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

588512

Mark Evans's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/markevans
Bio: These things probably tell you something about me - I got my initial education in social justice listening to Bob Marley and the Wailers as a teenager, then in my late 20's reading Chomsky w... (More)

All Evans Blogs

IOPS - 4 Questions

By Mark Evans at Jan 19, 2009


Change Text Size a- | A+

Here I propose answers to four questions that were first asked by Michael Albert on the PP2 course that I participated in at ZSchool. Whilst "attending" PP2 I did try to answer these questions, all be it somewhat indirectly, which I also posted as blogs on my ZSpace. What follows is an attempt to address, what I now see as flaws in my thinking and weakness in these earlier proposals.

The answers I give are based on the assumption that what we are trying to identify is the absolute minimum for organisational identity, structure and membership that we can have before we can claim to be functioning as an international organisation.

Together these answers represent criteria we must reach before we can function as an international and a level to which we cannot fall below and still claim to function as an international organisation. In short, if, one way or another, we fail to meet the criteria presented below there is no international.

But these are just suggested answers that are offered in the hope that we can work towards some collectively agreed criteria for an IOPS as a preliminary step towards creating the real thing.

What do we need in the way of likely international membership?

According to my dictionary the definition of "international" is "existing, involving, or carried on between two or more nations." This means that we could set up and run an IOPS with only two national organisations involved. But for reasons that will become clear later I prefer the idea of a minimum of three national organisations operating together. So I'm going to propose three national organisations as one of our criteria. But this only raises other questions about national membership etc... which leads us to Michael's next question.

What do we need in the way of likely active regional or local chapters?

In order to have a functioning and credible National organisation (that is eligible to apply for International membership) I'm going to propose that any given Nation first needs a minimum of three regional chapters. Furthermore, I'm going to suggest that regional chapters have to have a minimum of three members before it can be considered for membership of the National organisation.

What do we need in the way of clear ideas about structure?


Our organisation for a participatory society will be made up of three levels - regional, national and international. Each level will have a minimum of three active components. At the regional level this means a minimum of three members. At the national level this means a minimum of three regional chapters. And at the international level this means a minimum of three national organisations.

 

What do we need in the way of explicitly expressible vision/program?

I'm going to say that as a minimum we need well defined vision in at least one of the four social spheres plus some ideas regarding vision in the other three spheres. I also think that it is necessary that we have some well-defined ideas regarding general strategic considerations.

I would argue that we already meet these requirements.

 

Summary:

  • All individuals are welcome to apply for membership to their regional IOPS chapter. Individuals will make their application to their regional chapter whereby acceptance of membership is determined by a minimum of 2/3 vote in favour by existing group members. Expulsion from a regional group also depends on a minimum of a 2/3 vote in favour by members of that group.
  • All regional chapters will apply for membership to their national organisation where, once again, their acceptance will depend on a minimum of a 2/3 vote in favour by their fellow regional chapters within their national boundaries. Expulsion of regional chapters from the national organisation requires a 2/3 vote in favour by other regional chapters that are existing members of the national organisation.
  • All national organisations will apply for membership to the international. Successful application will again depend on a 2/3 acceptance by existing national organisation of the IOPS. As with the other organisational levels, the expulsion of any national organisation from the IOPS requires a 2/3 vote in favour.

 

 

Further Questions:

IOPS members rights and responsibilities?

IOPS members have the right to vote in all matters concerning the running of their organisation. Each member will have a say in any given decision in proportion to the degree that they are affected by the outcome of that vote. Decisions that only affect a regional chapter will be made with complete autonomy by that chapter. Decisions that affect all regional chapters within a national organisation will involve all regional chapters. Decisions that affect all national organisations will involve all IOPS members.

IOPS members are expected to take an active role within their organisation. This can be in an endless variety of ways. However, it must be in a way that avoids any monopolisation of empowering and desirable tasks within the organisation.

Setting-up a new regional group?

There will no doubt be times when there are individuals who would like to join IOPS but don't have a regional chapter to make a membership application to. In these circumstances these individuals will need to try to contact others within their region who might be interested in establishing a regional chapter.

IOPS friend?

Some people may be unable, or happy not to get involved in their regional chapter but would still like to support IOPS. These people can become "friends" of IOPS.

Likewise, for those who are struggling to establish a new regional chapter there is the option of becoming a friend of IOPS. Although friends have no voting rights the IOPS website will have networking facilities to help isolated individuals meet each other in the hope of assisting in the creation of new regional chapters.

Money?

IOPS members will make regular payments into a local bank account that has been set-up by their regional chapter. The amount to be paid is set at the national level, which is open to review on an annual basis. The regional funds that this generates will be managed by the members of that region.

National or International projects / campaigns will require funding from the regional level. The amount to be contributed will be determined at the appropriate level.

Loans and gifts can be made between regional chapters on a basis agree by the parties involved.

Friends also make financial contributions. But because they have no chapter to join (or for whatever reason choose not to join their local chapter) their contribution goes into a national bank account for general funds. Decisions on how and when to spend these funds are made at the national level and could go down to regional chapters or up to the international level.

 

Possible reasons for suspension / expulsion?

Members who persistently exhibit aggressive behaviour.

Members who persistently attempt to monopolise empowering and desirable tasks.

Members who persistently attempt to undermine the confidence of other members.

Members who persistently exhibit racist behaviour.

Members who persistently exhibit sexist behaviour.

Regional chapters who ignore decisions made at the National level.

National organisations that ignore decisions made at the international level.

Appeals?

Members who have been suspended or expelled from their regional chapter for any of the above can make an appeal. The appeal is made directly to the members of the regional chapter who will need to vote 2/3 for or against reinstatement. If unsuccessful and the ex-member feels unfairly dealt with they can make a complaint to the national organisation who will need to investigate.

Regional chapters that have been suspended or expelled for any of the above can make an appeal. The appeal is made directly to other regional chapters within their national borders who will need to vote 2/3 for or against reinstatement.

National organisations that have been suspended or expelled for any of the above can make an appeal. The appeal is made to the representatives of the other national organisations who will need to vote 2/3 for or against reinstatement.

More questions and further refinement?

The above is only a sketch of what I hope will become a collectively worked out document that will serve as an IOPS constitution. There are without doubt many more questions to be answered and the ones that I have touched on will require further refinement.

Getting started?

In addition to working on the creation of an IOPS constitution we can also start to identify who the initial members (or friends) of IOPS will be. Candidates will be those who have demonstrated an understanding of, and commitment to, the development of participatory vision and strategy.

What I would like us to do is to nominate people who we think fit this description (you can not nominate yourself!). Candidates can either accept or reject their nomination. However, once we have a list of nominees that meets the criteria stated above, each candidate will be subject to a further vote of confidence. Each founding nominee will require a minimum of 2/3 votes in favour by their fellow candidates. During this process we would be looking to identify our first three members of our initial three regional chapters within three different nations. In short we would be working to meet our minimum criteria for setting up our international.

Working groups?

But before we can start this process we need to create a context within which the preliminary work can take place.

First of all we need to set up a working group that is interested in writing our IOPS constitution.

Secondly, we will at some point need to build an IOPS website. The site will of course contain our constitution. But it will also have facilities for people to nominate candidates for membership (plus a networking facility for friends). The site will remain private until we meet our minimum criteria for identity, structure and membership as stipulated in our constitution.

667834

Re: IOPS - 4 Questions

By Johnston, Jack at Jun 25, 2009 21:19 PM

 

With regards to exclusivity
 
If we are seeking to establish a system that will ultimately replace the current political system then at what point are we going to start letting people who disagree with our views a chance to voice theirs and exercise their voting rights? Even after parecon/paresoc becomes the dominant system, there will still be people who disagree with it. Are we to deny them membership of their local chapter? (Baring in mind they already stand to be excluded from various project groups based on idealogy, such as feminist, minority rights groups etc.)
In the short term the idea that we should exclude Marxists or any other people seeking classlessness and social justice from local chapters smacks of multi-partisanism.
This does have relevance to voting structures however, as consensus may well less possible with non pareconistas excercising their rights. However, consensus, as Shalom points out, is not the do all and end all of democracy.
 
My answer to the same four questions: http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/3345

Reply this comment


689242

By D'Arcy, Steve at Jan 25, 2009 15:38 PM

Hi Mark, 

Thanks for posting these interesting remarks. I tried to post reply earlier, but my connection to the internet was interrupted and my post disappeared. So, I'll try again now.

First, I am not as convined as you are that the key questions at this point are organizational. In reply to the question, "what do we need in the way of explicitly expressible vision/program"?, you suggest that what is needed is a fairly detailed vision concerning (I take you to mean) participatory economics, and also some general ideas about what you call (in the manner of Liberating Theory) "the other three spheres," plus some clear ideas about strategy.

Starting from this sense that this much has already been developed, within the Z world, you seem to see the really difficult questions as organizational. But I would approach this whole issue quite differently.

If IOPS [International Organization for a Participatory Society] is to take its main task as, essentially, parecon advocacy, which seems to have been the motivation for founding the Chicago Area ParEcon Society (CAPES) and the Vancouver Parecon Collective, then it is indeed true that the main questions are just organizational, since the theory/vision/strategy material has been largely developed already.

But if IOPS is to take up a more wide-ranging agenda, including not only public advocacy (of participatory society) but also popular mobilization and prefigurative institution-building, then a number of non-organizational questions would have to be addressed more vigorously than your piece seems to suggest.

Suppse someone believes that, although parecon is a promosing proposal, it may understate some kinds of difficulties, or assume away certain practical problems, and therefore it might be better to favor Pat Devine's "negotiated coordination" vision for a post-capitalist economy, or the kind of "solidarity economy" promoted in Latin America and elsewhere as a starting-point for constructing a post-capitalist future. Should such a person, who is not a "pareconista," but is a different kind of anti-capitalist economic democrat, be excluded from the IOPS project? I, for one, as someone who is in fact a partisan of participatory economics, would reject this approach. I would favor a more pluralistic model of organizing, in which parecon advocacy has a place, but not to the exclusion of other visions of a post-capitalist economic democracy. See what I mean? I would add, even more emphatically, that it would be absurd to suggest that an IOPS could or should be constructed in which all members would have to agree that there were, precisely, four "spheres" in a modern society, and not (say) six, or something other than "spheres."

Here's the "mission statement" of the London Project for a Participatory Society (in Ontario, Canada):

"We strive to develop and promote the kind of analysis, vision, and strategy that activists need to work effectively for radical social change. Among the changes we seek are the elimination of all hierarchies and oppressions, including those based on race, gender, sexuality, ability, age and class. We also seek to promote both institutional innovation and grassroots popular mobilization in order to advance our goal of a radically egalitarian post-capitalist participatory economy, and a society founded upon political and economic democracy and social and environmental justice."

I'm not suggesting that this should be adopted as the basis of unity of IOPS. I'm just offering it as an alternative approach: a pluralistic approach, which emphasizes, not unanimity on matters of theory or vision, but a shared set of political values and a broadly shared vision for a radically democratic and radically egalitarian post-capitalist participatory society.

Thanks again for starting the conversation with your stimulating thoughts.

In solidarity,

Steve.

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

587943

Re:

By C.rodas, Cliff at Mar 04, 2009 20:34 PM

Thanks for the blog and I really appreciate the important discourse.

Reply this comment


588512

Re:

By Evans, Mark at Jan 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Thanks for the feedback Steve. PPS-UK is having a national gathering next month where we will be running a discussion group on this topic. I will print off your comment for the group to consider. If anyone else interested in this issue would like to make a comment for the group to consider please post before Feb 21st. But for now here is my response to some of your comments - More pluralistic model: You ask "Should such a person, who is not a "pareconista," but is a different kind of anti-capitalist economic democrat, be excluded from the IOPS project?" I would say yes. But importantly I would add that this does NOT mean that members of the IOPS (as I conceive of it) could not work in coalition with others (individuals or organisations) on progressive reform campaigns. So the plurality you desire would exist in the broader movement whilst the clarity of identity, that I think is important, would be maintained within our organisation. Four Spheres: I also agree that it would be "absurd" that members of an IOPS "would have to agree that there were, precisely, four "spheres" in a modern society, and not (say) six," It is true that, at the moment at least, most discussion on participatory vision and strategy takes place within a four sphere theoretical framework. But this does not mean that this has to be the case or that this framework can not be changed or improved upon. A member of an IOPS (as I describe it) who thinks that he / she has identified a fifth sphere would be free to discuss and debate their findings with other members who may or may not be convinced. The same goes with regards to other areas of theoretical development. Mission statement: As an example of your pluralistic approach you quote the "mission statement" of the London Project for a Participatory Society (in Ontario, Canada). Whilst I don’t disagree with the statement it seem to me to be quite typical, in its vagueness, of many contemporary leftwing organisations. This of course is necessary for you to put into practice your pluralistic approach. But there are negative consequences to this approach that I think out way the positive attribute of being broadly inclusive. For one thing there is nothing, as far as I can see, that prohibits Marxist-Leninists from joining your organisation. For another thing an organisation with such a plurality of membership and vague identity is, in my opinion, unlikely to function very effectively. This is precisely because of the diverse, and no doubt conflicting, opinions that your pluralistic approach encourages. Also, this approach, it seems to me, down plays the importance of long-term vision as a crucial aspect of effective organising. Finally I would say that what I am trying to do is answer questions about setting up an organisation, the members of which could make an important contribution to the movement. I think what you are describing is an organisation that simply reflects the existing movement but, because of the reasons stated above, is unlikely to make any real contribution to the movement.

Reply this comment

Loading_border