My Resoc Interview
By Ali Saysel at Nov 04, 2009
1. At a public talk someone asks you, "okay, I understand what
you reject, but I wonder what are you for? What institutions
do you favor that will be better than what we have for the economy,
polity, gender, race, ecology, or whatever you have vision for?"
I would argue for parecon institutions for the economy and polity (note that Albert's visit to Ä°stanbul created positive effects). For gender I would argue for autonomous organizing and representation of the diversity of underrepresented genders in any of the parecon institutions. For race, I would argue for autonomous organizing and representation of underrepresentaed races in any of the pareconist institutions with a policultural perspective. For ecology, I would argue for common ownership and trusteeship of our vital resources (as opposed to private or sate ownerships.) I would argue for participatory boards to handle disputes in all spheres, adopting restorative principles rather than punitive approaches.
2. Next, someone at the same event asks, "Why do you do what
you do? That is, you are speaking to us, and I know you
write, and maybe you organize, but why do you do it? What do
you think it accomplishes? What is your goal for your coming
year, or for your next ten years?
I believe a society in harmony with libertarian values would activate human potential in diverse and unexpected ways, would fulfill humanly desires and values in more functional ways. And I do this because I believe, one should do what she /he thinks is the right and ethical way to do. My goal for the next years (here in Ä°stanbul) is to create (with others) functional arts /research /ecology ansambles which have organizational capacity and discipline and to help society overcome nationalist-racist prejudies against underrepresented, help them build a sustainable peace.
3. You are at home and you get an email that says a new
organization is trying to form, internationally, federating
national chapters, etc. It asks you to join the effort. Can
you imagine plausible conditions under which you would say,
"yes, I will give my energies to making it happen along with
the rest of you who are already involved?" If so, what are
those conditions? Or - do you think instead that regardless
of the content of the agenda and make up of the
participants, the idea can't be worthy, now, or perhaps ever.
If so, why?
I would try to understand if they have committment, eager to create fiscal, ethical, managerial discipline.
4. Do you think efforts to organize movements, projects, and
our own organizations should embody the seeds of the future
in the present? If not, why not? If yes, can you say what, very
roughly, you think some of the implications would be for an
organization you would favor?
Obviously it would (like may be they should embody the seeds of the past as well). On the other hand I am not fond of a demarcation between present and future society because it somehow ignores the problems of transition. In my perspective, focusing on the problems of transition, that requires strategy building, activism, and experimentation is much more interesting and real.
5. Why did you answer this interview? Why do you think others
did not answer it?
I answer, because first, it is unkind not to answer questions directed to you if you are already involved in some affair. If this is a poll from ZNet (or alike) that I am particularly respectful, I would be still more careful to respond. On the other hand, I find it difficult to respond to tthis poll because I am much occuppied with professional, social and activist responsibilities. E communication (particularly nowadays) is creating a great burden on many people, as they cut important time from what they have to produce outside by hands on working and face to face communication. I also find it difficult to answer (or even read whole e mails) since being a non-native speaker of this language I am diminished in my reading and writing skills. So, perhaps these may be reasons why others are not responding.