Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

1

Michael Albert's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/malbert
Bio: Michael Albert is a founder and current member of the staff of Z Magazine as well as staff of Z Magazine`s web system: ZCom (www.zmag.org). Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His po... (More)

All Albert Blogs

A (Possible) One Question Poll

By Michael Albert at Feb 20, 2010


Change Text Size a- | A+

 

Having studied the results of the many question ZCom poll that sought reactions to a host of positive assertions drawn from roughly 100 Reimagining Society Essays, it seems clear a large subset of ZCom users share significant aspirations and approaches. 

In that light, I revisited those materials and tried to piece together a single question about joining or not joining an imagined new membership organization. Just how much support would such a new organization, with features chosen to be consistent with the overwhelming majority of respondants to the poll, attract? 

The poll would query not about an International that would combine lots of existing groups, projects, movements, and parties, as indicated in The Proposal for a Participatory Socialist International - but about a single new membership organization, with its own chapters, policies, program, politics, etc. 

In a few weeks, if this poll idea seems sensible, we would put a one question poll up on ZCom and strongly urge users to post their answer and, in the event that they wish to, also a blog or comment explaining their answer - all of which would display together.

Before deciding whether to make such a new poll live, however, we would like to get feedback on the idea, and also on possible wording of the one big question. 

Thus...here is a draft of POSSIBLE text for such a poll. 

First, do you think it makes sense to have such a one question poll? 

Second, do you think the wording of the one big question is okay, or that it needs some alterations? 

Regarding alterations, if possible, please don’t just say we should make it better, clearer, shorter, or whatever - but instead, if you can, please propose actual changes you think would help. 

To indicate your views, you can just comment on this blog post. Then we can all discuss comments, and consider how to proceed. 

Commenting here, in other words, will impact our actions, so please take some time to do so.

 

 

A (draft of a possible) One Question Poll

 

IMAGINE an organization is established in your country, including that is has a chapter where you live, and that it has other chapters in your country and in many other countries as well, and that it has the defining features listed below...and has no additional features that you significantly dislike. On hearing about this new organization, would you: 

    1. be eager to join and promptly sign up
    2. join, but without excitement
    3. not join, but with some hope the organization would prove positive
    4. not join, and be somewhat upset at the organization’s existence fearing it might to more harm than good
    5. not join, and be very concerned about the organization’s existence, feeling pretty sure it will do more harm than good

Here, then, are the defining features that the proposed organization hypothetically embodies as a basis for the poll taker to decide his or her reaction to it...

 

The organization, as some general priorities:

    • is anti capitalist.
    • seeks to transcend 20th Century market and centrally planned socialism.
    • flexibly explores and advocates long term vision sufficiently to inspire and orient current activity, but without seeking detailed blueprints that transcend needs and knowledge. 
    • centrally addresses economics/class, politics, culture/race, kinship/gender, ecology, and international relations without privileging any one focus above the rest. 
    • sees social strategy as largely contingent on place and time and therefore continually provides means for revision of shared views in light of new evidence, including constantly updating its analysis, vision, and strategy.

 

The organization seeks a new political system for a new society that:

    • facilitates all citizens deliberating sufficiently to arrive at well-considered views and to participate in decision-making in all realms
    • utilizes transparent mechanisms to carry out decisions as well as assess that they have been carried out correctly.
    • conveys to all citizens a self managing say in legislative decisions proportionate to effects on them whether via grassroots assemblies/councils, or communes, various forms of direct participation or representation and delegation, and/or voting options such as majority rule, some other voting algorithm, or consensus, etc., as needed to attain self management.
    • offers maximum civil liberties to all, including freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, organizing political parties and other organizations, and dissent
    • promotes diversity so individuals and groups can pursue their own goals consistent with not interfering with the same rights accorded to others
    • builds solidarity among people and fairly, peacefully, and constructively adjudicates disputes and deals with violations of social norms and laws, seeking both justice and rehabilitation.
    • supports all community members contributing to solving problems and exploring possibilities to ensure that there are no political hierarchies that privilege some citizens over others.

 

The organization seeks a new economy for a new society such that:

    • no individuals or groups own the means of production (land, mines, factories, etc.) such that ownership is social and doesn’t impact anyone’s decision making influence or share of income.
    • payment for labor provides everyone morally fair shares of the social output and economically and socially effective incentives, rejecting payment according to property, bargaining power, or the value of personal output, and instead establishing that workers who are able and who work longer at socially valued labor, including their own training, earn proportionately more for doing so; workers who work harder at socially valued labor earn proportionately more for doing so; and workers who work under more onerous conditions earn proportionately more for doing so, while those who are unable to work receive a full and fair share nonetheless.
    • there is no authoritarian workplace decision-making by any elite operating above the workforce and instead, workers have a say in decisions, to the extent possible, and over time, proportionate to effects on them, where this is sometimes best attained by majority rule, sometimes by consensus, etc., in accord with diverse conditions and the characteristics of different types of decisions.
    • there is no corporate division of labor of the sort common to both capitalist and 20th century socialist economies in which roughly a fifth of the workforce do overwhelmingly empowering tasks and four fifths do overwhelmingly rote, repetitive, and, in any event, disempowering tasks - and, instead, each worker enjoys conditions of work suitable for him or her to be sufficiently confident, informed, and empowered to participate effectively in decision making, which includes having a socially average share of empowering tasks, whether this be accomplished by balanced job complexes or some other suitable new design of work.
    • allocation would not occur by market competition or top-down dictate, but instead by decentralized cooperative negotiation of inputs and outputs consistent with self-management, whether this be accomplished by participatory planning by workers and consumers councils, or by some other suitable method.

 

 

The organization seeks gender and kin relations for a new society that:

    • seek to eliminate hierarchies of reward of influence based on gender or sexual preference
    • do not privilege certain types of family formation over others but instead actively support all types of families that are consistent with society’s other broad norms and practices. 
    • promote children’s well-being and affirm society’s responsibility for all its children, at the same time as affirming the right of diverse types of families to have children and to provide them with love and a sense of rootedness and belonging.
    • minimize or eliminate the use of age-based designations, preferring non-arbitrary means for determining when an individual is old enough, or young enough, to participate in certain economic, political or other activities, or to receive certain benefits/privileges.
    • respect marriage and other lasting relations among adults as religious, cultural, or social practices, but reject the idea of legal marriage as a way to gain financial benefits or social status.
    • respect care giving as a socially valuable function including ensuring that it doesn’t disproportionately fall on women, including making care giving a part of every citizen’s social responsibilities or other worthy means to ensure equity.
    • affirm diverse expressions of sexual pleasure, personal identity, and mutual intimacy while ensuring each person honors the autonomy, humanity, and rights of others.
    • provide diverse, empowering education about sex, as about all social relations including legal prohibitions against any kind of non-consensual sex. 

 

The organization seeks ecological relations for a new society that:

    • account for the full ecological costs and benefits of economic and social choices so that future populations can make informed choices about levels of production and consumption, duration of work, self reliance, energy use and harvesting, husbandry, pollution, climate policies, conservation, consumption, and other aims and activities as part of their freely made decisions about future policies.
    • foster a consciousness of ecological connection and responsibility so that future citizens are well prepared to decide policies regarding animal rights, vegetarianism, or veganism, etc., that transcend sustainability, and even husbandry, consistently with their ecological preferences and their broader agendas for other social and economic functions, as they freely decide for themselves in future settings. 

 

The organization seeks cultural and community relations for a new society that: 

    • ensure people can have multiple cultural and social identities recognizing that which identity is most important to any particular person at any particular time will depend on the person’s situation and assessments.
    • explicitly recognize that rights and values exist regardless of cultural identity, so that all people deserve self management, equity, solidarity, and liberty, and so that while society protects all people’s right to affiliate freely and fosters diversity, its core values are universal.
    • guarantee free entry and exit to and from all cultural communities in society including affirming that communities that do have free entry and exit can be under the complete self determination of their members, so long as policies and actions don't conflict with society's laws.

 

The organization seeks international relations in a new world such that: 

    • international institutions put an end to imperialism in all its forms, colonialism, neo colonialism, neo liberalism, etc. 
    • international institutions are internationalist in that they diminish economic disparities in countries’ relative wealth while also protecting cultural and social patterns interior to each country from external violation and facilitating international entwinement and ties as people desire.

 

The organization’s broad action agenda or program, while of course regularly updated and adapted, nonetheless always:

    • seeks to incorporate seeds of the future in its present projects at least regarding class, race, gender, sexual, age, and power relations. 
    • seeks to constantly grow support and membership among the class, nationality, and gender constituencies it claims to aid.
    • seeks to learn from and seek unity with audiences far wider than its own membership including emphasizing attracting younger generations and affirmatively empowering younger members and of course participating in, supporting, building, and aiding diverse social movements and struggles.
    • seeks changes in society both for citizens to enjoy immediately, and also to establish by the terms of its victories and even more so by the means used in its organizing, a likelihood that citizens will pursue and win more change in the future. 
    • seeks to connect efforts, resources, and lessons across continents and from country to country, even as it also recognizes that strategy for different places, and times will differ. 
    • seeks short term changes by its own actions and programs and by support of larger movements and projects as its affected members decide, both internationally and by country, and also more locally, including addressing global warming, arms control, war and peace, level and composition of economic output, agricultural relations, education, health care, income distribution, duration of work, gender roles, racial relations, media, law, legislation, etc., as its members choose. 
    • seeks to develop mechanisms that provide financial, legal, employment, and emotional support to its members so that its members can be in a better position to participate as fully as they wish and negotiate the various challenges and sometimes negative effects of taking part in radical actions.
    • works to substantially improve the life situations of its members, including aiding their feelings of self worth, their knowledge, skills, and confidence, their mental, physical, sexual, and spiritual health, and even their social ties and engagements, leisure enjoyments, etc.
    • sets up internal structures and defines its action agenda to facilitate everyone’s participation in the organization, including, when possible, offering childcare at meetings and events, finding ways to reach out to those who might be immersed in kinship duties, aiding those with busy work schedules due to multiple jobs, etc., monitoring and responding to sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia as they may be manifested internally, having diverse roles in projects suitable to people with different situations, etc. 
    • seeks means to develop, debate, disseminate, and advocate truthful news, analysis, vision, and strategy among its members and also in the wider society, including developing and sustaining needed media and means of face to face communication, etc.
    • uses diverse methods of agitation and struggle from educational efforts to rallies and marches, to demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, and direct actions, etc., to win gains and build movements.
    • places a very high burden of proof on utilizing violence, including cultivating a decidedly non violent attitude. 
    • assesses engaging in electoral politics case by case, including cultivating a very cautious electoral attitude. 

 

The organization’s structure and policy:

    • seeks to be internally classless and self-managing including structuring itself so that a minority who are initially disproportionately endowed with needed skills, information, and confidence do not form a formal or informal decision-making hierarchy, leaving less prepared members to follow orders or perform only rote tasks.
    • strives to implement the self management norm that "each member has say proportional to the degree they are effected" in its decision-making structures. 
    • guarantees groups of members rights to organize “currents” and guarantees these “currents” full rights of democratic debate
    • welcomes internal debate and dissent, making room, as possible, for contrary views to exist and be tested alongside preferred views.
    • respects diversity, so that continental, national, regional, city, and local chapters can respond to their own circumstances and implement their own programs, so long as their choices do not interfere with the shared goals and principles of the organization as a whole, or with other local groups addressing their own situations.
    • provides extensive opportunities for people to participate in organizational decision making, including engaging in deliberation with others so as to arrive at the most well-considered decisions, including implementing mechanisms for carrying out collective decisions and for the membership to assure that the decisions have been carried out correctly.
    • strives to provide transparency regarding any actions by elected or delegated leaders with a high burden of proof for secreting any agenda to avoid repression, etc.
    • provides the membership with a mechanism to recall any leaders or representatives who the members believe are not adequately representing them.
    • provides internal means for fairly, peacefully, constructively - and non destructively - resolving internal disputes.
    • apportions empowering and disempowering tasks among its members to ensure that no individuals control the organization by having a relative monopoly on information, etc.
    • incorporates its members in developing, debating, and also deciding on proposals, and treats lack of participation as a serious problem to be addressed whenever it surfaces.

589620

Looks good

By Markland, Dave at Feb 28, 2010 22:49 PM

I think the poll is quite excellent, especially with the changes discussed. And yes, I think it is a good idea. I cannot think of any other constructive changes.

However, I think the opening sentence could be rewritten for clarity:

"IMAGINE that an organization is established in your country, that it has a chapter where you live along with other chapters in your country and in many other countries as well, and that it has the defining features listed below -- and has no additional features that you significantly dislike."

 

Reply this comment


Person

Sustainability issue

By Lipow, Gar at Feb 28, 2010 22:11 PM

"Acount for the full ecological costs and benefits of economic and social choices" is not sufficient to create an environmentally sustainable society, not even in the narrow economic sense of using sources and sinks in a sustainable fashion. It is not that full cost is unimportant. But you need real system analysis of the type consumer/producer negotiations can't capture.

 

For example, a sustainable transportation system is not going to happen just because prices include the full costs of oil and asphalt and land use. We ultimately have to make macro decisions. Do we want freight trains or long haul trucks? In either case do we want to encourage the same amount of stuff to be produced at as far a remove, or do we want less stuff produced closer to the point of consumption? In passenger transport, do we want to electrify our main existing mode (cars)? Or do we want to invest in electric buses, light rail, bike paths, walking paths, land use planning that encourages density and walkability?

 

This sort of choice is not just a matter of taking into account full environmental costs. Even if, in some sense, it is a matter of optimizing full social cost/ full social benefit ratios, thinking about it in only that way won't result in an effective process. This is requires planning in the old fashioned sense of laying out comprehensive approaches, and then picking from among the alternatives. Probably this will be an iterative process in the sense that after looking at competing alternative, existing alternatives will be modified to incorporate feature from other approaches, and new alternatives added inspired by seeing what is proposed. But "accounting for the full social cost" won't be the prime driver of this process.

 

 Not part of the poll discussion, but related to it I think this captures a major void in Parecon. Parecon originally started by rejecting both markets and central planning. But if one looks at the actual proposal, there is a great deal that says "well markets are awful, but they claim many virtues which would be good to have in practice." So Parecon has an iterative democratic process to "get prices right", with the addition of Pigovian fees to adjust for social cost. And it has an elaborate system design to assure full incentive capability. But it seems to see no similar virtues in central planning to imitate. That is it admits the need for some kind of long term planning, but then kind of handwaves specifying a process for that in anything like the detail used for the short term price driven planning process.  Whether the total system cost of light rail or automobiles with highways is an important question. But it is not the only or probably even the determining factor in deciding which way to go. We can probably find a way of doing either whose costs we can live with, even if one is more expensive than the other. But in making that kind of choice we are choosing what kind of society we will live in, what kind of people we will be. And that is NOT something "taking full cost into account" captures.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: Sustainability issue

By Albert, Michael at Mar 01, 2010 00:24 AM

Gar - Hi.

I think you are addressing two things - first, the wording of the single question in the possible poll, which of course it the focus to discuss here - and second, parecon, which I don't really think is a focus to discuss here, and I would rather not - there are plenty of places for that. After all, the poll question, based on the resoc poll, will be answered positively by many people who wouldn't advocate parecon, I think, and probably not by some who would, and Parecon isn't even mentioned. 

As an aside, I should perhaps say that I suspect we agree that creating an environmentally sustainable society is an incredibly modest kind of pursuit - what's the alternative, after all? Is there someone in favor of creating a suicidal society? I mean that seriously, I think our ecological aspirations should and do go well beyond sustainability, surely anyone who thinks any animals should be protected for reasons other than utility to humans would agree.

Aside from that, saying we should take into account full social costs and benefits is really saying we should take into account everything, as far I can discern. You switch from ecological and social costs and benefits, to ecological costs, to prices of a few factors...which is of course not full ecological and social costs and benefits. Perhaps we should call it debits and merits? When you say there should be a system analysis - of course  - but what does a very fine system analysis do other than use our best knowledge and information to clarify, as best we can, the relative merits and debits of possible choices? Then how we choose among the options, and who chooses, is another matter.

I think your real point, however, and the question may be unclear on this, is that if we take into account all the debits and merits of only short term choices, but we don't address long term options and implications, we will, of course, rarely get ideal results and may instead get disastrous ones.  That is certainly true, but the description in the question doesn't say we should have only a short term perspective. Perhaps you would like it better it if was more explicit, though, about that?

As far as parecon is concerned, if you want to pursue that, can we do it elsewhere - to do it here implies that this possible poll is about parecon, and it is not. An advocate of parecon, at least at this moment, will advocate balanced job complexes, participatory planning, etc. The poll doesn't require that.

That said, perhaps I can help by noting that parecon does exactly what you seem to request - it treats not only short term decisions within the existing infrastructure by arriving at full social and ecological debits and merits and having people self manage choices, but also long term investment possibilities - including posing competing options for big systems like you discuss, and choosing among them, again based on the best analyses we can render of full social and ecological debits and merits by self managing methods . And, also in tune with your words, this is not not some narrow idea of cost or benefit, debit or merit, but, instead, as you desire, an approach attentive to the kind of society we will live in, the kind of social relations and thus human interactions we will have, the kind of people we will be, etc., as well as to what happens to nature, resources, etc.

Also, I can't remember ever suggesting markets have virtues - other than, arguably, relative to chaos or bedlam, etc., and sometimes not even that. And it seems to me pretty evident that participatory planning not only sees a virtue in "planning," but is itself a system of planning...but one that does not elevate an elite to disproportionate control over outcomes, including giving them reason to bias information, skew outcomes, etc.

In any case, I am going to try and put up a new draft of the potential/possible question, tomorrow, in light of all the comments so far. Hopefully that will do better, though also taking into account the need for brevity and that we aren't trying to specify a program but instead only attitudes to a brief broad description of some features. Then we can have another week of assessment and still another draft - of course.

Reply this comment


681885

My comments

By Sandstrom, Anders at Feb 27, 2010 21:29 PM

Hi,

I basically felt comfortable with the wording the first time I read it. After reading the blog posts I found myself agreeing with Yotams comments and I think they would improve the text, especially the part about adding something like "actively build instututions that represents the values of the movement,..."

The poll seems like a great idea to me.

 

Anders Sandström

Reply this comment


582433

Two questions, perhaps?

By Wilpert, Gregory at Feb 24, 2010 18:48 PM

I know you are trying to keep it simple, but this simplicity might give people an excuse not to answer the question. That is, by combining a yes-no question, along with the possible reasons for the answer, some folks might feel that their reason isn't given or that their reason actually applies to a different yes-no response and might not answer at all (you never know, there might be some folks out there who want to join, but are afraid it will do more harm than good and others who would not join, even thought they feel good about it). I thus propose the following two questions instead:

On hearing about this new organization, would you:

1. be eager to join and promptly sign up
2. consider joining
3. definitely not join

How would you feel about such an organization if it were to be launched?

1. I would be confident that with sufficient people and energy the organization will have a positive impact.
2. I would hope the organization will prove positive.
3. I would be upset at the organization’s existence, fearing it might do more harm than good.
4. I would be very concerned about the organization’s existence, feeling pretty sure it will do more harm than good.

I guess more options for both questions are possible, but I think that's a minimum. As for the rest of the text, I think it's good.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: Two questions, perhaps?

By Albert, Michael at Feb 24, 2010 18:51 PM

 Hi Greg,

This makes sense to me... next draft we will go for it.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Yearbook_pic

Re: Re: Two questions, perhaps?

By Marom, Yotam at Feb 25, 2010 03:42 AM

To chime in on this - not to get too question-happy, but you might also have a question that gets at just what people would be willing to do for this organization. Something like: I would 1) Work to build this organization, 2) Join it if it existed, and participate in the life of the organization in some way, 3) Support it but not participate in the life of the organization, etc. I know it might be jumping the gun, but it might give a better idea of who is out there ready to get to work, and it could also relieve some of the pressure people might be feeling. It might be that some people wouldn't get in on this because they don't want to be disingenuous and put their names on something that might later assume they were going to pick up and build a movement from scratch. A supporter option like this might make it clear that the question is broader.

It also begins to speak to Matt's points. I think you handled those questions well, Michael, but there is something important in what Matt implied, which is that movements and organizations only get built when people get out and organize. I think this is a step towards that, and I would be interested to know who else out there is at that point. On that note, Matt's suggestions of putting people in touch in different localities makes a lot of sense. It might be, as you noted, something that has to come later. On the other hand, grouping people who participated in Resoc or the poll or this coming one or endorsed the international by region and encouraging them to do something together and develop a discussion might actually help in the rest of this project. Maybe that's exactly the kind of thing people need to help them put faces and names and some pratical work beyond the internet to these ideas which are often very grand and far-away.

Finally, just to quickly respond to your question to me about self-determination, I suppose the value of the term is that it is about the right or ability of a people/community/nation/etc. to define itself, and to express its culture. It is a positive. For that, you need to make space, to provide resources, and so on, not only remove constraints, like imperialism and racism and whatever else.

Yotam

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Jason_3

Re: Re: Re: Two questions, perhaps?

By Chrysostomou, Jason at Feb 25, 2010 19:09 PM

the defining features seem good to me.

'real versus paper members'

I'd also prefer to see more than one question to get a better idea of not only if people would join the organisation but also, as Yotam suggests, adding a third question on how much people would be willing to do/actively participate.

For those of us who have been organising around participatory vision in the U.K 'real versus paper' membership has been a problem. there are over 200 who have signed up as members on the website and about 350 on our newsletter list. However, those that actually actively participate is small; around 25, maybe less.

I know it is a tricky balance in wanting to attract members and at the same time requiring some kind of expected participation level but I think it would be necessary to add something more explicit on what a member is expected to do. For example by adding 'members actively seek to form local groups with others (if possible) and attend regular meetings' It may be useful for this potential organisation to have more than one type of membership e.g. supporter, member, etc . anyway, adding a question on commitment levels to the poll should clarify a bit further how much people would be willing to actually do.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

583718

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two questions, perhaps?

By Grinder, Matt at Feb 27, 2010 06:13 AM

Jason, it's kind of unfortunate to hear that you have a problem with recruitment.  Even more unfortunately, it seems to be history repeating itself, as the same sort of thing happened in Vancouver.

  I think (guess more than think) that the problem lies with there being little to do.  You can give talks and try to raise the issue of parsoc, but after awhile it gets old, and I think, frustrating.  This is why I don't shut up about the political party option, because I think that once, formed, it is something that can grow, and it gives people something to do in ways you can't do as a simple advocacy group.  the chance for outreah is more, and you can do activism between elections as a potentially larger force.

Anyways, it's hard to know and that is just my guess...

Reply this comment


The user who created this comment no longer exists.


689242

joining versus organizing

By D'Arcy, Steve at Feb 22, 2010 16:13 PM

Hi,

I think that there's two questions more basic than 'would you join?'

First, there's the question: 'do you think there's a basis for an anti-capitalist organization where you live?'

Second, there's the question: 'would you help to organize it?'

In some places, like San Francisco or whatever, it goes without saying that you can get a critical mass to start up a small anti-capitalist organization, if you really want to. I know from experience that it's harder in smaller places. Not impossible, but harder, and the pressures to adapt to 'mainstream' or non-anti-capitalist politics are quite strong. So, it's a big question, at least here in North America, where there's no broad radicalization going on, and little or nothing in the way of strong, vibrant mass movements. So, is there a strong enough base to build this upon? I'm not proposing an answer, just drawing attention to the question.

And even if -- as may be the case -- there is a basis, or an audience, for such an organization, it is one thing to say that, if it were to exist, I would join it. But who will bring it into existence? There's a lot of hard work and headaches associated with such an effort. (Think of how much work/conflict/frustration went into creating the new SDS, for example.) I have no doubt, personally, that this work is worth the effort. But there is probably a shortage of people that can be easily convinced of that, even among those who would 'join' an organization if someone else did the hard work of creating it.

So, I don't think I'm really proposing a change to the question. But I'm suggesting that finding broad support for the idea of 'joining' an organization doesn't mean that such an organization is viable. Joining is much easier than creating/building.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: joining versus organizing

By Albert, Michael at Feb 22, 2010 17:59 PM

Well sure those are important questions, too, I agree, but so is getting a broad picture of how folks feel, individually, about a particular conception. We can't do everything at once. And a broad poll is suitable for somethings, and not others...

But additionally, I don't know about others, but for me to know, for example, whether I think there is potential in my community for a chapter of an organization - or for that matter whether I want to bother working on such a thing, I have to have some belief in its broader potential - and that is what this possible one question poll is designed to investigate.

Dwelling on how hard things are - is one thing - but I would rather investigate, a little at a time, what the potential for support for and participation in "a hard thing" is. I actually think there are tons of people who could and I suspect would be quite willing to build a new organization IF they truly believed trying to do so would bear fruit and if, indeed, that belief was based on accumulating evidence. Okay, so this is seeking a little initial evidence...

Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie - build it and they will come...about baseball, etc. - well, that they will come, if true, is a very important thing to know to have the energy and the hope to motivate and sustain doing the building. 

At any rate, did you read the question? Did you have suggestions about its wording, or contents? 

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

583718

Re: Re: joining versus organizing

By Grinder, Matt at Feb 24, 2010 07:51 AM

I too think this looks like a case of putting the cart before the horse.  You're saying - join a large organization - that doesn't exist yet.  To be frank, this is not the first time.  I can recall Znet getting people to sign an inspiring petition, and that led nowhere.  Then there is this participatory internationale recently.  I just can't see this sort of thing working - bootstrapping yourself into a major organization without doing the neccessary work first.  I don't see a participatory internationale working, there are no particpatory organizations to join it.

  I'm not against it by any means, a particpatory Internationale would be great to join, I will join it.  I will join this as well, I'm not against it by any means.  I'm just saying, how can you expect this to work, given the state of particpatory society organizing a this point in time?

Now I know you are polling to spark interest, and feel the waters for support of this sort of thing - which is valid.  Perhaps Znet could be used to put people in contact with each other that sign the petition.  If you live in the same city and sign the petition, you get an email - maybe several - giving you contact info for people in your area that have signed the petition.  The email encourages you to meet and suggests things you can do together.  Just an idea, hope it's not an invasion of privacy...

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: Re: Re: joining versus organizing

By Albert, Michael at Feb 24, 2010 16:08 PM

Hi Matt,

>  I too think this looks like a case of putting the cart before the horse.  You're saying - join a large organization - that doesn't exist yet. 

No, I am not saying what you imply. I am saying, instead, IF an organization with certain features existed, would you want to be part of it?

That is quite different. It attempts to discover - and does not assume -whether such an organization has a potential audience. And in fact, far from jumping ahead of history, I am not even saying that much - rather I am asking, does it make sense to ask the one big question, and if so, does this question do a good job of it or do you have ideas for changes in wording, etc.?

> To be frank, this is not the first time.  I can recall Znet getting people to sign an inspiring petition, and that led nowhere. 

It was called the We Stand Statement. You are correct, it attracted 120,000 signatures in a very short time. But it was a much shorter statement about the war and some very broad allegiances. Sadly, while I think it had tremendous potential to be taken further, the initial signers didn't want to pursue it - and so, we couldn't. Why didn't they want to? I honestly don't know. I suspect fear of failing later may have been part of the reason - a deadly potion that prevents even trying...

> Then there is this participatory internationale recently.  I just can't see this sort of thing working -

What, the international? That is something that has emerged from Venezuela and has interest all over the world. It is very different, however, being an organization - or federation - or bloc - of organizations. So a new International is not a new single organization with many chapters, for example, but an umbrella effort to align existing organizations. Whether a new International can be effective and valuable or not no one knows - but I can't see even remotely why it is impossible - and in any event, no matter what the odds may be, our proposal is to suggest features that would make a new International more likely to succeed and propel associated discussion.

> ... bootstrapping yourself into a major organization without doing the neccessary work first.  I don't see a participatory internationale working, there are no particpatory organizations to join it.

First off, there are dozens, even hundreds, perhaps even thousands, depending on how it is set up, of organizations that could join an international with the features we described, should those prove amenable to whoever founds such a new International, if they so desire. I don't know what bootstrapping it means. Organizations exist - the call is to align them one to one another in a manner that helps them all, and their overarching agendas. Sure that can happen. Sure it is timely. 

I think what you are saying is there aren't organizations all over the world with the features you would most like to see - let's say those in the blog list - okay, but why is that an obstacle? First off, an International isn't a compendium of organizations with one set of features that you or I or anyone else particularly likes, but a compendium of quite diverse organizations, with many features in common, but others different and even at odds. More, an International exists in part so that those differences can be explored, hopefully causing all member organizations to learn and become better, over time. You don't start with higher agreement, you work toward higher agreement - but in an International, there is no reason to want, or even desire, excessive agreement. 

The blog post, which is a different matter - perhaps having both up at once was an error, I don't know - exploring reactions to a particular list of features a particular organization might adopt, can be seen as exploring the possibility of a particular type of organization that can in turn be one among many in an International.

>I'm not against it by any means, a particpatory Internationale would be great to join, I will join it.  I will join this as well, I'm not against it by any means.  I'm just saying, how can you expect this to work, given the state of particpatory society organizing a this point in time?

The International is not about participatory society as a parsoc advocate describes it - the features shared by all members could be far from that, or closer to that - who knows? The International's founders, and then, even more so, its member organizations will presumably decide that, flexibly, and with changes, over time. And the proposal we offered is just an attempt, by now almost 1300 folks, to propel and perhaps affect that discussion. 

The one big poll idea tentatively raises the issue of exploring the possibility of a much more explicitly parsocish - I would say, given the description, though others would use different terms of description - structure. We will see...

> Now I know you are polling to spark interest, and feel the waters for support of this sort of thing - which is valid. 

Yes, Matt, and it you feel that way I have to ask - what is gained by approaching it as you have? Why not just answer the questions asked - do you think the poll is a good idea, and do you think the one question is well composed, etc.? What is gained by prefacing with the obvious - it may not work, and then not explicitly commenting on the substance, at all?

I don't mean to ask only you this. I think it is very common. It is one thing to assess ideas - we all must do that. But there is a larger tendency among leftists, to constantly and with priority always see only the downside of possibilities, or at least always emphasize it - expect it - assume it. Imagine an athlete who assumes and even constantly prefaces all perceptions by noting that he or she expects to lose. He or she is unlikely to try real hard, to train hard, to perform hard - after all, why bother, defeat is inevitable.

Okay, sometimes it is true. But in politics, in trying to create a new world, it is both false - ultimately - and suicidal. We have to be aware of reality. But we must also be optimistic...

If the Venezuelans, or anyone, is trying to align movements and organizations around the world into an umbrella International - that is too important, too potentially valuable, to do anything other than try to make it more likely to succeed - or so it seems to me. 

If you, I, and many others, have various shared political views, and growing numbers of people seem to have them too - even if often unvoiced (see the Resoc poll, please) - then at some point, and perhaps now is that moment - it does begin to make sense to think, okay - ultimately there will be organization with this politics - so shouldn't we see whether the audience already exists, and thus whether beginning work on building those organizations, perhaps even establishing a framework for them, etc.,  makes sense? That is cautious, not adventurist.

> Perhaps Znet could be used to put people in contact with each other that sign the petition.  If you live in the same city and sign the petition, you get an email - maybe several - giving you contact info for people in your area that have signed the petition.  The email encourages you to meet and suggests things you can do together.  Just an idea, hope it's not an invasion of privacy...

Yes, this is possible - of course. And variants, too. In other words IF the prior idea (a poll at all) receives support to happen, and IF it happens, and IF there is a large response and large support, then new steps are conceivable - and most important, in that case many people will have many ideas about such steps, rather than just you, or I, or some few others - but instead all those who become engaged...sure.

And regarding the International, it is the same idea. If the number of endorsers keeps growing, and perhaps already it is high enough, then it becomes possible to imagine discussions about an International occuring that assess the described features.

These initiatives are as they are described in their texts, no more, no less. They are steps, tentative steps, that may lead further and may not. 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

583718

Re: Re: Re: Re: joining versus organizing

By Grinder, Matt at Feb 24, 2010 21:08 PM

>>Now I know you are polling to spark interest, and feel the waters for support of this sort of thing - which is valid. 

>Yes, Matt, and it you feel that way I have to ask - what is gained by approaching it as you have? Why not just answer the questions asked - do you think the poll is a good idea, and do you think the one question is well composed, etc.? What is gained by prefacing with the obvious - it may not work, and then not explicitly commenting on the substance, at all?

Honestly, my thought process was something like "Here goes Michael again, trying to create a large organization out of nothing - trying to bootstrap yet again, trying something doomed to failure.  He is a smart guy, why is he doing this?  Maybe I'll ask him.."  And you have answered well, and I see what is going on in your head, so to speak, and I am less worried.

>I don't mean to ask only you this. I think it is very common. It is one thing to assess ideas - we all must do that. But there is a larger tendency among leftists, to constantly and with priority always see only the downside of possibilities, or at least always emphasize it - expect it - assume it. Imagine an athlete who assumes and even constantly prefaces all perceptions by noting that he or she expects to lose. He or she is unlikely to try real hard, to train hard, to perform hard - after all, why bother, defeat is inevitable.

Honestly, do you want to join something you think is doomed to failure?  I doubt it.  I personally will join something that I like and at least has a chance of working.  I think that's why leftists do it, they don't want to waste their time and energy.  I don't really see that as  irrational.  I looked at this, and thought ,"why is Michael trying to do something that seems so premature?"  So I asked. Now that you have explained to me what your plan is, I no longer wonder.

Now, what I wonder is, if you want to get parsoc organizing off the ground, why do it with a long poll that people might not be inclined to read, due to it's massive length?  I think time might be better spent creating a Znet feature trying to get people interested in parsoc to link up.  Y'know, like a permanent feature at the top where you can sign up if you are interested in organizing around parsoc, and if someone else signs up that is geographically close to you, you are introduced to them. You are encouraged to meet up, and are given suggestions on what you can do together to organize around parsoc.   Not only parsoc of course, but other things as well.  If some groups form, then you can try to create the larger organization.  These things already exist on the internet on facebook and parecon meet up, but a central organizing effort by Znet might be more successful. 

Reply this comment


Yearbook_pic

A Few Suggestions

By Marom, Yotam at Feb 21, 2010 23:44 PM

Hi Michael,

This is great. A few suggestions:

 

Option 3 in the poll could become option 4, option 4 could become option 5, and a new options should be put in the place of #3 reading along the lines of “Consider joining.” You could also boil them down to three options – join, consider joining, and not join.

 

Remove “Is anti-capitalist” from the general priorities list, or add “feminist” and other positions. It seems that this statement as it is in effect the privileging of that over other oppressions, which you note in the fourth point of the section is something the organization would not do.  

 

In the section on cultural and community relations, I would add a bullet along the lines of “Struggle for peoples’ rights of self-determination, and provide the resources and space necessary for people and groups to actively and positively express their different identities along ethnic, cultural, national, communal, religious or other lines.

 

In the section about the broad action agenda or program of the organization, I think it would be important to add, as separate from the first point regarding embodying the seeds of the future in present projects (which sounds like a sort of behavioral principle to act the way we think we ought to), something explicitly about institutions: “Seeks to actively build institutions that represent the values of the movement, and which the organization would present as liberating alternatives to the status quo it combats.”

 

Finally, I would add a point in the section on structure and policy explicitly unifying the members of the organization. Perhaps something like: “Expects that members participate in the life of the organization actively, taking responsibility for it as part of a collective, and presenting a unified voice in action.”

 

Anyway, it’s wonderful and I hope to see other responses as well. I would also be interested to know, from people who wouldn’t join, why.

 

I would join this movement.

 

Yotam

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: A Few Suggestions

By Albert, Michael at Feb 22, 2010 15:52 PM

 Hi Yotam,

> Option 3 in the poll could become option 4, option 4 could become option 5, and a new options should be put in the place of #3 reading along the lines of “Consider joining.” You could also boil them down to three options – join, consider joining, and not join.

Sounds like a good idea to me - I always err on the side of too much. Let's see if others chime in...
 

> Remove “Is anti-capitalist” from the general priorities list, or add “feminist” and other positions. It seems that this statement as it is in effect the privileging of that over other oppressions, which you note in the fourth point of the section is something the organization would not do.  

Whooops - I am embarassed, and you are right. Will alter in next draft...

 

> In the section on cultural and community relations, I would add a bullet along the lines of “Struggle for peoples’ rights of self-determination, and provide the resources and space necessary for people and groups to actively and positively express their different identities along ethnic, cultural, national, communal, religious or other lines.

 

I think you are right about the second half - that is key. But I am never sure what "self determination" means, other than what is there, actually. What do you mean by the phrase...

 

> In the section about the broad action agenda or program of the organization, I think it would be important to add, as separate from the first point regarding embodying the seeds of the future in present projects (which sounds like a sort of behavioral principle to act the way we think we ought to), something explicitly about institutions: “Seeks to actively build institutions that represent the values of the movement, and which the organization would present as liberating alternatives to the status quo it combats.”

 

In other words add that part of the process is building the actual infrastructure of a better future - I agree, hope others will too...

 

> Finally, I would add a point in the section on structure and policy explicitly unifying the members of the organization. Perhaps something like: “Expects that members participate in the life of the organization actively, taking responsibility for it as part of a collective, and presenting a unified voice in action.”

 

Once again, I agree, hope others do too. It is a little tricky, though. One wants to welcome folks. But one also doesn't want a huge list of what we used to call "paper members" who barely even remember that they belong...

 

> Anyway, it’s wonderful and I hope to see other responses as well. I would also be interested to know, from people who wouldn’t join, why.

 

Of course the thing about "participation" is it isn't worth much unless it is, well, real... - which includes people indicating their views on all sides....

Reply this comment


667095

A Great Start

By Korte, Patrick at Feb 21, 2010 23:17 PM

Hi Michael,

The question posed by this poll is great - and, in fact, only the beginning of a larger conversation regarding the long-term visionary objectives, strategic framework, program, and internal structure of a revolutionary political organization.

I don't think the information here is too much, and as far as I can tell, the meaning of each section is very clear.

The real work will begin when we start to expand upon each point outlined above and determine the nature of our organization's program. If revolutionaries cannot unify around the points outlined above, then we're up a creek.

"I'm looking for a vehicle, I'm looking for a ride. I'm looking for a party, I'm looking for a side." - David Bowie

Dig it?

- Pat

 

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

1

Re: A Great Start

By Albert, Michael at Feb 22, 2010 15:45 PM

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the "positivity."

But are there little, or big, things you recommend to make the big question better?

David Bowie - yikes. Though I like the quote...

Reply this comment

Loading_border