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

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