A-Infos (en) Bulgaria, AF: Cornelius Castoriadis. Self-Government and Hierarchy (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

We live in a society with a hierarchical organization, which manifests 
itself in work, production, enterprises, administration, politics, the 
state, as well as in education and scientific research. Hierarchy is not 
an invention of modern society. Its roots are very deep, although it did 
not always exist, and non-hierarchical societies functioned perfectly 
well. But in modern society, the hierarchical (or, which is almost the 
same, bureaucratic) system has become practically universal. If any 
collective activity is carried out, it is organized on the basis of the 
hierarchical principle, and the hierarchy of management and power 
coincides with the hierarchy of salaries and incomes. Thus, people have 
come to the point where they can hardly imagine how it could be 
otherwise and that they could evaluate themselves not on the basis of 
the place they occupy in the hierarchical pyramid.

The defenders of the modern hierarchical system try to justify it as the 
only "logical," "rational," and "economic" one. We have already tried to 
show that these arguments are meaningless and justify nothing, that each 
one of them is false, and all of them together contradict each other. We 
will have an opportunity to consider this more thoroughly. But the 
modern system is considered the only possible one, assuming that it is 
based on the needs of modern production, the complexity of social life, 
the large scale of every activity. We will try to prove that all this 
means nothing and that hierarchy is absolutely incompatible with 
self-government.

Self-governance and hierarchy of governance. Collective decision-making 
and the problem of representation
What does the hierarchical system mean in social terms? That one stratum 
of the population governs society, while the rest merely implement its 
decisions; and that this stratum, receiving the greatest income, derives 
more benefits from the production and labor of society than all the 
rest. In short, society is divided into those who belong to the stratum 
that has power and privileges, and the rest who are deprived of all 
this. The hierarchization or bureaucratization of all social activity is 
today an increasingly prevalent form of division of society. As such, it 
is both the cause and the result of the conflict that tears society apart.

If so, it is absurd to ask: how is self-government, the functioning and 
existence of a self-governing social system compatible with the 
preservation of hierarchy? This is like claiming that the destruction of 
the modern prison system is compatible with the preservation of prison 
guards, chiefs of security and prison directors. But, as is known, what 
is not said is more important than what is said. Moreover, over the 
millennia, the idea has crept into the minds of people from the earliest 
childhood that the nature of things is such that some command, others 
obey, some possess more, and others are content with the bare necessities.

We want a self-governing society. What does this mean? A society that 
governs itself. But something else needs to be specified. In a 
self-governing society, all decisions are made by a collective that is 
always concerned with the object of these decisions. It is a system in 
which those who carry out the activity are also those who collectively 
decide what to do and how to do it within the limits imposed on them by 
coexistence with other collectives. Thus, decisions that affect workers 
in a workshop must be made by the workers in that workshop; decisions 
that affect workers in several workshops by an assembly of these workers 
or by their delegates, elected and removed; decisions that affect a 
neighborhood by the residents of the neighborhood; decisions that affect 
society as a whole by the entire body of men and women who live in it.

But what does it mean to make a decision?
To decide means to decide for oneself. Decisions cannot be left to some 
"competent people" who are subject to "control". One cannot simply 
appoint people who will make decisions. If the French population 
appoints every five years those who will pass the laws, this does not 
mean that it only passes the laws. If the population appoints every five 
years those who will determine the country's policy, this does not mean 
that it determines this policy. The population does not decide, it cedes 
its powers to "representatives" who are not really representatives and 
cannot be. Of course, the appointment by different collectives of 
representatives or delegates, as well as the existence of bodies 
(committees or councils) formed by them, will in many cases be 
necessary. But this will be compatible with self-government only if 
these delegates represent the collective from which they come and 
therefore remain under the control of that collective. This, in turn, 
means that the collective not only elects them, but can also replace 
them at any time it deems necessary. (note: translation - at FAKB we are 
basically of the opinion that these so-called delegates can only act as 
spokespeople, representing decisions already made by the collective , 
and not decide themselves, which would mean delegated authority )

Thus, the assertion that there is a hierarchy formed by "competent" and 
in principle irreplaceable persons; or that there are representatives 
who are unchangeable for a certain period (who, as practice shows, 
become unchangeable practically always), is the same as asserting that 
there is neither self-government nor even "democratic government". This 
is tantamount to the assertion that the collective is governed by people 
for whom the management of common affairs becomes their own business and 
who, both legally and factually, fall outside the power of the collective.

The collective decision - preparation and information
On the other hand, decision-making requires understanding the situation. 
The collective does not decide anything, even if it formally votes, if 
only someone or a certain group has the information and determines the 
criteria on the basis of which the decision is made. This means that 
those who make the decision must have all the information related to the 
issue. In addition, they themselves need to be able to independently 
determine the criteria on the basis of which they make decisions. For 
this purpose, they need increasingly extensive training. The hierarchy 
is based on this fact and constantly seeks to reproduce it. Because in a 
hierarchical society, all information goes from the bottom to the top 
and does not go down, does not circulate (in fact, it circulates, but 
this is contrary to the rules of the hierarchical system). Moreover, all 
decisions go from the top to the bottom, where they are only 
implemented. In other words, there is a hierarchy of leadership, and 
these two streams of information are directed towards one goal: the top 
collects and absorbs the information coming from below, and transmits to 
the executors only the minimum information necessary to carry out the 
instructions, and this information can only come from it. In such a 
situation, it is absurd to think about the possibility of 
"self-management" or even "democratic management".

How is it possible to make decisions without having the information 
necessary to make the right decisions? And how is it possible to learn 
to make decisions if we are always forced to carry out what others have 
decided? As soon as a management hierarchy is established, the team 
becomes opaque to itself and a huge disorganization arises. It becomes 
opaque because all the information is kept at the top. And the disorder 
arises because uninformed or poorly informed workers do not know what 
they need to know to successfully carry out their task, and above all 
because the team's ability to self-manage, as well as the ingenuity and 
initiative that, formally attached to the management, are hindered and 
slowed down at all levels.

So to demand self-government or even "democratic government" - unless, 
of course, the word "democracy" is used for purely decorative purposes - 
and to demand the preservation of the hierarchy of government is a 
contradiction in terms. It would be much more correct - from a formal 
point of view - to say what the defenders of the modern system say: the 
command hierarchy is necessary, a self-governing society is impossible.

But this is a lie. When we examined the functions of the hierarchy, i.e. 
everything it serves, we found that for the most part these functions 
are necessary only in the conditions of the modern social system, and 
those functions that would be meaningful and useful in a self-governing 
system can easily be collectivized. Within the framework of this text we 
cannot consider this issue in its entirety. We will try to clarify some 
important aspects, first of all the organization of enterprises and 
production.

One of the most important functions of the modern hierarchy is to 
organize coercion. For example, when we talk about work in workshops or 
offices, it can be noted that there the main "activity" of the 
bureaucratic apparatus consists in monitoring, controlling, imposing 
sanctions, directly or indirectly imposing "discipline" and uniform 
execution of orders by those who have to carry them out. And why should 
coercion be organized, why should people be forced? Because the workers 
do not feel spontaneous, overflowing enthusiasm when they have to do 
what the superiors have ordered. Why? Because neither their labor nor 
the product of their labor belongs to them, because they feel alienated 
and exploited, because they do not decide either what is to be done, or 
how it is to be done, or what will happen next with what they have done; 
in short, the point is that there is a constant conflict between those 
who work and those who manage the labor of others and benefit from it. 
Therefore, a hierarchy is necessary to organize coercion, and coercion 
is necessary because there is division and conflict, i.e. hierarchy.

Moreover, hierarchy is presented as a means of resolving conflicts, 
while concealing the fact that its very existence is a source of 
constant conflict. As long as the hierarchical system exists, the 
conflict between the ruling and privileged stratum and the remaining 
groups of the population, reduced to the role of executors, will 
continue to recur.

They say that if there is no compulsion, there will be no discipline, 
everyone will do whatever comes to mind and chaos will ensue. But this 
is just another sophism. The question is not whether discipline is 
needed, or even sometimes compulsion, but what kind of discipline is 
needed, by whom it is proclaimed, by whom it is controlled, in what 
forms and for what purposes. Most of the purposes served by discipline 
are foreign to the needs and desires of those who are to realize them; 
most of the decisions related to the goals and procedures of this 
discipline are foreign to people, and compulsion is needed to make them 
comply with them.

A self-governing collective is not without discipline, but a collective 
that establishes discipline for itself and, if necessary, imposes 
sanctions on those who maliciously violate it. As far as work is 
concerned, we cannot imagine a self-governing enterprise that is 
completely identical to the modern one, except for the hierarchical 
shell. In the modern enterprise, people are forced to do work that is 
alien to them, work about which they have nothing to say. The amazing 
thing is not that they resist it, but that they resist so little. Can it 
be assumed for even a moment that their attitude to work will remain the 
same when the relations in the labor process change and the workers 
begin to become the masters of labor? On the other hand, even in the 
modern enterprise there are not one but two disciplines. A discipline 
that they constantly try to impose by means of coercion and financial 
sanctions. And another, much less obvious, but no less strong discipline 
that is born among workers in the brigade or workshop, when they 
tolerate neither those who work too much nor those who slack off from work.

Communities of people are not (and never have been) chaotic unions of 
individuals driven by selfishness and struggle against each other, as 
the ideologists of capitalism and bureaucracy try to convince us, 
expressing in this way only their own mentality. In groups, especially 
when they solve a task requiring constant joint efforts, there are 
always norms of behavior and the influence of the collective, which 
forces them to comply with them.

Self-management, competence and decision-making
Now let us consider another important function of hierarchy, which seems 
to be independent of the modern social structure: the function of 
decision-making and leadership. The question arises: why cannot 
collectives themselves perform this function, cannot govern themselves 
and make decisions for themselves, why is a special layer of people 
needed, organized into an apparatus that makes decisions and leads? To 
this question, the defenders of the modern system offer us two possible 
answers. One is based on the requirements for "knowledge" and 
"competence": decisions must be made by knowledgeable and competent 
people. The other option is based on the statement - more or less openly 
- that in any society decisions must be made by a few, otherwise chaos 
will ensue, in other words, the collective is not capable of governing 
itself.

No one disputes the importance of knowledge and competence, nor - 
especially - the fact that today certain knowledge and competences are 
available only to a few. But here too, false facts are invoked to cover 
up sophisms. In the modern system, power does not belong to those who 
have the most knowledge and competence. Those who govern are those who 
have demonstrated their ability to penetrate the bureaucratic apparatus, 
or those who, thanks to their family and social status, have "fallen on 
the right path" from the very beginning and then have received several 
diplomas. In both cases, the competence necessary to establish oneself 
in the bureaucratic apparatus and make a career in it presupposes, above 
all, the ability to defend oneself and win in the competitive struggle 
when individuals, cliques and clans face each other in the depths of the 
hierarchical-bureaucratic apparatus, and not the ability to manage 
collective labor. A person can be a brilliant engineer in his field, but 
be completely incapable of managing a department in a factory. Here it 
remains only to state what is happening at the moment in this sphere. 
Technicians and specialists are usually limited in their field of 
activity. The "managers" surround themselves with a certain number of 
technical advisers, collect their opinions on the decisions to be made 
(the opinions often contradict each other) and finally "make a 
decision". Here the absurdity of this argument is quite obvious. If the 
"manager" made decisions on the basis of his "knowledge" and his 
"competence", he would have to know everything and be competent in 
everything so that the decision he would choose among the different 
opinions of the specialists would be the best. Of course, this is 
impossible and the manager decides this question arbitrarily, on the 
basis of his "judgement". And there is no reason to consider this 
"judgement" to be more valuable than the decision that a self-governing 
collective could make on the basis of real experience, infinitely more 
valuable than the experience of a single individual.

Self-government, specialization and rationality
Knowledge and competence are limited by definition and are becoming more 
limited every day. Going beyond the boundaries of his field, the 
technician or specialist is no more capable of making the right decision 
than anyone else. Even within his own field, his point of view is 
fatally limited. On the one hand, he ignores other fields that are 
inevitably related to his own, and easily overlooks them. That is why in 
enterprises and in modern administrations the question of the 
"horizontal" coordination of management departments is a constant 
nightmare. It has long been concluded that it is necessary to train 
specialists in management coordination, who, however, also turn out to 
be incapable of coordinating themselves. On the other hand - and this is 
the most important thing - the specialists of the management apparatus 
practically do not come into contact with the real production process - 
with everything that happens there, with the conditions in which the 
workers have to do their work. Usually, decisions made in offices after 
scientific calculations, flawless on paper, turn out to be inapplicable 
in practice, because they do not sufficiently take into account the 
conditions in which they must be applied. And these real conditions, by 
definition, are known only to the work team. Everyone knows that in 
modern enterprises this is a source of constant conflicts and terrible 
disorder.

On the contrary, knowledge and competence can be used rationally if 
those who possess them are included in the production collective, if 
they become one of the components of the decisions that this collective 
has to make. Self-management requires cooperation between those who have 
partial knowledge and partial competence and those who have taken on the 
production work in the strict sense of the word. It is completely 
incompatible with the division of these two categories. Such cooperation 
must be introduced precisely so that knowledge and competence can be 
used fully, whereas today they are used only partially, since those who 
have them are engaged only in limited tasks, interconnected by the 
division of labor within the management apparatus. And most importantly, 
only such cooperation can contribute to the fact that knowledge and 
competence serve the whole collective, and not for private purposes.

Can such cooperation develop without conflicts between the "specialists" 
and the other workers? If the specialist, referring to his knowledge, 
claims that a certain metal, because it has certain properties, is the 
most suitable for a certain tool or part, then we do not see why and for 
what reason this could cause significant objections from some of the 
workers. Moreover, even in this case, a rational decision presupposes 
the participation of the workers; for example, the properties of the 
metal can play an important role in the process of processing parts or 
tools. But the really important decisions that are relevant to modern 
production always concern, first of all, the role and place of people in 
production. Then, by definition, there is no knowledge and no competence 
that could go beyond the point of view of those who actually do the 
work. No organization of the assembly line or assembly can be either 
rational or acceptable if it is created without taking into account the 
opinion of those who will work on it. Since no one asks them, at present 
these decisions almost always turn out to be wrong, and if production 
continues, it is because the workers organize it themselves, violating 
the "official" instructions and rules for the organization of labor. But 
even if we consider these decisions rational from the limited point of 
view of production efficiency, they are unacceptable precisely because 
they are based exclusively on the principle of production efficiency, 
i.e. they seek to completely subordinate the workers to the production 
process, to reduce them to the level of a production mechanism. And here 
it is not a question of the malice of the management, nor of its 
madness, nor even of the pursuit of profit (which is evidenced by the 
fact that the "organization of labor" in the countries of the West and 
the East is completely the same). This is a direct and inevitable 
consequence of a system in which some people make decisions and others 
must carry them out; such a system cannot have any other "logic".

But a self-governing society cannot follow this "logic." Its logic is 
different-the logic of people's liberation and development. The 
collective is perfectly capable of deciding (and from our perspective 
has every right to do so) how to make working hours less exhausting, 
less absurd, and more happiness-giving, which is infinitely more 
important than the merchant's extra pennies. And if this is the main 
choice, then no "scientific" or "objective" criterion has any value; the 
only criterion can be the opinion of the collective itself, which it 
prefers based on its experience, needs, and aspirations.

This is also true at the level of the whole society. No scientific 
criterion will help us decide what is better for society next year: more 
leisure or more consumption, faster or slower growth. Whoever claims 
that such criteria exist is ignorant or a liar. The only criterion that 
makes sense in these cases is what the men and women who make up society 
want - only they and no one else can decide that.

Self-management and salary and income hierarchy
There are no objective criteria on the basis of which to create a salary 
hierarchy.

A self-governing society is incompatible with the hierarchy of wages and 
incomes to the same extent that it is incompatible with the hierarchy of 
governance.

First of all, the hierarchy of wages and incomes today is connected with 
the hierarchy of management - completely in Eastern countries and in the 
overwhelming majority of cases in Western countries. It is also 
necessary to understand how this hierarchy is filled. The son of a rich 
man will be rich, the son of a leader has every chance of becoming a 
leader. Thus, for the most part, the strata occupying the highest steps 
of the hierarchical ladder retain this position through inheritance. And 
this is no accident. The social system always strives for 
self-reproduction. If social strata have privileges, people from these 
strata will do everything in their power (and privileges allow them to 
do a lot for this) to pass them on to their descendants. Insofar as 
these strata need "new people" within the given system, as the governing 
apparatuses expand and multiply, they select from among the descendants 
of the "lower" strata those who are most "suitable" to enter their 
ranks. In this case, it may seem that the work and abilities of the 
chosen ones have played their role, that they have received "on merit". 
But, I repeat, these "abilities" and this "merit" mean precisely the 
ability to adapt to the existing system and to serve it in the best way. 
Such abilities have no meaning from the point of view of the interests 
of a self-governing society.

Some people may believe that even in a self-governing society, the 
bravest, most resilient, most hardworking, and most "competent" 
individuals should be entitled to a partial "reward," and that this 
reward should be financial. And this feeds the illusion that a just 
hierarchy of income is possible.

This illusion does not stand up to criticism. Just as in modern society, 
it is not clear how the difference in pay can be logically justified. 
Why should a given competence bring its owner four times the income, and 
not twice or twelve times? On what basis can it be argued that the 
competence of a good surgeon is worth as much (or more or less) as the 
competence of a good engineer? And why is it not valued in exactly the 
same way as the competence of a good machinist or elementary school teacher?

Except in a few limited and unrelated areas, we see that there are no 
objective criteria by which the competence, knowledge, and education of 
different individuals can be calculated. And since society bears the 
cost of the individual's education, as is already the case, it is not 
clear why the individual who has already been granted this privilege 
should be rewarded once again with an increase in income. This applies 
both to "merit" and to "mind." There are individuals who are born with 
relatively great abilities for some activity or who have become so. 
These differences are generally insignificant, and their development 
depends on the family, social, or educational environment. In any case, 
if someone has a "gift," the development of this "gift" is in itself a 
source of pleasure, provided nothing interferes with it. And those rare 
individuals who really possess exceptional gifts need not financial 
encouragement but the opportunity to develop them unhindered. If 
Einstein had been interested in money, he would not have become Einstein 
and would probably have turned out to be a rather mediocre industrialist 
or financier.

Sometimes the incredible argument is put forward that without a salary 
hierarchy, society would not be able to find people who would agree to 
perform the most "difficult" duties, considering the duties of a clerk, 
manager, etc. There is a famous phrase often repeated by responsible 
officials: "if everyone earns the same, I prefer to grab the broom." But 
in countries like Sweden, where the wage gap is much smaller than in 
France, enterprises work no worse than in France, and no one there has 
ever seen clerks with brooms.

Rather, it can be observed that in industrialized countries, enterprises 
leave those whose work was really the hardest, i.e. the most exhausting 
and the least interesting. And the increase in wages makes it possible 
to stop this outflow of personnel. In fact, such work is increasingly 
falling to immigrants. And this phenomenon shows in all its obviousness 
that people, if they are not forced by necessity, increasingly refuse to 
do idiotic work. The opposite phenomenon has never been observed and we 
can bet that it will continue to be so in the future. The very logic of 
this argument allows us to conclude that the most interesting 
specialties should be rewarded the least, since in any case these are 
the specialties that are most attractive to people, in other words, the 
motivation necessary to be chosen and to engage in them is already 
largely inherent in the very nature of the work.

Self-management, motivation to work and production to satisfy needs
But what do all the arguments aimed at justifying hierarchy in a 
self-governing society ultimately amount to, what is the hidden idea on 
which they are based? This idea is this - people choose their jobs and 
work solely for the purpose of earning more than others. However, 
although they try to present it to us as an eternal truth arising from 
human nature itself, in fact it is simply a capitalist mentality that 
has to one degree or another penetrated society (and which, as the 
salary hierarchy in Eastern countries shows, also dominates 
there[sic!]). And this mentality is one of the conditions for the 
existence and strengthening of the existing system and, conversely, it 
can exist only as long as the system exists. People attach importance to 
differences in income because such differences exist and because in the 
current social system they seem to have great importance. If it were 
possible to earn a million instead of a hundred thousand francs a month, 
and if the social system on all sides fostered the idea that the one who 
earns a million is valued more than the one who earns only a hundred 
thousand francs, then indeed most people (not all, even today) would be 
motivated to do everything in order to earn a million instead of a 
hundred thousand francs. But if there was no such differentiation in the 
social system, if the desire to earn more than others was considered as 
absurd as the desire to obtain a noble title at all costs seems absurd 
to us today (at least to the majority of us), then other motivations 
could arise or rather spread that are truly valuable to society: 
interest in the work itself, the pleasure of doing well at what you have 
decided to do, ingenuity, creativity, respect and gratitude from others. 
Conversely, if the scarce economic motivation continues to exist in the 
future, all other motivations will be atrophied and crippled, starting 
from the earliest childhood of individuals.

Since the hierarchical system is based on competition between 
individuals and the struggle of all against all, it constantly pits some 
people against others and encourages them to use all means to "rise up." 
To present the cruel and dirty competition within the hierarchy of 
power, leadership and income as a sporting "competition" where the 
"best" win in a fair fight is to consider people as weak-minded and to 
believe that they do not see what is really happening in the 
hierarchical system, in the factory, in the offices, in the university, 
even in scientific research, insofar as they become a gigantic 
bureaucratic enterprise. The existence of the hierarchy is based on a 
merciless struggle of each against all, and the hierarchy intensifies 
this struggle. Therefore, the jungle becomes more and more merciless the 
higher we climb the steps of the hierarchy, and our cooperation is found 
only at the bottom, where the possibilities for "progress" are minimized 
or nonexistent. And the artificial introduction of differences at this 
level by the management of enterprises is aimed precisely at the 
destruction of this cooperation. So, as soon as privileges of any kind 
appear, especially economic, there immediately arises competition 
between individuals and at the same time a tendency to retain the 
privileges they already have, and for this purpose to acquire more power 
and take it out of the control of other people. From that moment on, the 
question of self-government no longer exists.

Finally, the hierarchy of wages and incomes is incompatible with the 
rational organization of the economy in a self-governing society. For 
such a hierarchy would immediately and profoundly distort the expression 
of social demand (la demande sociale).

The rational organization of the economy in a self-governing society 
actually presupposes that while services have a "price," they cannot be 
freely distributed, and therefore there is a single "market" for goods 
for individual consumption, production being oriented to the 
requirements of this "market," i.e., ultimately to the solvent demand of 
consumers. First of all, it is clear that there is no other sustainable 
system. Despite a new slogan that can only be approved if it is accepted 
as a metaphor, we cannot give everyone "everything at once." On the 
other hand, it would be absurd to limit consumption by authoritarian 
regulation, which would amount to an intolerable and stupid tyranny over 
everyone's preferences: why give everyone one CD and four cinema tickets 
a month when there are people who prefer music to images, not to mention 
the deaf and blind? But the "market" for individual consumption is truly 
sustainable only if it is truly democratic, i.e. every ballot has the 
same price. These ballots are everyone's income. If incomes are not 
equal - the vote will immediately be falsified, because there are people 
whose votes mean more than the votes of others. Thus, today the "vote" 
of a rich man for a villa on the Cote d'Azur or for a private jet weighs 
much more than the vote of a person with poor living conditions for 
decent housing or of a blue-collar worker for a second-class train ride. 
It should also be borne in mind that the pressure of the uneven 
distribution of income on the structure of the production of consumer 
goods is simply enormous.

This can be illustrated with an arithmetic example that does not claim 
to be rigorous, but is close to reality. If we assume that we can unite 
80% of the French population with the lowest incomes, equal to an 
average of about 20,000 per year after taxes (the lowest incomes in 
France, which affect a large category, are the elderly without a pension 
or with a small pension, significantly lower than the SMIK) and 20% of 
the remaining population with an average income of 80,000 per year after 
taxes, then after simple calculations we will see that these two 
categories together will have sufficient income for consumption (sic!) . 
This also means that 35% of the production of consumer goods in the 
country is oriented exclusively to the orders of the most privileged 
group and serves to satisfy its needs beyond the "elementary" ones; or 
here's another example - 30% of employed workers work to satisfy the 
non-essential needs of the most privileged classes (assuming that the 
consumption/investment ratio is 4 to 1, which roughly approximates reality).

Thus we see that with such an orientation of production the "market" in 
these conditions will reflect not the needs of society, but its 
distorted image, in which the insignificant consumption of the 
privileged classes will acquire disproportionate importance. It is 
difficult to believe that in a self-governing society, where these facts 
would be precisely and categorically known to all, people would tolerate 
such a situation, or that under these conditions they could regard 
production as their own work, feel connected to it, without which we 
cannot for a moment imagine self-government.

The abolition of the wage hierarchy is therefore the only way to direct 
production towards meeting the needs of the collective, to eliminate the 
struggle of all against all and the economic mentality, and to provide 
all men and women with the opportunity for real participation - in the 
full sense of the word - in the affairs of the collective.

https://www.anarchy.bg/
https://ru.anarchistlibraries.net/library/kornelius-kastoriadis-samoupravlenie-i-ierarhiya
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en