INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM cont'd.

[Layman Pascal]

For an introduction to this expanding meta-thread see Integral Anti-Capitalism pt I. We continue here because we have, hilariously, exceeded this website's capacity...

LAYMAN PASCAL

I agree that holacracy should be singled out for special investigation. The provocative notion that we are dramatically over-emphasizing the need for "conscious leadership" pertains very pertinently to this discussion. Robertson, like ourselves, is pointing to the fact that business (organizations) which integrally improve the interiors and cultural
spirit of their participants are still predisposed to certain outcomes as a result of their actual structural habits of communication and their specific decision-making protocols.
His notion of a constantly self-correcting dynamic organization drawing upon the capacity of individuals to act as tension-sensors relative to the "evolutionary purpose" of the organization is compelling and admirable.

More important is simply that he is making a stand and making an attempt to construct a protocol (constitution). I am not fully versed in the 4.0 version of the holacracy constitution but we should get deeper into some of these proposals.  

Given the level of your current knowledge of their protocols, what would you want to change or add in order to ethically and functionally empower this approach even more?

THEURJ

First some housekeeping in providing links in part I to comments on holacracy: their website, comment 1, comment 2, comment 3 (and 3 more on p. 7), and the first 7 comments on p. 8. 

I’m not yet familiar enough with holacracy to know it might need. So for now I’ll ask questions.  From p. 8 there was a blog post on ownership and the model might (but not necessarily) include outside capital investors. I asked:

“One question immediately pops up on outside investors. Are there limits on the amount of outside capital investment? What if their investment is such that without it the company could not financially survive? And/or depends on it for start-up? Then such investment would control the company, like it or not. If you don't do what I say I'm taking my ball and going home. No ball, no ballgame. Not the same as a mortgage or loan company.”

Granted why such investors are included on the Board there are other stake-holders to balance their input. But are there rules about which outside individuals or companies can invest? Do they have to have similar values like triple bottom lines instead of just profit for their investors? Can a Goldman Sachs provide start-up capital? Or Romeny’s ex-firm, Bain? Just wondering, so perhaps it’s time for those out there more familiar with the system to engage us?

LAYMAN PASCAL

I appreciate your inquiry about the potential influence of outside investors in holacratic systems. Perhaps they have a good protocol for that. Or perhaps not. In general, all "smart groups" need to comprehend and anticipate the distortion influence that donors and enablers wield. The psychology of human nature shows that we may believe ourselves to be quite sturdy and impartial while we are really bending in the breeze.

One of the concerns I had while perusing the holacracy constitution was about the voting procedure for filling roles. There are many parts of their approach which impress. In particular I would like to make not of the necessity to place constraints upon discussion. When the mention of a concern is met with the mention of counter-concerns then the intelligence and practical efficacy of discussions drops dramatically. A highly suspicious mind might even supposed that the human hive is encouraged to engage in the constant casual usage of dysfunctional conversation. So their use of controlled phases in both operational and hiring decisions is admirable. However, their actual voting protocol seems (to my naive glance) to be based on a model of transparent majority. A sophisticated "show of hands".

So this may be an area in which holacratic principles can be expanded to include a more thorough use of "secret ballot" and "averaged ranking".

The former often seems like a show of bad faith and an invitation to covert dangers... but these are considerably outweighed by the liberation of individual intelligence from any conscious or unconscious concerns about the social consequences of their input.

The latter evades a primitive "first past the post" approach in which our intelligence is functionally limited to a yes/no determination about each candidate relative to other candidates.

Another thing I admire about holacracy is that it represents a functional procedure and culture in which participants would appear to become better participants by participating. Their capacity and ethical commitment to the good of the organization through its evolving protocols should be an increasing trend. Any smart group needs to be arranged so that even people who try to distort the results will find their capacity and will to do this reducing over time. Replaced by the inspirational efficacy of the group.

This brings me to another issue relative to voting, both in political and economic groups. That is the relative absence of specific instructions about how to translated ones feelings into a vote-mark. This is almost completely unaddressed in terms of popular elections. To discuss it even seems insidious to some people who fear coercion (and/or wish to maintain the current material power structures).

Protocols should have at least a clear suggestion about how to locate both "gut" and "intellectual" data within ourselves and convert that into a numerical value which can be contributed to a group decision. A lack of clarification at this critical junction may act as an invisible source of drag upon an otherwise very functional group organism.

It might even be possible to define an "integral-level organizational set up" for business or politics by simply compiling a list of areas in which intelligence and capacity are distorted. We might recall that most of Wilber's philosophy has emerged in levels correlated to his discovery of "fallacies" or "basic errors". Integral proposals about business and society could be all over the map unless there is a reasonable set of constraints that make sure they fall in the most lucrative zone.

So other than the potential influence of outside "helpers" and "donors" what other sources of distortion or inhibition do you see going mostly unaddressed in otherwise progressive groups?

THEURJ

My next question of holacracy is who came up with it? It seems to be the pet project of Brian Robertson, his own brainchild. I'm wondering if that is so of if it was a community or P2P project? I mean, the structure of holacracy itself calls for distributed decision-making but was the creation of holacracy itself derived from this process or mostly dictated by Robertson? I've yet to find an answer at the site so I posed this question to them via contact info. I'll provide the response if/when received. I think the answer is pivotal in determining if this thing called holacracy arose from its own medicine.

LAYMAN PASCAL

I look forward that answer if it is forthcoming. The notion of self-arising systems is something which haunts the periphery of these discussions. My fantasy is that we can devise a group protocol which so reliably and simply exceeds the cognitive capacity of the individual participants that it would be foolish to predetermine the purpose and nature of the group. Collectively we could a better job of determining what kind of a collective we should be. "Smartgroups" of this kind could then spread through the world in a very radical social uprising. How possible that is remains uncertain...

As I understand holacracy, the different companies making use of it are assumed to engage in their own mutational modifications of the "constitution". So even if Brian wrote the whole thing out in his bathtub it still retains an open source quality. The answer to whether its current forms are or are not the result of distributed decision-making is almost certainly: sort of.

One of the reasons the holacracy approach is so amenable to business organization is that it seems to depend upon the functional axis of a specified purpose. The aim is somewhat pregiven -- our job is to sell widgets or maximize share-holder profit, etc. His use of the metaphor of the sensors on an airplane derives from a mechanism that is assumed to be designed for a well-known purpose.

My question would be whether or not this "aim" is a necessarily functional element in generating enhanced organizational capacity? Or whether it is simply an artifact of the need to make these systems serve a relatively conventional marketplace task?

THEURJ

Your suggestion of a smart group that arises creatively from a continually evolving set of parameters seems to be the intent and practice of holacracy. As to the organizational purpose of Holacracy One, it seems to have multiple bottom lines including but not limited to profit. For example, see this post in the comments where I noted that the top to bottom pay ratio is 3 to 1, and quoted some of those multiple purposes:

"With Holacracy at play, the game is entirely different: with the decentralization of authority, the separation of people and role, and the dynamic evolution of those roles, we end up with a situation that looks more like free agents going about their work with no central planning. There might not even be a single person who knows about everything you do."

This sounds much more like the sort of emerging P2P organizational structure discussed throughout this thread. And also of significance in the post following this article where The Integral Center of Boulder has "voluntarily relinquished their rights to control their company as owners. Instead, they have ceded authority to a purpose-centered governance process called Holacracy, a model that distributes authority across the organization and gives primary power to the organization itself."

These are indeed advances over the kind of conscious capitalism promoted and AQALly packaged for sale at I-I.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

This is an interesting moment. Apparently Amazon.com is experimenting with a version of holacracy as well. It clearly represents a theoretical advance over the typical kind of conscious capitalism which combines advanced sentiments with a potentially dangerous and uninspected ideological allegiance to more primitive routines of social organization and wealth production. Yet we cannot know the results of the experiment in advance.

I have tremendous optimism about emergent p2p organizational structures. Experimentation is utterly necessary and should be strongly encouraged. I am also very hopeful that advances can be made in terms of quantification. This is very central in my thinking lately.

It seems that experimental protocols for advances social organization systems suffer from the lack of a quantifiable evaluation of their respective degrees of "collective intelligence". Most people are drawn to such possibilities by ethical and aesthetic criteria which do no necessarily persuade the world. So I would love to see experimentation supplemented by the attempt to devise a metric for estimating the intelligence of a social organization protocol.

Along similar lines, my "tetrabucks" type notions represent the possibility/necessity to structure our currency at a level that correlates to advanced P2P organizational structures and post-pluralistic consciousness.

The potential of an evil holacracy has hardly been broached. If it works -- it works. Other than simply the tendency of less complex people not to use more complex systems, and the tendency of more complex systems to complexify their participants, there needs to be some inter-organizational structures which incline all organizations int he direction of broad human well-being. It is my assertion that as long as primary areas of value remain outside monetization the actions of groups trying to utilize official social credits will constantly become unstable.

So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better?

THEURJ

As to how we determine whether alternative economic paradigms are 'working,' I'd suggest that even by the standards of typical business democratic workplaces like co-ops are successful. If by that we mean the organization runs smoothly, has low employee turnover, high employee satisfaction, makes a profit or surplus over operating costs, and other such typical measures. Plus they fulfill their stated purposes as expressed in theRochdale principles, like community education, cooperation, democratic control, etc.

I'd say the same applies to holacracy. They also have to accomplish the usual business parameters like above but also meet stated principles like in their constitution. Given Robertson's business acumen I'm sure at the site he has precise and measurable indices to track such progress, though I didn't try to find them as yet.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

[Bryan O'Doherty]

It's so fascinating to me how cognitive biases can so starkly color our worldview. To the point even where two people who see exactly the same problem none-the-less point the finger at their own perceived boogeyman (capitalism or socialism, fascism or communism, the left wing or the right wing) thus playing right into the hands of their political overlords (whose modus operandi has long been divide and conquer through a two party system that really serves one master).  

In so far as the actual issue at hand goes; that our constitutional republic is sliding ever further into an oligarchic empire ruled by wealthy and powerful interests. Few of those who view the world through an integral lens could disagree. Indeed as Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme." The US appears to be rhyming with Rome perhaps, and may inevitably meet the same fate. 

Hartmann lost me completely when he fell into the trap of pointing to his right-wing boogeymen, ignoring completely the ENORMOUS role the left continues to play in this charade. 

[Edward theurj Berge]

Actually Hartmann has discussed at length the problems with liberals. Thomas Frank is a recurring guest who wrote Listen Liberal, an in-depth dive into the issue. But of course you wouldn't know that, because like here you take a single issue and broad-brush paint an entire person or meme and then discard it because it doesn't fit your cognitive biases. But I can understand it, as it is typical of kennilingus to which you are enthralled.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Hartmann's interview with Frank on how the Dimocrapic Party sold out to neoliberalism.

[Bryan O'Doherty]

Interesting video. Also nice ad hominem. Double Thumbs-up to you bro. 

[Edward theurj Berge]

I learned polemics from some of the best, including KenniLingam. ;)

[Edward theurj Berge]

Autopsy of a failed Holacracy

Michael Bauwens provided an excerpt of this article (copied below), subtitled "Lessons in justice, equity and self management." Unfortunately it is for paid subscribers only. However the referenced article in the following excerpt is available and linked.

"In the search for a new organizational model, some social justice organizations are turning to holacracy, a self-management practice intended to empower meaningful decisions in pursuit of purpose;1 many are finding themselves completely unsatisfied with the experience. People I have spoken to in a wide range of positions in for-profit and nonprofit organizations have reported that holacracy is mechanistic and dehumanizing, and that the model does not in fact have the potential to create the kind of workplace and world they want to see. Organizations that care deeply about social justice repeat many of the complaints of profit-focused businesses reported in the article by Ethan Bernstein et al., 'Beyond the Holacracy Hype'—for example, that time spent on self-management leaves less time for programmatic work; that it is challenging to learn how to operate within the system; and that too many roles and responsibilities make coordination and prioritizing tricky. But as the article points out, with justice-focused organizations there seems to be another layer, a tension that runs deeper than management, operations, and efficiency: a sense that these models aren’t addressing the deeper systemic issues having to do with oppressive power dynamics that are impacting people’s lives."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Framing the economic story

This article discusses how we must properly frame a new economic vision if we want to garner the support necessary to enact it. You can download the full report at the link. The two complementary, broad story lines are "resisting corporate power" and "meeting our needs."

On the first:

"This story centres on how the economy is both unfair and broken and lays blame squarely on corporate power and wealthy elites. It argues that the economic system has been unfairly influenced by a powerful few for their own benefit, and that this manipulation is the source of the economy’s problems. This story draws either on the value of Economic Strength or the value of Equality as the rationale for supporting progressive policies and uses a reprogramming metaphor to show how the economy has been intentionally designed—and can be redesigned— through policy decisions."

On the second:

"This story brings into focus the priorities of individuals and society. By drawing on the value of Fulfillment, this story identifies deeper needs—beyond the need to make money—and makes the case for an economy that prioritises happiness and fulfillment over profit. It utilises a metaphor of Economic Tracks to illustrate the significant role the economy plays in structuring opportunities, making it clear that society’s current priorities result from the way the economy has been designed."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Trickle-down economics is not capitalism

By Eric Beinhocker. Subtitled "The rise of rentiers and the destruction of the middle class." He thinks Ayn Rand would be aghast at what today passes for free enterprise! Today's corporations are not bastions of independent, innovative entrepreneurs winning the competitive race but giant corporations paying off government to maintain oligopolies. Rand wrote specifically against this phenomenon in Atlas Shrugged. Of course these oligarchs distort Rand's idealism as cover for what they are doing but they are nothing like Rand's hero in the book.

"Trickle-down economics may work in textbook economic theory with ivory-tower assumptions about perfectly rational people and perfectly efficient markets. But in the real world of politics and interests, it simply provides a cover story for rentier economics. It dresses up anti-market behavior in free-market rhetoric."

[Edward theurj Berge]

The Third Industrial Revolution: A radically new sharing economy

New video. The blurb:

The global economy is in crisis. The exponential exhaustion of natural resources, declining productivity, slow growth, rising unemployment, and steep inequality, forces us to rethink our economic models. Where do we go from here? In this feature-length documentary, social and economic theorist Jeremy Rifkin lays out a road map to usher in a new economic system.

A Third Industrial Revolution is unfolding with the convergence of three pivotal technologies: an ultra-fast 5G communication internet, a renewable energy internet, and a driverless mobility internet, all connected to the Internet of Things embedded across society and the environment.

This 21st century smart digital infrastructure is giving rise to a radical new sharing economy that is transforming the way we manage, power and move economic life. But with climate change now ravaging the planet, it needs to happen fast. Change of this magnitude requires political will and a profound ideological shift.

[Edward theurj Berge]

CabFair ethical alternative to Uber

82% of Londoners would use an Uber alternative that had better rights for drivers, and 54% would pay more for that ethical alternative. So reports the New Economics Foundation, which is also working on that alternative called CabFair that would be owned by the drivers.

[Edward theurj Berge]

"The ecosystem of commons-based peer production and its transformative dynamics," by Michel Bauwens and Alekos Pantazis, The Sociological Review Monographs 2018, Vol. 66(2) 302–319. The abstract:

"This essay discusses peer-to-peer social dynamics and the relevant technological infrastructures that enable new modes of production. Commons-based peer production is presented as an alternative to the profit-driven peer-to-peer production models of the digital economy. The latter models utilize the peer-to-peer dynamics to harness social creativity, collaboration and information sharing. The created value is then captured and valorized towards profit maximization. This essay argues that there are possibilities for moving away from such extractive models to more generative ones. Commons-based peer production seems to encapsulate both social and environmental sustainability, and thus has the potential to influence such a transition. As commons-based peer production cannot yet reproduce itself outside of a mutual dependence on capitalism, it risks being subordinated. To counter this, a commons-oriented solid and protective ecosystem is needed to fully unleash the creative capabilities of commons-based peer production."

[Edward theurj Berge]

From this article, which claims the Commons paradigm will replace neoliberal capitalism. Just putting Band-Aids on capitalism isn't good enough. Capitalism at its core has degenerated into rampant inequality, greed, environmental degradation, financial instability on the verge of collapse and the decimation of democracy with the rise of plutocracy. And liberal tweeks, while still accepting basic capitalistic premises, are just more of the aforementioned Band-Aids. "Conventional schools of economics, politics and power do not comprehend the generative capacities of decentralized, self-organized networks. They apply obsolete categories of institutional control and political analysis." Hence it's time to reimagine economics anew, and the Commons paradigm is already emerging organically.

"The commons, briefly put, is about self-organized social systems for managing shared wealth. Far from a 'tragedy,' the commons as a system for mutualizing responsibilities and benefits is highly generative. It can be seen in the successful self-management of forests, farmland, and water, and in open source software communities, open-access scholarly journals, and 'cosmo-local' design and manufacturing systems."

"Rather than try to manage themselves as hierarchical organizations with proprietary franchises, reputations, and overhead to sustain, activists see themselves as part of social movements working as flexible players in open, fluid environments. Their network-driven activism enables them to more efficiently self-organize and coordinate activities, attract self-selected participants with talent, and implement fast cycles of creative iteration. System-change movements tend to eschew the conventional policy and political process, and instead seek change through self-organized emergence. [...] In this, the commons is at once a paradigm, a discourse, a set of social practices, and an ethic [...] a kind of overarching metanarrative." And hence, a spiritual enactment, if by that term we mean the most evolved to date enactments not only in those individual domains but in their syntegration (hiersynarchy) within an evolved, "overarching metanarrative."