ZNet Articles
Blog Posts
ZStores
IRPS: Its Procedures and it Relationship to IOPS
By Mark Evans at Sep 20, 2010 |
|
- How does the IRPS group function?
- What are the procedures that IRPS members follow to produce a collective work?
My feeling is that this could address two possible issues that we face now -
- It would generate some life into the IOPS group.
- It would ground the work produced by the IRPS group in an organising context.
Any thoughts???
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 20, 2010 14:46 PM
Hi Mark,
Based on my understanding of what was discussed and decided by the group of folks that thought the IRPS group was a good idea, here are my thoughts on your questions....
Very loosely.... as it is not a decision-making body really nor does it have any regular timeline to produce anything. The whole concept was to undertake a collective process of reviewing books, articles, ideas, current affairs, etc., by a group who shared many similar ideas and orientations. Now I could see us establishing more formal procedures, but the problem is that it makes little sense, I think, at this point where the IRPS group hasn't even gotten around to publishing any reviews yet. It might make more sense for us to say, "Well, we want a group that undertakes this collective process and if we are actually producing the content that we want and often enough where there is interest and momentum, then perhaps we should revisit the process to allow for more effectiveness and efficiency.
In short, to discuss it now, I think is putting the cart before the horse, and how it functions won’t matter anyway if the group is not productive. I say lets produce stuff first and see how it goes...
This is similar to above in my view. I think members of the group should just propose what they want and those interested should discuss it and then undertake the collective process. But (a) something like this, loosely structured and made up of people with shared ideas, and many of whom have already written lots, should be able to get the ball rolling easily enough, I think. And, like the first question, if we just focus on producing stuff, and after a while we do it often enough, and then there is a way to do it better, than we should.
But right now, for both questions, I think we should just get the ball rolling and produce stuff. Once we have some substance to talk about then it would make more sense to discuss its relations to IOPS.
Reply this comment
Re:
By Jauhiainen, Antti at Sep 20, 2010 15:22 PM
Reply this comment
Re:
By Marty, David at Sep 23, 2010 10:21 AM
I think you both have a good point. Mark implies, behind his suggestion, that we ought to define our task at the same time as a purpose within a broader organisation. And Chris says that we must be productive before even considering anything else. True.
So, here is a technical problem for me regarding reviewing books:
I do read a lot and it is often relevant with our purpose. Yet I must say the books I read are not always on alternatives to capitalism, representative democracy, sexist society, vision, strategy, etc. They often deal with explaining and describing what is already existing. Here are few examples of books I read last month that caught my attention. As you'll notice I have a keen interest in economics:
- The Industrial Worker 1840-1860, 1924 by Norman Ware.
Norman Ware was a historian of the Labor Movements.
This book is about the rise of the industrial revolution in America (mostly New England) and how it affected the lives of those who transitioned from self employed, peasants, farm owners, to industrial workers with all its consequences.
Despite the distance that separates us in time with both the subject and the publication of this book, I believe it deals with very informative issues that can be related to todays issues: how the perception of their condition affected their struggle and their goals, going from rejection of reality and nostalgy of a the pre industrial era to the more realistic down to earth attainable goals movements, through the birth of cooperativism and the analysis of the failures and successes (although the US labor story of that time is dominated by failures).
- Political Economy and Laisser-Faire, 1986 by Rajani Kanth.
In this book the author (Indian born scholar in the US) goes back to the rise of Ricardian eeconomics, known as laisser faire economics and links its popularity to historical events and industrial interests in the UK in the period 1800 1850. In his careful (and rather academic) study Kanth shows how the rise and fall of laisser faire economics was parallel to evolution of industrial interests opposed to the gentry (or squirearchy) rather than attached to its scientific value. I think this book is very relevant for our understanding of politics and conventional wisdoms in economics and is a prelude of Thomas Ferguson "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory in Money Driven Political Systems" which came right after this one.
- Bad Samaritans, 2007 by Ha Joon Chang.
This book is one of my favourites. Chang is a renown Cambridge economist (influenced by Stiglitz).
In this book he shows how all the policies that developed countries force on the developing ones are the reverse orthodoxy that they themselves followed in their phase of development, whether it is the USA in (roughly) the 19th century, South Korea (post WWII period), Germany or Japan. The book is very entertaining and is the most pedagogic book in economics I've read since Hahnel's ABC's of Political Economy. Chang devotes one chapter for each broad category of state intervention in the economy (Tariffs, Foreign direct Investment requirements, intelectual property, etc.) and also in the end tries to tackle the usual arguments of the neoliberals who explain the failures of their policies in terms of cultures. This is an excellent book, very entertaining, which will have the side effect of teaching economics and make want to know more. A powerful tool for activits.
These are just a sample, but this is pretty much the stuff I read. The problem they have is that they don't belong to the category of books offering a vision, strategy guide line or anything of the sort. Neither are they all recent. But I still think they are relevant (to me at least).
Do you see these examples as representing what you would want to see us doing in the IRPS? Would you like to read a review on those?
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Evans, Mark at Sep 23, 2010 10:51 AM
I don’t understand how my desire to have some idea of how we (IRPS group members) are to work together as a group BEFORE we embark on collectively producing work is “putting the cart before the horse”.
I also don’t understand why it makes sense to have two groups that (it seems to me) obviously overlap without establishing – or at least having a desire to establish – any formal relationship between them. In fact I don’t really understand why there are two groups. It seems to me that IRPS should be a component part of IOPS.
It also seems a little strange (to me at least) that David Marty is asking you question about the group here. Why would he do that? One possible answer is that he (like me) does not understand how to proceed.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Marty, David at Sep 23, 2010 13:07 PM
You are right, I was indeed asking questions about how to proceed. I get that we are a Review Group. The thing is that I do not know exactly how to proceed because if one takes the discussion groups listed here they seem to shoot in every direction and from every angle. Nothing wrong with it (I participated in it) except it might end up being a little bit of everything on everything and we don't want that, because If that were the case I would agree in not seeing the point of having two groups.
But as far as I know we're suppose to review books. My question here was: what kind of books? And I also tried to get started by suggesting some of them.
We just need to have something to show them - meaning reviews - before talking of joining any federation. Perhaps 2-3 reviews would look more engaging that going to the IOPS with an empty shell. Don't you agree? Or else it's like talking of having meetings about having meetings.
What books would you like to review?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 23, 2010 17:51 PM
>Hi guys –
Hi Mark…
>I don’t understand how my desire to have some idea of how we (IRPS group members) are to work together as a group BEFORE we embark on collectively producing work is “putting the cart before the horse”.
Well, okay. I tried to explain my perception that it just doesn’t seem to me that there is enough momentum in the group to carry a formal process yet and that we should wait to see a sign of life, i.e. group product first, and so we should be focusing on discussing possible things to review. But if you think discussing how we can work together will help get the ball rolling on that, then that is what I also care about too. So what kind of process do you have in mind? Maybe you are right…
>I also don’t understand why it makes sense to have two groups that (it seems to me) obviously overlap without establishing – or at least having a desire to establish – any formal relationship between them.
How do they obviously overlap? Also, no one is saying that there shouldn’t be a relationship, but can you help me understand what it means to have one? The obvious similarities between the two groups that I see are shared vision. But other than that the two groups seem to me like apples and oranges – meaning that IOPS is a group set up for people wanting to start an organization and IRPS is a group, of friends and acquaintances who share a set of ideas, set up for doing reviews of books, articles, current events, etc. Could IRPS be done in IOPS? Sure… IOPS has forums, etc. However, hopefully those interested in building an organization would be discussing that focus in the IOPS group and this implies that our discussing reviews would be a different focus, and vice versa in the IRPS forums. In this situation, on the one hand, if there was lots of discussion about organizing taking place it would likely flood our own focus on reviews. For example, if Michael posts an article about organizing IOPS and tagged IOPS and there are 30 comments on it, those comments would likely burry our discussion on the IOPS page – rightly.
But there isn’t even a level of activity or structure to call IOPS anything more than a discussion group at the moment (what it was created for) and so I think your question about relations between the two groups in a context where there is little activity in either is especially hard to answer.
However, there are some possibilities that might address your concerns about relations between groups and also overcome the above problems of there being little activity between the two:
(1) Notice that if you are a member of both groups, and you post a blog or article, or we post a review, that you can tag the content item for both and and it will go to both group pages and that item is then available for anyone can discuss.
(2) On the IRPS page, we can create content boxes that pull all IOPS content, or any other group content into the IRPS group page.
(3) We need to add links to other readings and projects from the IRPS page. So we can link to any other group or project including IOPS.
(4) If IRPS produces enough reviews and the group becomes active, then we can ask the admin of the IOPS page (Michael I think), to create a content box pulling IRPS stuff.
(5) If IOPS were to grow wings and fly – meaning become an organization – then I think it would be much easier and more real and have more participation in relations between both groups than now.
>In fact I don’t really understand why there are two groups. It seems to me that IRPS should be a component part of IOPS.
Hopefully the above suggestions address this problem of having two separate groups in a practical and appropriate way considering there is little activity among either of them at the current time. If not, what do you suggest instead?
If both groups were to become active and there came into existence a vibrant IOPS, then this would be an exciting problem to have. For example, in the ideal, i.e. if there was an organization in existence, then for it to have a journal or forum where reviews like that of IRPS is aiming to undertake could happen and organizational members participate, that would be very good in my view. But we are very far from that kind of organization, yet there are individuals out there who share enough common perspective around participatory society and who write or organize where they are at that it should be possible to undertake some loosely organized collective discussion and writing for the purpose of IRPS.
>It also seems a little strange (to me at least) that David Marty is asking you question about the group here. Why would he do that? One possible answer is that he (like me) does not understand how to proceed.
It could also be that you wrote a blog here raising these and other issues and if you wrote anywhere else we would be replying there! Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with trying to get a vague and loosely organized group that does reviews off the ground with the approach of people proposing what they want and group members discussing whether it is a good or bad idea or the angles on it, etc., and then later formalizing some process. But I am also open to discussing it now if you think that would help. So what do you have in mind?
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 23, 2010 15:27 PM
Hi David…
All the books you mention seem good to me…Whether we are reviewing books, ideas, current events, or pop culture, if you pursue reviews of one or more that you mention than perhaps we can discuss them through the lens that we all share.
You raise the problems that your examples “don't belong to the category of books offering a vision, strategy guide line or anything of the sort. Neither are they all recent.”
I think that is okay, since the particular angle of the IRPS group is to draw lessons and insights from works like these for the kind of society we want and how to get it.
For example, our reviews could:
(a) Review alternatives to capitalism and other oppressions to combat the belief that “There is no Alternative” (TINA).
(b) Review the arguments and rationalizations for class rule and other oppressions
(c) Review the institutional forces that hold back people from ruling their own lives
(d) Review those past and present examples of struggles aiming to overcome these problems
(e) Review all of the above through the lens of participatory society, classlessness, and parecon.
In my view, many of the books you mention cover some aspect of (a)-(e) above. So I agree with you when you say you think they are all relevant.
So, to answer your question, yes, I would like to see a review of one of these.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Marty, David at Sep 24, 2010 10:28 AM
I will review my first book and will post it next thursday. My idea is that a review should be concise but not like those one finds in the mainstream media (nothing wrong with those except they're meant to be short). Here is a preliminary idea of how I am intending to build all my reviews, regarding the outline and the length. This is just a draft but it will be my starting point.
First of all, I think a review should be done in less than 2000 words. Maybe you think it's already too long, or maybe not. Just let me know or wait and see how it will look.
Second of all, I think an outline is important in order to create predictability in what one shall find in my reviews. I divided it in two equally important parts: description and opinion. So it would look like this:
- DESCRIPTION: A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- DESCRIPTION: WHAT THE BOOK SAYS
- DESCRIPTION: HOW IT SAYS IT
- PERSONAL OPINION: WHAT THIS BOOK DOES WELL
- PERSONAL OPINION: WHAT THIS BOOK MISSES
- PERSONAL OPINION: PARTICIPATORY PERSPECTIVE
Each chapter will have individual headlines that reveal a bit of what gonna be said. Each chapter is not meant to be equally long but by and large the point is to say all of it in less than 250-400 words per chapter.
I know it may look like I am being anal about it all but I think it is the only way for me to be constructive and to create anticipation and predictability which I think are crucial. As a matter of fact I even think we should pick one day of the week for posting reviews: How about Thursdays? Maybe you think it is silly but this is a point that has an unexpected importance, I believe.
So, the 1st book I will review will be Ha Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans, 2007. I already mentioned it earlier so you might have heard of it: See you Next Thursday September 30th for the review.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Evans, Mark at Sep 24, 2010 16:45 PM
It is of course great that David is writing these reviews, but my question to both of you is – can David (or any other Z writer) do this work without the IRPS group? If the answer is yes then what is the purpose of the group? Surely the group is a collective endeavour – yes or no? If “no” then I’m not sure what the purpose of the group is - because we (as individuals) can already write and submit reviews to Z. If “yes” then surely that requires a group process of some kind if the group is to function.
You ask – “So what kind of process do you have in mind?”
I would suggest an easy to follow step-by step process that is clearly visible to all visitors to the group page. Off the top of my head something like –
Step one: Suggest an article / pamphlet / book etc. here – [add link to forum]
Step two: Register an interest to work on this review.
Step three: Agree on a timeframe for first draft.
Step four: Submit first draft for feedback from other IRPS group members.
Step five: etc. etc.
Maybe something like that, but whatever the group decides should, of course, be open to further refinement at any time.
You also ask – “How do they obviously overlap?”
When we write reviews from a CoHo / ParSoc perspective the result is a political action. It therefore makes sense (I think) to locate the work the IRPS group do within the broader organising context of IOPS. As I have already argued, I also think that by doing so the work undertaken by the IRPS group would be much more significant. It is a little bit like what Marx said about philosophers only interpreting the world and the point is to change it.
You also state that -
“If both groups were to become active and there came into existence a vibrant IOPS, then this would be an exciting problem to have. For example, in the ideal, i.e. if there was an organization in existence, then for it to have a journal or forum where reviews like that of IRPS is aiming to undertake could happen and organizational members participate, that would be very good in my view.”
Now an IOPS (on-line?) journal produced by the IRPS is exactly what I think we should be setting-up. However, you seem to want to wait for both groups to “become active” before this can be taken seriously. I say we should be consciously working toward this now – because this is exactly how the group will become active. Again, IRPS takes on a whole new significance when looked at in this way – at least in my opinion! If others feel the same then this will generate more enthusiasm for the work the group(s) has been set-up to undertake.
Reply this comment
Reply to Evans
By Jauhiainen, Antti at Sep 25, 2010 16:29 PM
This just to orient us to reviewing with the group of people we have here, called together by Chris this summer. We can return to "formal" rules and relationships of different projects, modes of participation and structure at any point, but to me focus and interest in the context proposed and initiated by Chris right now is in reviewing books.
This far it seems that active here are Chris, David, Mark and me, if other's wont chime in we'll have to evaluate reviewing in this group. But I like very much the idea that David had, with clear and concise (though 2000 words is quite a lot in my books) texts, written in regular interwals.
Reply this comment
Re: Reply to Evans
By Marty, David at Sep 30, 2010 12:02 PM
On the other hand, 2000 words was just an initial suggestion, it might very well turn out to be too much, both for the reviewer and the reader. But I want to point out here too that the point of having an outline like the one suggested up here is for the reader to go straight to the point he/she is interested in and get the information he/she wants.
Both suggestions were aimed at improving efficacy, as you've noticed.
And a final word to say that we shouldn't give up too soon no matter how small this group may be (active members). I believe it's going to take time, but every improvement we make in this group is one step further in the direction of a real active, working institution. I think we're just beginning to take shape after being in an embryonic state for the past 3 months or so. I am not a bit alarmed by the fact that there's only 4-5 of us who are active. I really think it's going somewhere.
LET'S BE PATIENT AND SOLIDARY AND WE SHALL BECOME A REAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP SOON!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 29, 2010 07:20 AM
Hi Mark,
>It is of course great that David is writing these reviews, but my question to both of you is – can David (or any other Z writer) do this work without the IRPS group?
It should be self-evident that anyone can write a review wherever they want.
>If the answer is yes then what is the purpose of the group?
It is what you, I, and others thought was good about it in the first place and we agreed to participate – that there was a small group of friends and acquaintances around the world who are like minded organizers, activists and writers could review ideas, books, current events, struggle, culture, etc. through their shared point of view. Everyone in the group talked about this and agreed it was a good idea.
> Surely the group is a collective endeavour – yes or no?
Of course…. But why your rhetorical approach? You know all this already so to ask me to spell all this out as we all talked about it, and it is on the IRPS page, is tiresome…
>If “no” then I’m not sure what the purpose of the group is - because we (as individuals) can already write and submit reviews to Z. If “yes” then surely that requires a group process of some kind if the group is to function.
I’ve already agreed with you and, in my last reply expressed curiosity about what you would propose…
>You ask – “So what kind of process do you have in mind?”
Right…
>I would suggest an easy to follow step-by step process that is clearly visible to all visitors to the group page. Off the top of my head something like –
Step one: Suggest an article / pamphlet / book etc. here – [add link to forum]
The forum does exist for that… But what would people do in it? I assume you mean for them to talk about what was good or bad about the idea, different angles, etc. I’m fine if we create a forum for that and I think it is a good idea. That is what it is there for. However, notice how the forums function technically... A group member would have to create a new forum post, labeled as you suggest, and that single forum would have to be used over and over again for all proposals. I’m not really a fan of that, because, after a while, there may be a lot to sift through and it would be easier and clearer to just start a new thread with a new proposal:
http://www.zcommunications.org/forums/groups/international-review-for-a-participatory-society
But, I do agree that we should use the forum to discuss proposals.
>Step two: Register an interest to work on this review.
I don’t think this is a good idea. Why? Well, first, because I don’t know what it means and second, I ask myself what you might mean and what it would look like in practice: For any single proposed review there will be one or two people, maybe more, who take lead and push forward drafts, etc. So they “register.” Okay… But does that mean that you can’t comment or participate if you don’t register? I don’t understand what it would mean to register. It seems like an overly formal way among a small number of participants for someone to say they want to work on something. Why not just let people say it in your first step/forum?
Unless you mean something different. If so please clarify.
>Step three: Agree on a timeframe for first draft.
What would be the reason for this?
What would happen if someone misses the time agreed?
I’m trying to understand, but really, in a group with a small number of participants and with no measurable form of productivity I actually cringe thinking about this…
If it is for some sense of the timeframe and a loose guide for ourselves and others in the group for completion of the process, I can see the purpose, but I think formalizing this is overkill in a group that does not produce a journal or magazine, etc. In a group with no formal deadlines, no regular publication, and so on, I personally don’t think this is very important other than as a very loose guide. This is only my personal opinion though…
Relating your proposal to my own personal writing styles and habits..., sometimes timeframes/deadlines are really positive for me and other times they just cause guilt and make it easier for me to move onto the next project without completing the last. Sometimes very strict deadlines can actually help me produce something on time. However, most of the time writing takes on a life of its own. Sometimes I can write a 2-3 thousand word essay that is well researched in 4 hours. Sometimes I can write a 2000 word commentary in 45 minutes. Other times it is an agonizing 4-6 week process just to get out 1500 words. And probably the most consistent aspect to it all is that life and work usually derail all my own attempts at a timeline.
So, personally, I’m not really into the timeline idea. However, I don’t see why you or others who want to commit yourselves to a deadline can’t do it for your own process…
>Step four: Submit first draft for feedback from other IRPS group members.
Okay…, I agree that there should be a venue for drafts, and a forum is a good place for that. However, what if people don’t want their drafts to be seen in public because of possible errors? In this case, I think personal group emails are fine. What do you think?
That, and there is the same technical detail as above, where it makes more sense to discuss drafts in new forums rather than in the same one over and over where it accumulates.
>Step five: etc. etc.
Same as above…
> Maybe something like that, but whatever the group decides should, of course, be open to further refinement at any time.
Okay, I agree on using the forums for discussing proposals and drafts, and think we should be doing this. But I don’t see much else. This is only me…
>You also ask – “How do they obviously overlap?”
>When we write reviews from a CoHo / ParSoc perspective the result is a political action.
What do you mean? I don’t know if I agree or disagree…
>It therefore makes sense (I think)
I don’t know what you mean above so I don’t know if I agree or disagree….
> to locate the work the IRPS group do
Well, so far, we haven’t done anything... But we should…
> within the broader organising context of IOPS.
I’m trying to understand this “context,” but am having a hard time. Can you explain what you mean please?
You seem to be talking about it as if an organization already exists. Maybe I am wrong in interpreting your approach here. But I think this is where we are not understanding one another and disagree.
In my view, the context is that IRPS is housed in ZNet groups and advocates participatory society so, I think, IRPS would be a good example of how groups can be used to organize and produce, and thus, hopefully…, stimulate more group use, IOPS discussion of organization, etc. And please don’t forget things I proposed in my last reply: being a member of both groups, producing content and tagging it for both groups so it goes to both pages and is discussed by both, putting links on each other’s pages, pulling content via the site content boxes onto each other’s group pages, etc. That is about as close as you'll get without really having an international organization and is certainly a good place to start!
>As I have already argued, I also think that by doing so the work undertaken by the IRPS group would be much more significant.
I find this kind of odd, considering:
(a) IRPS is already housed in Z Groups
(b) Advocates parecon/parsoc
(c) It is technically possible to relate both groups in ways I proposed above and in my last email.
(d) There is, sadly, no international organization as of yet, and we will all have to help make that come into existence…However, at this stage, if anything, I think the opposite is more true, meaning that I think it would be very beneficial for IOPS/parsoc/parecon advocacy to have those ideas related to others in the reviews of IRPS, as anyone outside IRPS can also do. The difference is that (1) IRPS can become a good example of how to use the groups (2) building the group helps position it to participate in a larger project (if it proved meaningful) such as IOPS when it does come about (3) Just because it demands smaller numbers of people, a review project should (you would think, but who knows…) be easier to get off the ground and build to take the next step.
Unless you see something else that is possible, but if so can you explain what it is please, concretely…
Also, as I asked in my last reply, what does it mean to have a relationship between the two groups beyond what I proposed above and now, also, while IOPS is still only a discussion group?
You didn’t answer that…
Additionally, I think it may be more appropriate for us to be having a separate discussion about how to we can relate to the IOPS group and stimulate discussion there as members of that group. You have been proposing to link IRPS up with IOPS for that, but again, all we have to do is get focused on IRPS work and then tag the content IOPS and it will go that group page for discussion. But beyond this what can be done to get discussion about the IOPS mission and organization happening in the IOPS group?
>It is a little bit like what Marx said about philosophers only interpreting the world and the point is to change it.
So let’s get clear on our thinking, where we agree and disagree, and move on to make something happen. I have stated how I would like to proceed.
>You also state that -
>“If both groups were to become active and there came into existence a vibrant IOPS, then this would be an exciting problem to have. For example, in the ideal, i.e. if there was an organization in existence, then for it to have a journal or forum where reviews like that of IRPS is aiming to undertake could happen and organizational members participate, that would be very good in my view.”
>Now an IOPS (on-line?) journal produced by the IRPS is exactly what I think we should be setting-up. However, you seem to want to wait for both groups to “become active” before this can be taken seriously. I say we should be consciously working toward this now – because this is exactly how the group will become active.
Mark… I disagree with you. Simply because the idea of an IOPS organization has yet to come into existence and we have a lot of work ahead of us to create it. That said, I am just as ready as you to start working on it now. In fact, as you know I have already edited one book about it, with a second underway, and like you, started and participate in activist organizations with this purpose, work fulltime for an organization dedicated to this purpose, organized panels and conferences, etc. I don’t see how what I am doing is not doing what you say we should be doing already. And even with all that, if you say to me, “Let’s organize or figure out how to activate the IOPS group!” I will say okay… and ask you what you think we should do. However, I would not then propose that starting a collective review group would be the best idea for this purpose because I don’t think it is. I would instead suggest something to try and get the people who are part of the IOPS group to relate to one another and show a pulse in that group. Or, perhaps the future origins of the IOPS organization lay in an international conference and face-to-face meeting that is yet to be organized, but has zero to do with IRPS today. Either way, I’m a confused about how you think IRPS is not going to contribute to the overall objective of an IOPS organization as a Z Group already advocating those ideas and trying to provide a good example.
>Again, IRPS takes on a whole new significance when looked at in this way – at least in my opinion!
I think it can have that significance if we get to work!
>If others feel the same then this will generate more enthusiasm for the work the group(s) has been set-up to undertake.
My sense, and perhaps I’m wrong, is that people, like me, are enthusiastic about both, yes, and are also willing to continue to keep talking about it. However, and speaking only for myself, I have both explained where I am confused, how I personally would like to proceed and I have also offered proposals for how both groups could relate to one another in the moment -- now. However, I also think that it doesn’t matter so long as the IRPS group, or IOPS, is not active. So, yes, I personally would prefer to discuss how to stimulate IOPS and, but more so right now, how to produce reviews for the IRPS group, so that there is not only a good model of a Z Group, but also something for both to relate to.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Evans, Mark at Sep 30, 2010 20:42 PM
You write - “I’m trying to understand this “context,” but am having a hard time. Can you explain what you mean please?”
And add - “You seem to be talking about it as if an organization already exists. Maybe I am wrong in interpreting your approach here. But I think this is where we are not understanding one another and disagree.”
I think that you are right. Your “not understanding” what I propose is probably rooted in our different approaches / attitudes to organising and how we view the groups. You want IRPS to be an informal group of reviewers writing for Z. That is a fine idea but what I want to explore is the possibility of this same group taking on, what seems to me, to be a more significant role.
In addition you state - “Also, as I asked in my last reply, what does it mean to have a relationship between the two groups beyond what I proposed above and now, also, while IOPS is still only a discussion group?”
Let me deal with your last point first. You are right that IOPS is still only a discussion group. Now if we accept that the IOPS group is a discussion group - and nothing more - then your position makes sense. However, if we instead use the IOPS group as an organising tool (as I have argued for both privately with Michael and publicly in blogs on Z) then I believe we can start to think about that group as a fledgling international. If we did this then I think it become possible to also consider a relationship between the IRPS and IOPS groups.
What I am interested in exploring with members of both groups (hence my blog) is the possibility of the IRPS group producing a review for the IOPS group. So, instead of individual members of IRPS group writing reviews and then posting them on Z (tagged to IOPS) Im suggesting that members of IRPS - as a group - produce a regular review for IOPS.
I think that this goes “beyond” what you propose “above and now”. I also think that this would make the work undertaken by the IRPS group more significant. As a result it is more likely (in my opinion) that members will priorities this work and the group(s) active.
Clearly the above would require a formal relationship between both groups. The IRPS group could be thought of as a self-managed project within IOPS.
It would also mean that the IRPS group would have to work within a time-frame and follow some kind of group procedure. It seems that this is not the case with the IRPS group as it stands - hence our “disagreement” over this. As I have already said I don’t think we are really disagreeing - it is more that we are talking about two different conceptualisations of the IOPS / IRPS groups.
What I really struggle with - and again I think this goes to the heart of our differences of opinion - is the delay in actually setting up an IOPS - not as a discussion group but as an actual functioning organisation. With regard to this you state -
“Mark… I disagree with you. Simply because the idea of an IOPS organization has yet to come into existence and we have a lot of work ahead of us to create it.”
I agree that we have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of establishing a FULLY functioning organisation. But rather than wait for some future undefined set of events to occur I ask you is it not possible to start to undertake this work now as part of the IOPS group?
Maybe I am missing something but -
I don’t understand why IOPS is only a discussion group.
I don’t understand why we can’t give the IOPS group some basic structure now.
I don’t understand why we can’t implement some simple organisational functions into the IOPS group now.
Pre-empting my thoughts you say -
“That said, I am just as ready as you to start working on it now. In fact, as you know I have already edited one book about it, with a second underway, and like you, started and participate in activist organizations with this purpose, work fulltime for an organization dedicated to this purpose, organized panels and conferences, etc. I don’t see how what I am doing is not doing what you say we should be doing already.”
My question here is - in parallel with your other commitments to Z etc. do you do these activities (where appropriate) as a member of a fledgling (Boston?) chapter of IOPS?
I think that the answer to this question is very important. If you are doing these activities as a member of staff at Z, or as an independent writer / speaker, then that is good work - same goes for anyone else. However, in parallel to this, if you do this work as a member of a fledgling chapter of IOPS then I think it takes on an additional significance - again, the same foes for anyone else. That’s how I kind of feel about the IRPS group.
Psychologically giving talks / writing on ParSoc / CoHO issues, as a member of a fledgling chapter of IOPS (IOPS - Boston?), or as a self-managed project within IOPS (IRPS group?), has a different impact on the audience than giving a talk / writing on the very same subjects / issues as an individual or as a member of Z.
Giving at talk relating to a future possible organisation is different than giving a talk as a member of that organisation - even if that organisation is in embryonic form.
That is what I think we need to transcend. I do not know what we are waiting for. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I need to give more time. Or perhaps Z staff need to rethink Z groups away from a focus on “discussion” and towards an “organisation” orientation.
I hope that help you better understand where I am coming from.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By Spannos, Chris at Sep 30, 2010 23:01 PM
Mark, My reply below…
>I think that you are right. Your “not understanding” what I propose is probably rooted in our different approaches / attitudes to organising and how we view the groups. You want IRPS to be an informal group of reviewers writing for Z.
Those are your own words, and not how I would describe it, or how it is described on the group page.
>That is a fine idea
Again, not what is described in the group page or elsewhere…
>but what I want to explore is the possibility of this same group taking on, what seems to me, to be a more significant role.
Well, as you have presented your thoughts on how you think it should be so far, I disagree, and have explained why in previous replies. I don’t think it is worth it for you or I to continue disagreeing over this so let’s try to move forward with other common work and continue discussion of possibilities as we proceed. I am willing to interact around more deliberate participation in the IOPS group and also accomplishing a few reviews in IRPS, and also continue our discussion while moving forward.
>In addition you state - “Also, as I asked in my last reply, what does it mean to have a relationship between the two groups beyond what I proposed above and now, also, while IOPS is still only a discussion group?”
>Let me deal with your last point first. You are right that IOPS is still only a discussion group. Now if we accept that the IOPS group is a discussion group - and nothing more - then your position makes sense.
Well, actually, there is a group page, where all content tagged for that group flows to. People talk about it or not, where there may or may not also talk about anything else including organizing. Now we, and whoever else is interested, may be able to a more active role in proposing discussion topics or ways for people to interact. So why don’t we talk about that?
>However, if we instead use the IOPS group as an organising tool (as I have argued for both privately with Michael and publicly in blogs on Z) then I believe we can start to think about that group as a fledgling international.
Organizing tool, as much as any of the other Z groups are, okay… But, as a fledgling international? It has potential but I’m afraid even making it that would take at least a face-to face meeting of international participants before anything could be called an “international,” and that says nothing about the hoops and collaboration that would have to take place at such a meeting.
> If we did this then I think it become possible to also consider a relationship between the IRPS and IOPS groups.
We disagree for reasons we have already covered, so, although I am willing to continue discussing how to interact with others who are members of the IOPS group and assist in stimulation of that group, and I am willing to discuss how to proceed with IRPS, I am not very interested repeating our disagreements and am much more interested in moving forward where we agree.
>What I am interested in exploring with members of both groups (hence my blog) is the possibility of the IRPS group producing a review for the IOPS group.
I know. And we disagree, as explained prior. However, what I think matters very little if everyone else agrees with you.
>So, instead of individual members of IRPS group writing reviews and then posting them on Z (tagged to IOPS) Im suggesting that members of IRPS - as a group - produce a regular review for IOPS.
I get it. I think it is too much right now, for reasons already explained in my previous replies. However, I am willing to work on these projects and keep talking about it and you should talk about it with others too, or others should reply.
I could go on through the rest of your reply but, reading it, I’m afraid that I would just be repeating my disagreements and offerings to move ahead on things that we do agree on.
Chris
-------------------
>I think that this goes “beyond” what you propose “above and now”. I also think that this would make the work undertaken by the IRPS group more significant. As a result it is more likely (in my opinion) that members will priorities this work and the group(s) active.
Clearly the above would require a formal relationship between both groups. The IRPS group could be thought of as a self-managed project within IOPS.
It would also mean that the IRPS group would have to work within a time-frame and follow some kind of group procedure. It seems that this is not the case with the IRPS group as it stands - hence our “disagreement” over this. As I have already said I don’t think we are really disagreeing - it is more that we are talking about two different conceptualisations of the IOPS / IRPS groups.
What I really struggle with - and again I think this goes to the heart of our differences of opinion - is the delay in actually setting up an IOPS - not as a discussion group but as an actual functioning organisation. With regard to this you state -
“Mark… I disagree with you. Simply because the idea of an IOPS organization has yet to come into existence and we have a lot of work ahead of us to create it.”
I agree that we have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of establishing a FULLY functioning organisation. But rather than wait for some future undefined set of events to occur I ask you is it not possible to start to undertake this work now as part of the IOPS group?
Maybe I am missing something but -
I don’t understand why IOPS is only a discussion group.
I don’t understand why we can’t give the IOPS group some basic structure now.
I don’t understand why we can’t implement some simple organisational functions into the IOPS group now.
Pre-empting my thoughts you say -
“That said, I am just as ready as you to start working on it now. In fact, as you know I have already edited one book about it, with a second underway, and like you, started and participate in activist organizations with this purpose, work fulltime for an organization dedicated to this purpose, organized panels and conferences, etc. I don’t see how what I am doing is not doing what you say we should be doing already.”
My question here is - in parallel with your other commitments to Z etc. do you do these activities (where appropriate) as a member of a fledgling (Boston?) chapter of IOPS?
I think that the answer to this question is very important. If you are doing these activities as a member of staff at Z, or as an independent writer / speaker, then that is good work - same goes for anyone else. However, in parallel to this, if you do this work as a member of a fledgling chapter of IOPS then I think it takes on an additional significance - again, the same foes for anyone else. That’s how I kind of feel about the IRPS group.
Psychologically giving talks / writing on ParSoc / CoHO issues, as a member of a fledgling chapter of IOPS (IOPS - Boston?), or as a self-managed project within IOPS (IRPS group?), has a different impact on the audience than giving a talk / writing on the very same subjects / issues as an individual or as a member of Z.
Giving at talk relating to a future possible organisation is different than giving a talk as a member of that organisation - even if that organisation is in embryonic form.
That is what I think we need to transcend. I do not know what we are waiting for. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I need to give more time. Or perhaps Z staff need to rethink Z groups away from a focus on “discussion” and towards an “organisation” orientation.
I hope that help you better understand where I am coming from.
Reply this comment
Continued discussion
By Jauhiainen, Antti at Sep 25, 2010 16:31 PM
This just to orient us to this. Is there a problem here? We can return to "formal" rules and relationships of different projects, modes of participation and structure at any point, but to me focus and interest in the context proposed and initiated by Chris right now is in reviewing books.
This far it seems that active here are Chris, David, Mark and me, if other's wont chime in we'll have to evaluate reviewing in this group. But I like very much the idea that David had, with clear and concise (though 2000 words is quite a lot in my books) texts, written in regular interwals.
Reply this comment
Re: Continued discussion
By Evans, Mark at Sep 29, 2010 19:27 PM
Hi Antti - you restate your thoughts on the initial form and function of the IRPS group adding “This just to orient us to this” and then ask “Is there a problem here?”
Not really a problem exactly - maybe some issues though. That is why I wrote the blog - to explore (with others) some issues that I was not clear / have concerns about.
So what are the issues? Well put simply I wonder if we (IRPS) could make better use of our time as a group of reviewers. I wonder if we could make a more important / immediate contribution to building an IOPS.
My feeling is that we could. Now obviously I might be wrong about this but if I am not then this might require rethinking the IRPS group to some extent. My motivation in writing the blog was to generate such a discussion.
If members are interested in exploring these issues then we can continue. On the other hand if members are happy with the current arrangement and want to get on with reviews in the fashion that you and Chris suggest then that is, of course, fine.
Reply this comment