September 18th, 2007 at 12:59 am

“Interesting stuff, Edward.

“I can see that capitalism is, and will continue to be a very contentious issue for I-I. Many people are totally committed to working toward an anti-capitalist future, and find it very difficult to accept that I-I is not.”

From a review of A Theory of Everything by Roar Bjonnes dated 8/27/00 at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Integral-Business-Spirituality/dp/1570628556). It is similar to questions asked by Ray some time ago as well. And it would seem such questions have yet to be answered by I-I.

“This book tells us little about how an integral business person or politician might operate, even less about the deeper, philosophical map he or she needs in expressing spiritual values in today’s fierce political and economic reality. Nor does he paint a constructive, integral vision of how business might look like in a society based on spiritual values. When Wilber attempts to do this, he simply offers a short laundry list of people who are trying to “ïntegralize” corporate life, or he briefly explains how a liberal vs. a conservative worldview differ or complement each other. The deeper questions about an integral political platform or agenda are left unanswered, and so are questions about what kind of an economy we need to harmonize the human spirit, the workplace, or the environment. I know that Wilber is up to the task, but in this book, he has failed to answer some basic questions about the societal implications of a spiritual worldview, or, in effect, A Theory of Everything. Questions such as: Which aspects of capitalism are compatible with A Theory of Everything? Which aspects of socialism? Are new economic ideas–such as those of Sarkar, Korten, Schumacher, and others–more compatible with an integral worldview than classical capitalist and socialist ideas? Will the new, integral economy favor decentralization and cooperative enterprises? What is the integral visions answer to the growing inequity in the corporate world and in society in general? Since capitalism is based on the egoistic pursuit of self-interest, can it ever favor integral business practices? Which aspect of the socially responsible business movement would be part of an integral business agenda, and which would not?”

This from “An integral perspective on the political economy of ‘big change’” by Brian Hilton in World Futures, Volume 63, Issue 2, March 2007, pp. 127-36.

Does anyone have this Journal article and are willing to comment?

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a769890687~db=jour~order=page

Abstract:

The integral age demands a new economic vision. This has to emphasize exchange as processes, not the exchange of things. It must address humanity’s unique compulsion to learn using collaborative learning networks. These are what energize the self-organizing global change now accelerating the emergence of new global economic institutions and processes. This new vision requires political economy (i.e., economics integrated with its sociopolitical context).

Is it capable of asking the tough questions such as; will an integral political economy be capitalist in character or be a totally new configuration that transcends any previous political economy? Is the integral movement really challenging the cultural norms of society or is there a bias that accepts individualism and capitalism as a given?

Isn’t it still true that the capitalist class profits by exploiting labour? What is Wilber’s position on the minimum wage in the US? Does an integral politics think that this is ethically acceptable? Will integral politics admit, as research seems to suggest, that worker owned and controlled enterprises are more efficient and naturally more integral places to work?

Will Don Beck and other integral consultants advise their corporate clients to buy back shares and distribute them to workers and then set up a management system based on direct worker input? Will they advise their corporate clients to raise wages and to drop executive remuneration and share packages? Will they advise clients that the share market is simply an elaborate casino that extracts wealth from productive investment? Or will they simply hold a series of workshops that really don’t challenge a thing? Are the workshops designed to shift everyone in the organization up the spiral or do they merely tell managers how to better manage each vMeme to better maintain profits and therefore share price? To better exploit the working class?

I agree with the prime directive. It states that the health of each level is vital to the health of the whole spectrum or spiral. It’s worth really contemplating because it forms the absolute foundation for integral ethics. It says that anyone who espouses integral theory is bound by the logic of that theory to act in such a way that the greatest good is accomplished for the greatest number across the greatest depth and span possible – a kind of expanded integral utilitarianism. Note that the prime directive does not say – the greatest good for the greatest span except where it affects my own country, lifestyle or personal ambitions and desires. You see that is what first tier is supposed to do. It mitigates the prime directive by putting in selfish exceptions.

But what if the integral community is actually dodging the full political implications of the prime directive? What if it is excitedly looking into the integral future and ignoring some rather obvious and large ethical boulders in its path? For example, the class system inherent in capitalism where certain people benefit by exploiting the labour of others, like Indonesian clothing machinists or illegal Mexican farm labourers. Or do we just conveniently ignore this problem? Or do we create an integral rationalization or even argue that there is such a thing as integral capitalism? This is the argument that the best way to help poor people is to get rich and employ them. This is the trickle down effect. It’s a cornerstone of Republican tax theory. Remove tax to stimulate the economy to increase employment. Except it doesn’t answer the problem that the extra income is usually invested in the speculative stock market and that there has been a net flow from productive investment to speculative investment in the last five years. In other words it doesn’t go to jobs it goes to share portfolios. Or should we buy the neo-liberal economic propaganda lock, stock and barrel without critical examination and ignore the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer in relative terms?

Is it okay to be somewhat complacent with the clear evidence that the current political economy of the planet directly contradicts the prime directive?

In one of the earlier versions of my essay P2P and Human Evolution, I actually did an exercise comparing the various vMeme characteristics, and I found it had elements from various levels. But I think it is most likely an expression of turquoise, in its most fully formed potentiality. However, I’m not an expert in the fine distinctions between different vMemes.

For integral theory, note how Chris Cowan has mentioned research showing that abhorrence of the mean green meme (which according to his research does not exist) is only expressed by the orange meme.

Your remarks about capitalism not having reached its own potential, is judicious. I think that new expressions like fair trade, social entrepreneurship, and base of the pyramid movements are themselves expressions of this maturation (as is the greening of capitalism and the sustainability movement). And as you know, I call them peer-informed expressions of the market, since they recognize that the economy is about partnership and the recognition of everyone’s needs.

And if we accept Ken’s tetra-enaction of the quadrants, and that capitalism arose with the egoic-rational consciiousness, it only makes sense that another, more developed economic system will evolve to make the proper fit.

On the other hand a good case can be made that capitalism is still stuck as a feudal expression of economics and has yet to live up to the egoic-rational level to match the democratic expressions we find in politics.

The reference to how different vMemes may use p2p networks is the following: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/types-of-connectivity/2006/06/28

Originally from an essay by Chris Lucas which is referred to in the blog entry.

Parecon I found to be very problematic, because it is based on a hyper-administration of very detailed practical issues. Rather than let people work equipotentially, it wants to create balanced work complexes that preclude any inequality in job duties and satisfaction, and in order to do this, it has to include many detailed rules. I am personally not in favor of such a planning approach,

Michel

David Schweickart moves beyond the familiar arguments against globalizing capitalism to contribute something absolutely necessary and long overdue–a coherent vision of a viable, desirable alternative to capitalism. He names this system Economic Democracy, a successor-system to capitalism which preserves the efficiency strengths of a market economy while extending democracy to the workplace and to the structures of investment finance. Drawing on both theoretical and empirical research, Schweickart shows how and why this model is efficient, dynamic, and superior to capitalism along a range of values.

http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2006/10/05/economic-democracy-vs-parecon-debating-life-after-capitalism/

Today’s Semco doesn’t have a traditional management hierarchy or typical organizational chart, or even a matrix or lattice management structure. The company is effectively made up of autonomous, democratically run units. The model of organization is that of concentric circles.

At the center are the Counselors, including Ricardo Semler. There are six of them and a different one takes the CEO job every six months. They deal with general policy and strategy, overall financial results, and work to inspire the Partners who make up the second circle.

Partners are six or seven leaders from each Semco division. Everyone else is an Associate. Some Associates also work as team leaders.

Semco has no receptionists, secretaries or any personal assistants. Associates set their own salaries which are publicly posted and worked into the budgets. All meetings are open to any Associate who wants to attend. Financial information is available to anyone who wants to see it and courses are available to help them understand what they see.

Semco’s units are limited to 150-200 people. That’s something of a magic number in sociological, management and anthropological studies. It’s the largest group that a human being can feel a part of and that can create a social context that affects behavior.