimum wage, better pension protection, improvements in parental leave, and better conditions for part-time workers.” But he also points out that “the list of defeats is much longer”:

There is the private finance initiative, doggedly promoted by Gordon Brown, which now dominates the provision of most public services. There is the creeping marketisation of health and education … And the government has refused to repeal Thatcher’s draconian union laws … we still don’t have a corporate killing act. Inequality has reached scarcely imaginable levels, tax evasion is rampant, the railways are still in private hands, council housing remains moribund, companies don’t have to publish operating and financial reviews, and the minimum wage is far from being a living wage. And there is still the small matter of an illegal war in which perhaps a million people have died.

Incredibly, Monbiot reports, “The cash-for-honours scandal has frightened off almost all the major private donors, leaving the party largely dependent on union funds.” So, Monbiot asks, “what do they intend to do with all this power?”, He concludes “To judge by their recent statements, nothing”. “Desperate to believe, union leaders cling to broken promises. They refuse to utter the only threat that Brown will heed: disaffiliation”.
In an attempt to try and gauge trade union desperation Monbiot phoned the TGWU and asked a spokesman “what might prompt disaffiliation”? “Nothing,” he told me.” Monbiot pushed the point asking – “So if Labour adopted the swastika as its logo and started holding torch-lit rallies in Parliament Square, it could still count on the TGWU’s support? “That’s an extreme example,” he replied. But he did not deny it.”

The Root Causes of the Current Trade Union Crisis

Returning to the “Global Unions,Global Justice Conference” speech Gallin then asked “Why has this happened?” He states that this “crisis is generally attributed to the economic, social and, ultimately, political effects of globalisation, unfolding in the 1980’s and 1990’s”. However, for Gallin these are “true insights, but they are partial truths and partial insights”. For Gallin the “crisis of the trade union movement today is in fact the outcome of a larger crisis of the broader labor movement, which began much earlier, much before the onset of globalisation.” According to Gallin –

To understand what has happened, we need to do a flash back, about seventy years ago or more… Fascism in Europe, whatever else it may have been, was a gigantic union busting exercise. Its consequences, and the consequences of WW2 , are too often forgotten. A whole generation of labour activists, the best people, disappeared in concentration camps, in the war, or did not come back from exile…

At the end of the war … the labor movement re-emerged, superficially strong, because it was part of the Allied cause, and had won the war, whereas capital was on the defensive, having largely collaborated with fascism in the Axis countries and in occupied Europe.

However, Gallin adds –

In reality, the labour movement had been greatly weakened, with a decimated leadership and its capacity to act as an independent social force severely undermined. All democratic governments in post-war Europe were initially supportive of the labour agenda and consequently the trade unions, in their weakened condition, developed an over-reliance on the State. No longer was there any aspiration to represent an alternative society. Amidst the new found peace and prosperity, the labour movement had disarmed ideologically and politically.

As a result of these historic events Gallin argues that the “real crisis of the labour movement is a crisis of identity and perspective”. Continuing this theme Gallin adds that “a serious challenge to the domination of global transnational capital cannot be mounted unless the labor movement recovers a common identity based on an alternative vision of society: the vision of freedom, justice and equality that inspired it at its origins and made it the greatest mass movement in history.” Gallin states that “We do have an international trade union movement, such as it is. It has no vision, and it does not inspire anyone.” Adding that “What we have here is an ideology of global “social partnership.”“ and for Gallin “the ideology of “social partnership”, which became dominant in the labour movement in the three decades following WW2, has now become the main obstacle to the necessary renewal of the movement.”

In a similar vein to Monbiot’s earlier comment regarding “union leaders cling to broken promises” Gallin observes –

Large parts of the trade union movement are still unable to come to terms with the loss of their presumed “social partners”, even while transnational capital has obviously abandoned any “partnership” perspective and is using its vastly increased power to unilaterally impose its interests on society.

Some Signs of Dissatisfaction

There are however those who seem willing to face up to the reality of the situation. In his article Monbiot also quotes Bob Crow, the leader of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT), who recently told the other unions that “any hope of the Labour party working for workers is dead, finished, over. I think all you who are staying in the Labour party are just giving credibility to it.” In 2006 the RMT sponsored a conference at which over 300 trade union activists called for “the establishment of a National Shop Stewards’ Network”. At the conference Bob Crow stated that “If we are to roll back the tide of privatisation and war, rebuilding the grassroots of our movement is essential.” The conference collectively declared that “ ... enough is enough; we can and must turn the tide. It is time we got together to organise the fight-back against the whole range of attacks and the laws that aid and abet them.”[3]

Similarly Elaine Bernard of the Harvard Trade Union Program has argued that revitalisation of the trade union movement requires a return to what she refers to as their “social movement heritage”[4]. What Bernard is referring to here is Labour movement campaigns that resulted in the National Labour Relations act (US) of 1935, the purpose of which was “ ... not simply to provide a procedural mechanism to end industrial strife in the workplace [as with social partnership]. Rather, this monumental piece of New Deal legislation had a far more ambitious mission: to promote industrial democracy.”

Bernard points out that “ ... workers are schooled every day at work to believe that democracy stops at the factory or office door. But democracy is not an extracurricular activity that can be regulated to evenings and weekends.” She argues that “labor today needs to tap this source of wider appeal for unions by placing the extension of democracy into the workplace front and center.”

This is not to say that trade unions should abandon the bread and butter issues of the day to day support of its members. Bernard rightly points out that “there has always been a tension within unions between servicing members and fulfilling the wider social mission of labor to serve the needs of all working people, whether they are organised or not.” But for Bernard “it is becoming increasingly clear in today’s political environment that unions need to do both” –

Unions, like any organisation, will not survive if they do not serve the needs of their members. But unions will not survive and grow, if they only serve the needs of their members.

Education for Revitalisation

However, as radical-progressive economist Robin Hahnel has commented⁵ –

As important as it is for union members and elected officials to move their unions beyond bread and butter , or “business” unionism, Bernard’s proposals would only return the [ ... ] labour movement to its pre-Cold War agenda.

This observation is also true (but in different ways) of the National Shop Stewards Network which as it stands would only return the UK trade union movement back to its pre-Thatcher position. Although Bernard’s proposals are welcomed as a “necessary first step”, for Hahnel “If [ ... ] unions are going to promote the economics of equitable co-operation more successfully in the twenty-first century than they did in the twentieth, they are going to have to change in other ways as well.” Drawing attention to a central weakness in the trade union movement Hahnel states that –

... few union leaders today could tell you if they thought the workers they represent are exploited because they are not paid their marginal revenue product, or exploited precisely because they are paid their marginal revenue product … As passionate as union leaders are about economic justice, they have a remarkably difficult time saying clearly what it is.”[6]

“No wonder” Hahnel concludes “the most powerful progressive movement of the twentieth century, the union movement, became confused and hypocritical on the subject most central to its own mission.” Picking up on Gallin’s earlier point regarding a lack of alternative vision within the labour movement, Hahnel points out that –

Unfortunately most unions have fallen into the ideological trap of justifying wage demands on the basis of the market value of their member’s contribution, their marginal-revenue product”[7]

Again echoing Gallin’s earlier point Hahnel argues that “Unions must return to their mission of being the hammer for economic justice in capitalism” adding that –

There is no good reason unions can’t do a better job of educating their members about economic justice.

According to Hahnel “Unions don’t have to wait on new organising successes to teach present members what economic justice is and is not. This is not ground that should be difficult to conquer.” He continues -“The first step is to clear our own heads of cobwebs and relearn how to preach to the choir.”

Learning to Conceptualise Economic Justice

Of course trade union education should never be dogmatic. Rather, its primary function should be to encourage a rich and lively intellectual working class culture. The only guiding principles for a course on economic justice would probably be that it takes as its starting point the values of solidarity, democracy, freedom, equality and justice that historically have underpinned the labour movement. From there we can clarify these values and use them as a kind of criteria for assessing and evaluating how good or bad any economic system is by our standards. We can also explore means of organising our economy so that these values become real. In other words, we collectively design institutional features for an economy that would actually deliver traditional labour values.

Such courses already exist both online and in book form. For example Michael Albert’s “Thinking Forward” which is a book based on an online course on economic vision⁸. Part one of this interactive book sets the scene by asking “What is an Economy?” Participants are encouraged to identify the basic functions – Production, Allocation and Consumption – of any economy.

Following from this basic introductory understanding there are sections exploring different values for production, allocation and consumption. This is followed by a further exploration of possible institutional features for production, allocation and consumption. Naturally enough, from this exploration a number of questions emerge that are central to economic justice. For example –

Ownership – who should own economic institutions?

Internal structure – how should the workplace / economy be organised?

Decision-making – how and by who should decisions be made?

Remuneration – what criteria should we use to work out how much people get paid?

Planning – by what overall means should we manage the production and consumption of goods and services?

Impact – we may also want to consider the effect that any given economic system has on other social spheres – such as the political, kinship, community spheres – as well as the natural environment.

There are also sections on “Existing Visionary Options” and “Evaluating Economic Vision”. In these section we identify already existing economic models – for example variants of capitalist economics, socialist economics, community economics and participatory economics. We then clarify the institutional features of these economic models and consider means of evaluating them. Perhaps most importantly this process equips participants with the intellectual tools to go beyond evaluating existing models and empowers them to consider alternatives and potentially invent entirely novel economic systems.

Conclusion

The result of this process is that trade union activists would be able to think for themselves in a non-dogmatic fashion about economic justice. They would be able to participate in a lively debate about an issue that is of central importance and interest to all labour movement activists. Of course, when thinking about economic justice not everyone will agree on every detail. But with clarity and consistency of thought we can expect that some broad agreement on the basic institutional features that go to constitute a model of economic justice can be achieved.
The generation of such an intellectual culture within the trade union movement is what is necessary if we are to address the crisis we find ourselves in today. By teaching such courses we address the root cause of the crisis – which, as we have seen, is a crisis of identity brought on by a loss of vision and perspective. Furthermore such courses are the only means by which we can genuinely recover a common identity based on an alternative vision of society. Education for economic justice is therefore a crucial first step towards trade union revitalisation.

Notes:

[1] Organising: Means and Ends – Dan Gallin
http://www.globallabour.inf/en/2007/09/organizing_means_and_ends_by_d.ht…
[2] They still rage about the class war, but keep funding their class enemies – George Monbiot
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/10/union-with-the-devil/
[3] For an introduction to the NSSN see “Rebuilding the shop stewards movement” at – http://www.shopstewards.net/pamphlet.html
[4] Why Unions Matter – Elaine Bernard’s
www.htup.harvard.edu/ed/whyunions.pdf
[5] Economic Justice and Democracy – from competition to co-operation – Robin Hahnel
[6] The ABC’s of Political Economy – a modern approach – Robin Hahnel
[7] Economic Justice and Democracy – from competition to co-operation – Robin Hahnel
[8] Thinking Forward – Learning to conceptualise economic vision – Michael Albert
http://zcommunications.org/zparecon/tfintr.htm
Developing Economic Vision Instructional
http://zcommunications.org/zmi/zinstruc6.htm

Knowledge, Vision and Strategy for Trade Union Revitalisation

Ellie Keen — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:37:53 +0000

Introduction

The trade union movement is in crisis. It is a crisis that is illustrated by the facts of plummeting membership and decline in the power of collective bargaining and influence in the political sphere. As a UK based trade union representative I believe that without strong trade union organisation the global justice movement will only ever have very limited success in resisting corporate led globalisation. Below I will try to pinpoint the main reasons for the current crisis before moving on to make suggestions for trade union movement revitalisation.

Understanding the Trade Union Crisis

Writing in the foreword to a recent publication, life long trade union activist Dan Gallin explains the “partial truths” and “partial insights” that underpin the theory that the present crisis within the trade union movement began in the 1980’s and 1990’s with the “economic, social and … political effects of globalisation”. He argues that “the crisis of the trade union movement today is in fact the outcome of the larger crisis of the broader labour movement, which began much earlier, much before the onset of globalisation.”

Gallin argues that a satisfactory understanding of the present crisis needs to go back at least to the rise of fascism in the 1930’s where “a whole generation of labour activists, the best people, disappeared in concentration camps, in the war, or did not come back from exile.” After the war the labour movement re-emerged “superficially strong”. He explains that “all democratic governments in post war Europe were initially supportive of the labour agenda. This was because the labour movement “was part of the Allied cause, and had won the war, whereas capital was on the defensive, having largely collaborated with fascism…” But as a result of this relationship “trade unions developed an over-reliance on the State” which in turn resulted in the trade union movement abandoning its “aspirations to represent an alternative society”.

Getting to the root of the problem Gallin explains that “underlying [the labour movements] loss of power and authority is a crisis of identity and orientation”. Aligning himself with the global justice movement Gallin states that “the need of the hour is a serious challenge to global transnational capital and the world order it has fashioned”. But he rightly adds that “such a challenge cannot be mounted unless the movement recovers a common identity based on an alternative vision of society.”

Of course the traditional alternative vision advocated by the labour movement has been socialism, but as Gallin points out “socialism is also undergoing a crisis, and that is a crisis of the meaning of socialism.” He continues the point advising that “we need to re-define socialism so it again becomes recognisable as the politics which are naturally ours, those of the historical labour movement – recognisable and acceptable even by those who have rejected, for good reason, the damaged goods sold under that label.”

Summing up his argument Gallin lays out the challenge for labour movement activists around the world –

Those who are developing the concepts of … the global justice movement, are seeking to rebuild a labour movement with a shared identity and shared values – not the lowest common denominator, that is what we have today and this movement, as it is, can only lose. Beyond the lowest common denominator, we need an alternative explanation of the world, alternative goals for society and a program on how to get there that all can subscribe to. A new international labour movement, armed with a sense of a broader social mission, can become the core of a global alliance including all other social movements that share the same agenda. Such a movement can change the world. It can again be the liberation movement of humanity it set out to be one hundred and fifty years ago.

Overcoming Our Identity Crisis

Unfortunately for the working class, few people within the labour movement, the anti-capitalist movement or the broader global justice movement have risen to Gallin’s challenge. The leadership of the labour movement seems to have accepted that socialism has been proven a bad idea and to have accepted Margaret Thatchers TINA doctrine – “there is no alternative” – resorting to trying to make the best of conditions under capitalism. The old revolutionary left seems incapable of learning any lessons from the 20th Century, continuing to dogmatically assert the usual lines that naturally result in stagnation and isolation. And the newly formed World Social Forum seems content to simply assert “another world is possible”, feeling no particular need to explain what the economy of this other world might look like.

An important exception to this is the work of radical economists Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. Rising to Gallin’s challenge Albert and Hahnel first point out that “since Soviet, Chinese, and Eastern European leaders all called their countries “socialist”, and since Henry Kissinger … and the New York Times all called them “socialist” and nearly all Western Marxists called them “socialist”, these countries must have had economies embodying socialist principles.” Albert and Hanhel then spell out the logical conclusion that follows from this world-view as follows – “The crisis of these economies therefore indicates that socialist values – the only alternative to capitalist values – are repudiated.”

However, they go on to further point out that “Socialist values – assuming that by this we mean egalitarian and participatory values – have never characterized any of these countries.” Shattering this standard world-view they warn that “If we don’t realize that, we cannot understand the roots of their current crisis or alternative possibilities.” Helping to explain the “Orwellian semantics” Albert and Hahnel quote world renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky who clarifies the situation as follows –

“both of the major world propaganda systems have described this destruction of socialist elements as a victory of socialism. For western capitalism, the purpose is to defame socialism by associating it with Moscow’s tyranny; for the Bolsheviks, the purpose was to gain legitimacy by appealing to the goals of authentic socialism.”

So, if the Soviet Union, China and Eastern European economies were not socialist then what were they? Clearly they could not be described as capitalist as there was no private ownership of the means of production. According to Albert and Hahnel “Whatever you decide to call the economies of the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe – we prefer the term “coordinatorism” – it is critical to realize that they are not now and never have been egalitarian and participatory.” By a “coordinatorism” Albert and Hahnel mean “an economy in which a class of experts / technocrats / managers / conceptual workers monopolize decision-making authority while traditional workers carry out their orders.”

Albert and Hahnel trace the origins of coordinator economics back to “weaknesses in the Marxist theoretical framework” which manifested in the reality of the “anti-egalitarian and anti-participatory sentiments of the leaders of the Russian revolutions.” Reinforcing their argument Albert and Hahnel borrow another quote from Chomsky who states that “particularly since 1917, Marxism – or more accurately, Marxism-Leninism – has become, as Bakunin predicted, the ideology of a ‘new class’ of revolutionary intelligentsia who exploit popular revolutionary struggles to seize state power … “ Chomsky continues the point adding that this “[new class] proceed to impose a harsh and authoritarian rule to destroy socialist institutions, as Lenin and Trotsky destroyed the factory councils and soviets. They will also do what they can to undermine and destroy moves towards authentic socialism elsewhere, if only because of the ideological threat” ... and concludes “this two-pronged ideological assault, combined with other devices available to those with real power, has dealt a severe blow to libertarian socialist currents that once had considerable vitality … “

Although few socialists have anything positive to say about Stalin these days many Trotskyist’s still argue that the Bolshevik leadership were forced to dismantle workers self-management and implement authoritarian rule because of external factors such as the civil war. However, Albert and Hahnel are keen to point out that Trotsky himself did not hold this position, stating instead that –

“I consider that if the Civil War had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management much sooner and much less painfully.”

Along with many others Albert and Hahnel conclude from this a point that only the ideologically blind could miss – “Trotsky didn’t reluctantly accede to coordinator structures out of necessities compelled by the Civil War, as apologists maintain, but because he preferred them.”

In another article Albert and Hahnel ask “ ... what is wrong with the original socialist vision? Why can’t workers in different enterprises and industries, and consumers in different neighbourhoods and regions, coordinate their joint endeavors themselves – consciously, democratically, equitably, and efficiently?” They continue “The simple truth is that socialism as originally conceived has never been tried, but not because it is impossible.”

However, Albert and Hahnel are not uncritical of original socialism – “We recognize that council communists, syndicalists, anarchists, and guild socialists fell short of spelling out a coherent, theoretical model explaining how such a system could work.” They go on adding that –

Our predecessors frequently provided stirring comparisons of the advantages of a libertarian, non-market, socialist alternative compared to capitalism and authoritarian planning. But all too often they failed to respond to difficult questions about how necessary decisions would be made, why their procedures would yield a coherent plan, or why the outcome would be efficient.

Addressing these weaknesses in the original socialist vision Albert and Hahnel went on to develop a new economic model called participatory economic, or ParEcon for short.

ParEcon – a new long-term vision for the Labour Movement

In his excellent essay – Participatory Economics and the Self-emancipation of the Working Class – Tom Wetzel states that “Participatory Economics is an attempt to answer the basic questions that any viable economic program must answer” and “an attempt to specify simply an economic structure, a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation from class oppression.” (What follows is only a brief introduction to ParEcon. For a comprehensive account visit http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/topics/parecon)

Worker and Consumer Councils

First of all, we need to know what the basic institutions are that go to make up a Participatory Economy. Here Michael Albert points out that, “Historically, when workers and consumers have attempted to seize control of their own lives, they have invariably created worker and consumer councils as a means to do so”. The creation of these new economic institutions has many possible ramifications for the economic system as a whole. For example, it has the potential to eliminate private ownership and institutionalise self-management. This is in fact the case in a Participatory Economy.

Ownership?

In a ParEcon private ownership of economic institutions is gone. Worker and consumer councils would “… simply remove ownership of the means of production as an economic consideration. Property in the form of the means of production becomes a non-thing.”This is because “Historically, having a few members of society own these means of production, decide on their use, and dispose over the output and revenues they generate has meant that this privileged group has always had more wealth, more income, and more economic power than others in society.”

So, to overcome this historical injustice, in a participatory economy “No one has any ownership of means of production that accrues to him or her any rights, any responsibilities, any wealth, or any income different from what the rest of the economy warrants for him or her. “ And “No one has wealth, income, or economic influence different than what anyone else has due to having different ownership of means of production”

Self-management

What is meant by self-management? Tom Wetzel nicely captures the essence as follows –

“We all have the ability to foresee possible courses of action into the future, to think out steps to realize our purposes, to develop skills to carry out actions needed to realize our purposes, to create plans of action, and to carry out those plans under our own control. This is self-management.”

It is a belief in such sentiments that underpins peoples, past and present, commitment to struggle against Capitalist and Coordinator class oppression and for economic freedom via workers self-management. However, paying lip service to such nice sounding sentiments does not guarantee freedom from class oppression. As has been pointed out – “We need to advocate fine values, yes, but we also need to advocate a set of institutions that can make our values real without compromising economic success.”

Before moving on to describe such institutions I would like to briefly pick up on this point of self-management and economic success. Many people see self-management as “compromising economic success”. Many people view the advantages gained by self-management as a kind of trade-off with economic efficiency. But as Robin Hahnel points out –

There is ample literature documenting the advantages of employee management. Evidence is overwhelming that people with a say and stake in how they work not only find work more enjoyable, they are more productive and efficient as well.”

So, at this point we can see that the basic institutions that go to make up a Participatory Economy are more or less the same as those envisioned and acted upon in the past by the “authentic socialists” we referred to earlier. However, Albert also points out that “In a ParEcon, while worker and consumer councils are essentially like those that have historically emerged in past struggles, there is an additional commitment to self-management”. As we shall see this additional commitment to self-management also acts as an institutional barrier to coordinator class dominance within the anti-capitalist struggles of today and in a post-capitalist society.

Proportional Decision-making Power

In a participatory economic system “Everyone is free to apply for membership in the council of her choice, or form a new worker council with whomever she wishes.” However, once a member of a council not everyone’s vote necessarily carries the same weight every time a decision is made. Instead “Each person will have a level of influence that won’t impinge on other people’s rights to have the same level of influence. We will all affect decisions in proportion to how we are affected by them”

So we can see that self-management in a participatory economy takes on a specific characteristic where each individual is empowered to an appropriate level. No one gets more or less of a say in a decision than they should and all get to make a fair contribution to the decision-making process.

Balanced Job Complexes

All economic systems need people to do work, and all work places tend to organise this work into well-defined bundles of tasks we commonly refer to as “jobs”. However different economic systems organise jobs in different ways.

For example, in a class-ridden society the tasks that go to make up the various jobs will be orgaised in such a way as to maintain a hierarchical structure. What this means in concrete terms is that the people towards the top of the hierarchy (the coordinator class) will have jobs composed of tasks that are empowering whilst those towards the bottom of the hierarchy (the working class) have jobs made up of disempowering tasks.

This approach to conceptualising and organising jobs in the work place is sometimes referred to as the “corporate division of labour”. The corporate division of labour is an institutional feature found in both capitalist and coordinator economies and it is an institutional feature that systematically maintains workplace hierarchy whilst undermining self-management. The point is made clear when we ask – “If we want everyone to have an equal opportunity to participate in economic decision making – if we want to ensure that a formal right to participate translates into an effective right to participate – doesn’t this require balancing work for empowerment?”

So we reject the corporate division of labour as incompatible with self-management and “We seek to extend the insights of William Morris, the noted nineteenth-century artist and wordsmith, who noted that in a better future we would not be able to have the same division of labour as now.” But what is the alternative? “Instead of combining tasks so that some jobs are highly empowering and other jobs are horribly stultifying, some jobs convey knowledge and authority while other jobs convey only stultification and obedience, and those doing some jobs rule as a coordinator class accruing themselves more income and influence while those doing more menial work obey as a traditional working class subordinate in influence and income – ParEcon says let’s make each job comparable to all others in its quality of life and even more importantly in its empowerment effect … From a corporate division of labour that enshrines a coordinator class above workers, we move to a classless division of labour that elevates all workers to their fullest potentials.”

The creation of a classless division of labour is achieved by replacing the old corporate division of labour with a new institutional feature called “balanced job complexes”. As Tom Wetzel has pointed out, this would mean “jobs would be systematically re-designed throughout the economy … what we do is we re-design jobs so that they are balanced between skill and design work on the one hand, and the doing of the physical work, the less desirable or less empowering work.” Importantly he adds that “We also systematically change the education system to democratize access to expertise and information and training, we integrate this with the system of production itself.”

Participatory Planning

In addition to re-designing jobs to facilitate meaningful self-management we also need to abolish markets as a means of allocating goods and services. This is because, like the corporate division of labour, markets destroy self-management – “This occurs not only due to disparities in wealth translating into disparate power, but because market competition compels even council based workplaces to cut costs and seek market share regardless of the ensuing implications.” Neoclassical economists argue that markets are the fairest and most efficient way to allocate goods and services, but as Tom Wetzel has said – “this is mere propaganda; the market is actually a system for the allocation of resources by naked economic power.” In short markets force people to compete even when they want to cooperate – resulting in antisocial economic activity.

The traditional leftwing alternative to markets has been central planning. But as Robin Hahnel has pointed out “while the fatal flaw in capitalism is its antisocial bias, the fatal flaw in central planning is its antidemocratic bias.” Supporters view central planning as an important component in a democratic and classless economy. However, because this small minority of planners at the centre (the coordinator class) monopolise and control important information the level of popular and meaningful participation in decision-making is highly questionable. But what is clear is that because of this concentration of information and power at the centre (resulting from the continued use of the corporate division of labour) central planning can never result in a classless economy and is institutionally opposed to worker and consumer self-management.

As an alternative to both markets and central planning advocates of participatory economics propose a system of allocation called “participatory planning”. “We say that the alternative is to have the entire population directly create the plan themselves” and that “the education system and the availability of information should be such as to facility this.”

On first hearing this, participatory planning might sound like a nightmare – endless large-scale meetings resulting in chaos and stagnation. But as Robin Hahnel has pointed out – “Many of the procedures we recommended were motivated precisely to avoid pitfalls in the naïve illusion that “the people” can make all economic decisions that affect them in what amounts to “one big meeting”.”

As it turns out the basic planning procedure is conceptually quite simple. The participants in the planning procedure are the workers councils and federations, the consumer councils and federations, and an Iteration Facilitation Board (“IFB – a group of workers who provide information to participants in participatory planning for each iteration, or round, of the planning process”). These economic institutions interact in a planning procedure that can be broken down into the following 4 steps –

“The IFB announces what we call “indicative prices” (“prices indicating the social costs and benefits associated with the use of goods and services”) for all final goods and services, capital goods, natural resources, and categories of labor.”

“Consumer councils and federations respond with consumption proposals. Worker councils and federations respond with production proposals.”

“The IFB then calculates the excess demand or supply for each final good and service, capital good, natural resource, and category of labor, and adjusts the indicative price for the good up, or down, in light of the excess demand or supply.”

4. “Using the new indicative prices consumer and worker councils and federations revise and resubmit their proposals.”

“The planning process [which is part of everyone’s Balanced Job Complex] continues until there are no longer excess demands for any goods, and categories of labor, any primary inputs, or any capital stock; in other words, until a feasible plan is reached.”

Remuneration for Effort and Sacrifice

As we have already seen, in a participatory economy private ownership of economic institutions no longer exists. This means that rewarding people for simply owning a workplace can no longer take place. However, removing this unjust criteria for remuneration leads us to ask – by what alternative criteria do we reward people in a participatory economy?

Here Albert and Hahnel propose effort and sacrifice as a morally sound criteria for remuneration –

“If you work longer, and you do it effectively, you are entitled to more of the social product. If you work more intensely, to socially useful ends, again you are entitled to more social product. If you work at a more onerous or dangerous or boring but still socially warranted tasks, again, you are entitled to more social product.”

Traditionally the left has proposed “to each according to their need” as a maxim for rewarding people for work undertaken. However Albert and Hahnel think that this maxim has more to do with compassion and humanity than economic justice –

“While I believe justice requires compensating people according to the sacrifice they make, it seems to me that it is our humanity that compels us to provide for those in need.”

So a participatory economy would be compassionate in the sense that it provided for people in need but it would be a just economy in the sense that it remunerates for work based on effort and sacrifice.

Organising for Revitalisation

Despite its appeal as a new long term vision for the Labour movement ParEcon can seem like a million miles away from the realities faced by trade union activists in their day to day struggle for decent working conditions. Even for the most committed trade union activists who are completely convinced by ParEcon, the gap between global capitalism and international participatory economics can seems unbridgeable. As Robin Hahnel has commented – “If I had a nickel for every person who told me how much they liked the idea, but could not imagine a way to get there from where we are today, I would already be retired.”

Addressing this problem Albert and Hahnel have come up with a number of suggestion for what a program for “today” might entail that is directed towards moving us towards a participatory economy “tomorrow”. For example Michael Albert explains how a “fight for higher wages will not be an end in itself – but will seek to raise public consciousness of the worthiness and viability of later instituting a system of remuneration for effort and sacrifice. It will seek to win higher wages now, and also inform and enrich the means and desires to win full equity later.” Or how a “fight for better working conditions will not be an end unto itself, but will seek to raise public consciousness of the worthiness and viability of later instituting balanced job complexes. It may seek new forms of accountability, information transfer, job sharing, all moving toward classless workplace organization.”

These are examples of what Albert calls “non-reformist reform struggles” meaning that trade union activists organising for a new economy “will not assume that existing defining social features will persist forever, but will seek reforms that will improve peoples lives in the present as part of the process of replacing those defining features fully in the future.”

Michael Albert has even proposed a participatory economic program which includes a bold set of demands designed to “address needs that people currently feel”, “propel parecon consciousness-raising”, “empower people to seek still more gains” and “galvanizes people to win sought gains and simultaneously advance the encompassing broader program it is part of”. The demands include a “one quarter less work time for everyone, plus a parallel one quarter drop in wages and bonus income for the top quarter income earners in society” plus “no change in total wage income for the middle half of society, and a one quarter raise in total wages income for the bottom quarter of society.”

But before any of this can take place trade unions have to become internally more democratic. Robin Hahnel has written that – “... instead of lagging behind society at large in building a culture of participatory democracy, instead of imitating the hierarchical, authoritarian practices of their corporate foes, unions must search for ways to simulate participation by their members.” Hahnel continues, warning that “... as long as entrenched union leaders dictate policies, and decide when they find it convenient to mobilize membership in support of their campaigns, member participation will continue to atrophy, and unions will continue to become even less important in the lives of the shrinking minority of [...] workers who are union members.”

Conclusion

Drawing on the insights of a small number of radical-progressive thinkers I have argued that the present trade union crisis is fundamentally a crisis of identity. However, as we have seen, this is a crisis that has resulted from propaganda induced confused thinking regarding the meaning of socialism and its short history. We have seen that what has been called socialism throughout the 20th Century is more appropriately referred to as coordinator economics. Understanding this helps us to realise that the collapse of the “socialist” systems during the 1980’s and 90’s has no reflection on the validity of authentic socialism as an alternative to capitalism.

Returning to and building on the tradition of authentic socialism the labour movement now has a new economic model called participatory economics to consider. I have presented the basic institutional features of ParEcon and addressed some of the strategic concerns regarding economic transition. We also touched on the preliminary work of internal reforms, making trade unions the vanguard of participatory democracy within society before the real work of revitalisation can really get under way.

For this to take place there will first need to be some kind of network facility created for trade union activists who are interested in developing projects designed to promote participatory democracy inside the trade union movement and participatory economics in the workplace (for an example of such a facility go to “Project for a Participatory Trade Union Movement” on the “Projects” page at http://www.ppsuk.org.uk)

Combined, this knowledge, vision and strategy represents a basic organising framework for trade union revitalisation. It represents a complete change in direction for the trade union movement – a change that will only take place as a result of considerable pressure and serious organising. It is not by any means a complete program. It requires a lot of further discussion. However, the basic direction is there and the discussions can now take place within the realities of organising instead of in the abstract of theory.

References:

The Future of Organised Labour (Gallin)
Looking Forward – Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century (Albert and Hahnel)
Socialism as it was Always Meant to Be (Albert and Hahnel)
Realizing Hope (Albert)
ParEcon-Life After Capitalism (Albert)
Libcom or Parecon? (Wetzel)
Economic Justice and Democracy (Hahnel)
Participatory Economics and the Self-emancipation of the Working Class (Wetzel)
Moving Forward – Program for a Participatory Economy (Albert)

Some Reasons for Setting-up PPS-UK

Ellie Keen — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:12:41 +0000

“Another World is Possible”

(Slogan of the World Social Forum)

“Out of the same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny.”

(Noam Chomsky “Class Warfare”)

Introduction

The Project for a Participatory Society – United Kingdom was started in early 2006. It was set-up to help bring together social justice activists who are interested in developing and organising around participatory knowledge, vision and strategy. It is open to anyone who wants to work towards creating meaningful democratic social systems in the political, economic, kinship and community spheres.

PPS-UK is made up of 3 main components –

* “Our Basic Organising Framework” – This document is set out to answer any basic questions that people may want to ask about PPS-UK and to serve as an elementary guide for participants. It lay’s out and clarifies organisational features. These features determine the fundamental character of the organisation.
* Activist Networks – This facility allows people to make contact with others who are interested in developing projects and ideas relating to participatory society.
* Projects – Activities are initiated and run by PPS-UK activists. There is no leadership spoon-feeding activists campaign ideas or delegating tasks. All projects respect and operate within “Our Basic Organising Framework”.

The Challenge

The fundamental challenge facing the Left today is revitalisation. Our assessment of and conclusions to what actually caused the demise of the left in the first place will shape our approaches to this challenge.

For example, if we conclude that the demise of the Left can be explained satisfactorily by factors external to our ideology (for example Rightwing propaganda and/or state violence) then we simply have to organise in the usual way to try to build popular resistance. This conclusion requires no serious reassessment of Leftwing theory and practice.

However if we conclude that in addition to these external factors there are also important internal factors that have to be taken into account then this means that we need to change the way in which we organise. It means that, if we are to be successful in revitalising the left then we need a radical rethink of our vision and strategy.

Unfortunately much of the traditional Left seems to have drawn the first conclusion. There seems to be very little interest within Leftwing circles for an honest examination of our history in the hope that something better may develop out of the process. Instead of any genuine radical-progressive spirit guiding the Left the usual dogmatic assertions are put forward. The outcome of this is a continuation and reinforcement of factions within the Left- all ironically taking place under the banner of “solidarity”.

To continue down this road guarantees only one thing – that the popular movement we all desire, want to help build and be part of will remain nothing more than a fantasy.

Fortunately however, a small (but growing) group of genuine radical thinkers have risen to the challenge of reassessment and have made very impressive progress. This reassessment usually goes under the general heading of “participatory visions and strategy” and it was this work that inspired the setting up of PPS-UK. What follows is a brief explanation of the thinking behind this process.

The Need for Popular Knowledge

In fairness to the Old Left we have to acknowledge that they are very good at at-least one thing. That one thing is telling everyone (or more realistically anyone who will listen) how terrible and unjust the world we live in is. The Old Left gets 10 out of 10 for this!

I say this both sincerely and sarcastically –

Sarcastically, because the Old Left perpetually use the approach of “telling people how bad things are” as a method of consciousness-raising and recruitment despite its rather limited success.

Sincerely, because I think making this knowledge popular is a very important part of the work we need to be doing.

The problem really is this. It is true that the world is a terrible and very unjust place and we can’t just ignore this because it is too painful or depressing to face up to. But if this is all we have to say – or if this is the main thing we have to say – then people are not going to be attracted to our organisations.

So in addition to building peoples knowledge about how society really works we also need to balance this with positive aspects within our campaigns.

The Need for Compelling Vision

One positive aspect we could embrace is that of vision – and yet this is almost universally ignored or rejected out of hand by the established Left. But it’s hard to understand why this makes any sense. Ok, there are dangers that go along with developing vision – for example it could become too prescriptive and stale – but whilst this is a good reason to be careful when working on vision it certainly is not a good reason to stop working on vision all together. And anyway the positives of developing good vision far out-weigh these concerns.

As already mentioned one such positive is that we need vision of what our alternative society could look like “tomorrow” to balance out the negative views about society “today”.

We also need to know (at least in some detail) what our long-term goals are because this helps to inform and guide our short-term objectives. So when we get involved in reform campaigns we can formulate these in such a way as to fit them into our overall campaign for social transformation. The basic argument is that without long-term vision it is very hard to know if we are even on the right path at any given moment.

But perhaps most of all we need compelling vision to convince people that what they are working for is worth the effort.

The Need for Realistic Strategy

But this is not the end of it! We also need a way of getting us from where we are today, to our preferred future society. Again this is not something that the traditional Left were very good at. In fact the strategies employed by the Left (and still advocated by dogmatic Old Left organisations today) can be generally described as dysfunctional. I say this simply because they say they want to go towards a certain goal (say classlessness) and yet they tend to go in a different direction (towards a new form of class society or reproducing the old class hierarchies).

Now a lot of the Old Left tries to tell us that this happened because of circumstances that were outside of their control – like civil war or pressure from foreign countries – and of course these circumstances did not help. However this is only half of the story.

If we think of classlessness again, most Left organisations (whether revolutionary or reformist), organised hierarchically and with a division of labour as part of their strategy. Naturally enough this resulted in the people at the top/centre of the organisation monopolising the empowering tasks whilst the people at the bottom/periphery are left to do all of the disempowering tasks. Not surprisingly this kind of organising strategy resulted in the creation of new forms of class dominance and not classlessness. The important point here is that this occurred because of internal factors – hierarchical organising, division of labour – and that even under the most idyllic circumstances this was always going to be the case using this organising strategy.

Conclusion

PPS-UK organises around 3 core concepts –

A) Knowledge – developing a good understanding of how social systems work today.

B) Vision – developing compelling vision of alternative social systems.

C) Strategy – developing realistic strategy to get us from A (society today) to B (our alternative society).

It is felt that this approach and the ideas contained in participatory vision and strategy offer much more hope for radical-progressive social transformation than those found in traditional Left ideology.

It is also felt that established Left ideologies have very little to say of any worth with regards to vision and strategy and that what they do have to say can only be learned from in the negative sense. In the end it was the combined thoughts and feeling of a deep dissatisfaction with established Left-wing theory and practice in parallel with the inspiration produced by participatory vision and strategy that lead to the desire to set-up the Project for a Participatory Society here in the United Kingdom.

Project for a Participatory Society - UK

Alex Doherty — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:22:48 +0000

Exclusive to ukwatch.net, Alex Doherty talks to Mark Evans – founder of the Project for a Participatory Society – UK

What is the Project for a Participatory Society – UK? How did it come about?

The Project for a Participatory Society is a UK based initiative started in 2006. It was set up to facilitate the coming together of UK based social justice activists who, along with others in different parts of the world, are interested in developing and organising around participatory vision and strategy as discussed on ZNet.

When I say “started in 2006” I mean that this was when a conscious commitment to try to set something up was made. Since the initial conception there was of course a lot of work to be done trying to make the idea real. We have made slow but steady progress over the past year or so putting the basics for the organisation into place.

After making the initial commitment the first thing that needed to be done was to establish “Our Basic Organising Framework”. This document lays out, amongst other things, our purpose, our values, our internal culture and structure without which no serious organisation can take place. This document was then sent out to various people who have been working on participatory vision and strategy for feed back.

We then compiled a list of UK based contacts from ZNets Penpal facility and contacted everyone on that list asking them if they would be interested in this project. Of the initial 500 contacts about half of them “failed” and of the remaining we recieved something like 30 to 50 positive responses asking to be kept informed of any developments.

PPS-UK seems to take its principle inspiration from the writings of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel in particular the theory of “complementary holism” first put forward in ‘Liberating Theory’ what is it about their approach you find so useful? How has their work informed the founding of PPS-UK?

Like a lot of people out there I feel very unhappy with the way in which society is organised and managed. I wanted to try and do something about this and so over many years I got involved in various campaigns with different organisations. This was a real learning experience – but mostly in the negative sense of how not to do things. I very soon became aware of the shortfalls of single issue campaign work, of the difficulties of working in traditional coalitions and perhaps most of all of the dogmatic culture of the old left which seems to lead to stagnation and factions (interestingly the opposite to what they claim to be about).

This dissatisfaction with existing options led me to search for a conceptual framework for organising that addressed these problems. It seemed to me that a failure to find, develop and implement a new radical-progressive organising framework would condemn the left to a future of continued decline. That framework turned out to be what is sometime refered to as “complimentary holism” which as you say was first put forward in “Liberating Theory”.

This framework is relatively easily to understand, which is important if you are interested in working towards a participatory society – as I am. It is also a framework that developed out of both a practical and theoretical understanding of the history of the left. I should also say that this framework is more than just a framework for organising – it is also proposed as a means of understanding historical continuity and changes as well as contemporary social dynamics.

It identifies four social spheres that go to make up society – kinship, community, economic and political. One of the basic insights presented in ‘Liberating Theory’ is that none of these spheres should be seen as more imortant than the other. Typically the various constituencies that go to make up the left take the opposite position, organising as though one of the spheres is of prime concern. For example anarchists tend to prioritise the political sphere over the other three; feminists tend to prioritise the kinship sphere; Nationalists tend to prioritise the community sphere and Marxists tend to prioritise the economic sphere. This is what is called a monist theory and whilst all four constituents may feel that they have a genuine commitment to solidarity its not hard to see how this approach leads to factions within the movement.

A slightly more sophisticated approach comes with what is called a pluralistic approach where by say an anarcho-syndicalist prioritises both the political and economic spheres or where by a socialist-feminist prioritises the economic and kinship spheres. However this approach still prioritises some spheres over others which again leads to tentions within the movement.

In line with the framework proposed in ‘Liberating Theory’ PPS-UK organises around all four social spheres in a conscious effort to overcome these problems and hopefully to contribute to the building of a much healthier culture of solidarity within the left and therefore a much more effective movement.

Can you tell us about the projects PPS-UK is involved in?

Well first of all, projects and other activities are initiated and run by PPS-UK activists – there is no leadership spoon-feeding activists campaign ideas or delegating tasks. Activists who initiate and/or participate in projects and other activities that go under the “banner” of PPS-UK must respect and operate within Our Basic Organising Framework.

At the present we have five projects posted on the site -‘Solidarity Works’ is a simple but important project that provides links to organisations that PPS-UK activists want to express a feeling of solidarity with and to encourage others to work with.

‘Intellectual Self-defence’ is an on line resource that introduces the notion of a “propaganda managed democracy”. This project includes a recommended reading list plus links to appropriate organisations. ‘Project for a Participatory Trade Union Movement’ facilitates the coming together of trade union activists who want to join forces to promote and organise for a participatory economy. ‘Project for a Participatory Credit Union’ has been set up to investigate the possibility of establishing a credit union as a means of creating a financing system to fund ParEcon Businesses. We are also looking at organising a PPS-UK Forum which will include talks and debates on participatory vision and strategy, project development sessions, courses on intellectual self-defence and media production workshops.

PPS-UK advocate the development of relatively detailed blue-prints for models of a future society – for instance the Particpatory Economic model, is there not a danger in developing such definite aims? Are diverse movements likely to be able to agree to such specific aims? Moreover is there not a danger that people living within a debilitating social reality that undermines rationality and compassion will come to advocate goals that will perpetuate the various maladies of contemporary society?

Many people on the left become concerned about the development of vision and some people become very hostile towards any attempts at proposing what the social justice movement might adopt as its long term objectives. Whilst I think that the concern is entirely valid I think that the hostility is unwarranted. The concern is valid for the obvious reason that we might get our vision wrong and therefore in this sense there is a very real danger. But this danger is not specific to the development of vision, it is also true of strategy and every other activity that we get involved in. Recognising this danger should not lead us to abandon our efforts but should instead lead us to be more carefull about what we advocate and how we organise.

Furthermore some people seem to think that developing vision is somehow undemocratic and elitist. I dont understand this at all – what they are basically saying is that if, for example, someone has an idea for an alternative to the corporate divsion of labour or markets, for example, then they are not allowed to discuss it. It is a very strange position. You can’t help but ask who’s being undemocratic?

There are two basic ways forward – one is to organise using broad principles as guildance, the other is to consider possible alternative institutional features. Despite the concerns of developing more detailed alternative institutions (as with ParEcon) the problem with the broad principles approach is that its hard to inspire people with such vague notion such as freedom and justice alone. I think given the history of the left (which hardly inspires confidence) and in todays world of spin (which renders words like freedom and democracy virtually meaningless) people require more than vague notions. They need compelling vision that is discussed and agreed upon – but always open to further refinement.

Whether people can agree on such specific aims only time will tell. But its worth mentioning that we dont really have that much to choose from. Take the economic sphere for instance – what are the actual options for the anti-capitalist movement? What are our options for an alternative to private ownership? To top-down management? To the corporate division of labour? To Markets? To rewarding ownership? As it turns out our basic options are quite limited. I feel quite confident that if we clearly identify our basic options and simply ask which of these options best reflects our values then a lot of agreement can be reached. If we can get this far then I think we are more than half way to building a popular movement. Its a lot of hard work, but pretty straight forward.

As for “people living in debilitating social reality that undermines rationality” in my experience most people aren’t anywhere near as irrational as the left generally seems to think. Most people make perfectly rational choices given their circumstances and based on the information they have. Personally I think that people know that things aren’t right, they know that they are being lied to, they know that they are being exploited. The point is that they dont see an alternative – this is why developing compelling vision is so important. Yes we live in a debilitating social reality – but one that principally undermines hope.

Project for a Participatory Society

Tim Holmes — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:42:24 +0000

“Another World is Possible” (Slogan of the World Social Forum)

“Out of the same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny.” (Noam Chomsky “Class Warfare”)

Introduction

The Project for a Participatory Society – United Kingdom (http://www.ppsuk.org.uk) was started in early 2006. It was set-up to help bring together social justice activists who are interested in developing and organising around participatory knowledge, vision and strategy. It is open to anyone who wants to work towards creating meaningful democratic social systems in the political, economic, kinship and community spheres.

PPS-UK is made up of 3 main components –

“Our Basic Organising Framework” – This document is set out to answer any basic questions that people may want to ask about PPS-UK and to serve as an elementary guide for participants. It lay’s out and clarifies organisational features. These features determine the fundamental character of the organisation.

Activist Networks – This facility allows people to make contact with others who are interested in developing projects and ideas relating to participatory society.

Projects – Activities are initiated and run by PPS-UK activists. There is no leadership spoon-feeding activists campaign ideas or delegating tasks. All projects respect and operate within “Our Basic Organising Framework”.

The Challenge