Editorial
The relatively recent arrival
of systems theory and complexity added one more controversial issue in the
discussion about the development of radical tools of analysis for today’s
internationalised market economy. Arran Gare, who functioned as the editor in
charge of this particular issue, has brilliantly collected a series of
contributions, which reflect the controversial nature of this topic
— ranging
from an unqualified positive stand to a clear negative one.
Thus, Arran
Gare, in his first contribution, offers an insightful introduction to the
topic, whereas in his second contribution
uses
Bogdanov’s ‘tektology’, which he considers to be a predecessor of systems
theory and complexity, to assess their significance. After a very interesting
presentation of Bogdanov’s ideas, he draws the conclusion that ‘when the
aims and achievements of tektology have been appreciated, those aspects of
systems theory and complexity theory which accord with it, or which are
consistent with its basic aims, can be lauded, while tendencies which undermine
these basic aims can be criticised’. However, despite the obvious significance
of tektology, one may still raise serious reservations as to the potential of
systems theory and complexity as tools of radical analysis, and in particular as
tools for the analysis of today’s internationalised market economy.
Giancarlo
Corsi, in a practical application of systems
theory, attempts to show, using the present anti-globalisation movement as an
example, that the assumption on which the organisation of modern society
(including the protest movements against it) is based, i.e. that future
and development can be planned and controlled, is invalid. The main reasons for
this conclusion are, first, that decision-making can only affect variables on
the level of formal organizations, but not on the level of society as a whole
and, second, that the results of planning are never those expected by the
decision-makers. However, as I attempted to show in my contribution, such
conclusions crucially depend on an (explicit or implicit)
analysis of the present social structure, and on related assumptions
about the control of social reality, which may seriously be disputed, both on
theoretical and empirical grounds
Steve Best
and Douglas Kellner offer a devastating critique of Kevin Kelly’s
complexity theory who, utilizing complexity
theory and other concepts fashioned on the paradigmatic logic of biological
systems, (and —in the process— illicitly collapsing, technology and the
economy into nature), ends up with an analysis which, as the authors stress,
‘fails to factor in the logic of capital into his scenario and fails to
explore the consequences of the new organization of economy and new technology
for the environment and society’. However, despite the fact that the authors
convincingly demonstrate the use of complexity theory in action as an
ideological weapon to justify the capitalist neoliberal economy, they conclude
that it is possible to develop a ‘critical’ complexity theory which may
potentially be a useful tool for radical analysis —a conclusion on which one
may raise serious reservations.
Glenn
Albrecht’s
insightful paper examines the evolution of directionality
theory and assesses its newly
expressed form, that of complexity theory. In the process, he discusses
Bookchin’s dialectical naturalism, in the light of the emergence (in the last
few decades) of new ways of understanding complex systems that point to the
emergence of a ‘dialectical complexity’. For the author, this is an
important development which could help in removing the more deterministic
aspects of dialectical naturalism. However, one could alternatively argue that
the ‘deterministic’ aspects of dialectical naturalism do not simply arise
out of the concept of complexity that it uses, but rather out of the way it sees
History as an evolutionary process of Progress. In fact, it may be shown that if
one adopts an alternative view of History as creation of institutions and
significations, then both systems theory and complexity become irrelevant to the
analysis of radical social change.
The aim of
my contribution (Takis Fotopoulos) is to critically assess the
claims of systems theory and complexity in the analysis of social change and
particularly to examine the view that —if
certain conditions are met— both
could potentially be useful tools for radical analysis. The conclusion drawn
from this analysis is that, although systems
theory and complexity are useful tools in the natural sciences in which they
offer many useful insights, they are much less useful in social sciences and
indeed are incompatible, both from the epistemological point of view and that of
their content, with a radical analysis aiming to systemic change towards an
inclusive democracy.
Alan Roberts examines the significance of ‘emergence’ within systems and he
proposes that we should deepen our understanding of it by examining
well-understood processes to see exactly how new properties emerge in them. For
the author, the analysis of emergence
is
of particular importance with respect to social systems, where the
‘emergence’ of desired social qualities is of obvious significance.
Finally, Alexandros Gezerlis, continuing
the dialogue which started in the penultimate issue on the respective
contributions of Proudhon and Marx to the liberatory movement, offers a
perceptive assessment of the role of
a
liberatory project’s “objectivity”, versus that of the ‘leaders’ personal
traits’ in the frequent
slide
of the movements around such projects towards authoritarianism.
Takis
Fotopoulos,
Editor