Michael Albert and Parecon¶
Core Argument¶
Chapter Digest: Michael Albert and Parecon¶
Michael Albert’s Participatory Economics (Parecon) represents the most serious anarchist alternative to capitalism, yet from a Marxist standpoint it largely repackages old ideas. The unstated undercurrent in Albert’s work is a fear of the “coordinator class”—those who, while waged, monopolise skills and knowledge and exercise considerable influence over their own and others’ economic situations. Albert contends that this layer, not the working class, seized power in the October Revolution. For Marxists, however, class is determined by relation to the means of production, not by income or skill. The working class must sell its labour power; the capitalist class owns capital and exploits wage labour. Between them lies the petty-bourgeoisie, which is unstable and tends to be driven into the working class. Albert’s “coordinators” are either higher-paid workers or petty-bourgeoisie, not a new independent class. Marx and Engels explained in detail why production relations define class, contrary to Albert’s claim that Marxism ignores non-ownership factors.
Albert’s assertion that a “coordinatorist” layer came to power in 1917 is false. Lenin repeatedly sought to reduce the ratio of intellectuals to workers in the Bolshevik Party, aiming to enlist proletarian elements. The degeneration of the revolution occurred due to specific historical reasons—isolation and the Civil War—and Stalin’s bureaucratic caste did not constitute a class in the Marxist sense, as their power did not derive from property ownership. Leninism bears no resemblance to Stalinism.
Albert further argues that Marxism lacks a vision for a future society, attributing this to a taboo against “utopian” speculation. In fact, Marxism offers a vision grounded in concrete historical experience—the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War—rather than abstract blueprints. Revolutions arise from objective material conditions and class struggle, not pre-conceived designs; workers’ councils emerged spontaneously during the 1905 Russian Revolution, untheorised beforehand. Overly detailed visions, like those of utopian socialists Bellamy and Owen, failed because they ignored material constraints. Marxism draws lessons from history: a socialist economy must be rationally and democratically planned, controlled by workers, and based on organs of working-class rule like soviets. Albert, by contrast, begins from chosen “first principles”—equity, self-management, diversity, solidarity, and efficiency—to design Parecon. His institutions include workers’ and consumers’ councils, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, balanced job complexes, and participatory planning. The artificial division of society into “workers” and “consumers” obscures the key question of which class holds political power. Albert’s dismissal of Marxist remuneration for output ignores Marx’s transitional framework from socialism to communism, which includes deductions for common needs and support for those unable to work.
Albert’s scheme omits how a unified plan is reached. Although iteration facilitation boards initially set indicative prices, democracy and centralisation form a dialectical whole; a complex planned economy requires both. Albert counterposes “participatory planning” to “central planning,” defining the latter as undemocratic, but a socialist plan must be both democratic and centralised to produce one unified plan. Modern technology could enable direct input from millions, minimising bureaucracy. Parecon is not genuinely anarchist: it includes a permanent police function and a “coordinator” caste. It repackages academic pseudo-Marxist lingo with pre-Marxist utopianism and reformism.