Hi!

You write:

"I completed the poll only after avoiding it a number of times.  Why?  Two reasons: the nature of the internet, and the goal.  The first, despite all appearances to the contrary, can actually be quite a passive medium.  How much easier it can be to read than to write; and to pick up titbits of information rather than to think.  In my case, I had to get out of that mood, and be ready to answer it; which took about half a dozen attempts before I did so. "

I think that that is not just you, by a long shot. And is very interesting and insightful, and quite contrary to what many people think...I hope we can overcome the tendencies, not just in this case, but in how we get people relating to our internet operations more generally.

As to the rest, I very much agree with most of the sentiments and the detail, too. But no one suggests that an organization - even in many countries with many chapters in cities too, etc., somehow solves all problems. Of course not. But, if one thinks it can help- that's enough... not least that it can help with many of the issues you are raising. 

Paul,

Call it a party or a network or organization or whatever, Radicals must have organization.  Your analysis is on its head, if you think that we can wait to have organization until democratice oportunity for the masses appear.  We have to organize to demand that democratic oportunity, and educate ourselves and others while we do so.

Justin

I think you have misunderstood me.  It is not about waiting for the masses to rise up and deliver democracy.  They never will.  All social events have particular causes, even revolutions (though some fashionable thinkers in France would disagree), and those causes are the actions of individual human beings; often working together in groups. That is why I think Michael's response is right - any new organization can help, even in a small way.
 
The reference to Italy was to the Clean Hands campaign that brought down the First Republic, exposing the widespread corruption and the complicity of some of the political establishment with the mafia.   In a very narrow sense this required organization – the judges for example doing the daily work.  But I don’t think this is what Michael is thinking about.  It is something much wider, like a new Communist Party or International, with broad aims about societal change.
 
The current political establishment has to be undermined, to give space for reformist groups to reach the wider public; many of which are already in existence but are marginalized.  A powerful popular message, which is implemented, may have more impact than the creation of a new organisation, as envisaged here.  Moreover, one would hope that from out the dynamism of such a campaign new organisations would emerge, and existing ones cooperate. 
 
To take the idea of a charter as an example.  Some people would have to agree it.  Then an administration would be created to propagandize it, which in turn would need clerks, designers, writers and spokespersons…  However, you would also hope to convince other groups to help you.  Imagine the impact if you could get some of the large Christian denominations on board.   If the message is a popular and powerful one, and quite specific (this is the key it seems to me), then it can create its own momentum; and will naturally grow in size.  Out of that ongoing movement new ideas and strategies, and even a new party, can emerge – though it will almost certainly be different to what is envisaged at the beginning.
 
There are two massive problems on the Left: its own fragmentation, and its disconnect from the general public.  The question is how to overcome these.  The new organization might be able to deal with the former, if its aims are broad enough.  However, its very generality may not connect it with the very concrete concerns of most voters.  I suppose, if I think about it, the difference between Michael and me is that he sees the first concern as more important than the second; the answer to the latter to come out of a solution to the former.  I’m not so sure.  The reason I’m not sure is his comment:
 
“a large proportion of the public would agree with much that typically characterizes the left.”
 
I think this statement is right, but also wrong.  To take a concrete example.  Someone can agree with the racist diatribes in our popular press.  But at the same time can be horrified when confronted with a particular instance of racist violence.  Not the just violence, but the racism behind it.  Nevertheless, their future opinions don’t change, and they continue to read these newspapers.  Something is going on here, and it is to do with how many people relate to the world; which is not usually through concepts or large abstractions.  The problem with the Left historically is that it likes its ideas, and tends to get too attached to generalities (which are important, because our knowledge depends on them).  The public on the other hand tend to reverse these polarities.  So in a poll about something specific they may well express Left views; but go ahead and advocate a general programme (which is somewhat abstract), and they will often oppose it – seen as strange or threatening, or idealistic, or as a manifestation of that genteel middle class, I described in my original post.  And naturally so, given the bias of the corporate establishment that helps shape their ideas; which are usually strongly held, but poorly informed; and of secondary importance to daily concerns.
 
To give an example of a (heavily) qualified success.  In 1979 there was a referendum in Wales about devolved autonomy.  It was massively rejected.  One of the reasons in the English speaking coalfield was a fear that they would be ruled by the minority Welsh speakers, seen as essentially the educated, who would run the institutions from Cardiff.  Thirty years later the country has not only got some autonomy (after an initial close and apathetic vote), but has now decided to extend it (the voters were less in number but the endorsement was much greater).  Somewhere along the way the culture has changed, in part because of a reaction to the politics of Westminster, and in part as a result of changes to the nationalist party, that has become politically broader, and has won a degree of trust it never had before.  I could be wrong but what seems to have happened is that a very general idea, about regional government, backed by a minority and tied to a particular kind of worldview, has been transformed over the years into a strategy to protect the country’s citizens from the aggressive politics of the central government. As a result it has won a degree of popular legitimacy; albeit small.  This has created a foundation.  Who knows what could follow.  Independence in twenty years?  Complete bilingualism in fifty?  These are still ideals, fantastic at that.  But how much closer than in 1979.  The point is that a weaker general formulation, but a strategy that is more popular and more specific (and which is shaped by events), may in the end have been more successful than a clearly articulated programme at the beginning, which was closely identified with a particular group and expressed its ideological concerns.  A programme that may have alienated too many people, either because they disagreed with the (general) message, or they saw it as a ruse to get its advocates into power.  For we must never forget: we may have only benign intentions, but others will see us differently, as power hungry fanatics.  And in one sense at least they are right – thus Michael’s comment about being angry and different.  People don’t like their ideas being challenged; and often see it as an attack.
 
To go back to Italy: who would have thought that a bribery scandal in Milan would in just over a year lead to the collapse of a system that had monopolized power for at least two generations.  The campaign, and the message it carried, was electric, and resonated with the feelings of the Italian population.  The mistake was that the Left could not take advantage of what in effect was a revolution; a sad story, with an all too common history.  But it does show the power of a closely focussed and intensive campaign on a narrow set of issues.
 
To end with a question.  We live in a world where the majority is sceptical of the government.  But at the same time there are large numbers of people who either dislike or hate Leftists; often seen as a caricature of some Fabian or Communist activist.  Is a campaign that appeals to the majority that dislikes our politicians more likely to be successful than a party that may alienate them; and with which they cannot sympathise?  Of course, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive, the art is to combine both.
 

Well, I guess you should answer the poll and say, no, you think you would not join.

But let me respond, briefly, to your comment - I don't think that we should have an extended debate about this here - it just doesn't seem the right place. There is an endless stream of content about these matters you might read and then debate with - on the site. 

For now though, just to quickly clarify...

You doubt some points based on your view of "human nature." I am not sure what view that is, so I can't react to it, specifically...other than the cases you raise.

You write, "For example, to say that everyone should participate in all the chores of some organization—business or cooperative or laboratory, or…—is for me crazy;"

Me too. I don't that anyone believes that, unless it is a very small organization. In a large production unit there can be thousands jobs that include tens of thousands of tasks. It is quite obviously absurd to suggest we should each do a little bit of ten thousand tasks, or one thousand jobs, etc. This has nothing to do with anything in the poll, or in parecon...

What is proposed, instead, is that instead of a corporate division of labor where about 20% of the working population monopolize empowering tasks, and 80% are left with only disempowering tasks - each of course doing some manageable list/combination - in a new economy all ought to do a manageable list/combination of tasks, which, however, is for everyone balanced for empowerment effects. This is very very different than what you have heard/read, or fear.

In a hospital it isn't that everyone does everything - which is impossible and of no value, etc. etc. It is that each person does a mix of things (which is true now too) so that their overall work load is comparably empowering to that of all other folks in the hospital - and likewise elsewhere.

The reason for this is because the corporate division of labor - allowing and indeed making inevitable the monopolization of empowering tasks by a few - ensures class division and in fact class rule by those who are empowered (who I happen to call the coordinator class) and those who are not, who I think can be rightly called the working class.

> Some have more creativity, more expertise, more talent than others for particular endeavors.

Of course. And to deny this would be delusional. It is not relevant, however, given that balancing jobs includes trying to utilize creative potentials, of course. If you have an inclination and talent for some pursuit - say surgery, using the above hospital case - you do that as part of your overall job assignment. But you also do other things, so your overall job is balanced - rather than overwhelmingly empowering.

> They should do that which they do best.

Assuming they want to, yes. I would be a better physicist, I suspect, than publisher, but for broader reasons I opted for publishing. In the future Joe may be Frank Sinatra capable, but may opt to note sing, not liking it. I imagine you agree. People can and it is beneficial that they do do, what the can do really well, I agree.

> They should lead in that endeavor. 

It is not clear what this means. Lead in the sense of doing it, and contributing greatly, sure. But because Joe is better at making decisions does not imply he should be dictator, though it is, in fact, typically the argument for dictatorships, whether small, in organizations, or large, in societies. Because Joe is better at surgery does not imply he should alone determine all surgery policies. Etc.

> Decisions by "committee" are unlikely to be as productive or creative as letting those who have deeper understanding lead the charge—so to speak.

Well, depending what you mean, this is false according to all studies, etc. - though people do self manage their activities in the type set up proposed. But let's say your claim was true - involving people in the decisions that affect their lives, rather than having some elite make those decisions from on high, will reduce output. Nonsense, I think - but, if so, so? Would you think we should consign 80% of the population to subordinate and ruled positions, because we will get a bit more output that way? Okay, what if having 2% make all decisions would yield more output? Or will reach some insight sooner, that way?

However, the truth is the reverse, for many reasons. I won't go into all of them, but the biggest is this - and I ask you to think seriously on it, because I do think it is a pivotal recognition. If we consign 80% to subordination, we lose the creativity and initiative of the 80%. Think forty years ago. Virtually no women and minorities, in the U.S., were surgeons, doctors, engineers, etc. etc. They were structurally, by their life situations, education, the social relations of the jobs, etc., excluded. So, all the potential these constituencies had was lost, on the grounds - in your formulation and a very common view at the time - that despite that loss society benefitted because we got better doctoring, engineering, etc. etc. I assume you can see that is not only was such a view immoral - but also absurdly and hugely false, because by welcoming the new constituencies into empowered roles we tapped their talents, without losing those of others.

To argue that women, blacks, latinos, etc. could not do a good job at empowering work - a view that was very widely held and thought to be totally obvious just decades ago, and for some, even now - was, not only not obvious, but was objectively racist and sexist, though for some only out of honest ignorance.

The same holds now. Thinking that the 80% who are currently consigned to only disempowering tasks can't generate doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. such that they all do a fair share of empowering as well as disempowering work, making up for the losses of those now doing only empowering work doing somewhat less and also doing some disempowering work - is, well, honestly, objectively classist. It assumes that the 80% doing rote and redundant subordinate work are doing all they are capable of, just like assuming, forty or fifty years ago, that all women and all blacks and all latinos - consigned to subodination - were in their rightful place.  

> An analogy might be made between a class of pupils and a teacher. 

Actually, the analogy could be instructive. Seeing all women or blacks, earlier, or all working class folks - now - as being children, or slow students, does indeed rationalize their subordination. Society is organized so that most people are robbed of their initiative, hope, and deskilled - rather than uplifted and educated. People are dumbed down, not inspired and respected. People - and in your case we are talking about working class people, then look, like women as group, or blacks as a group, looked decades ago - like mere children or like barely capable souls who are, in any event, with the occasional exception, properly slotted into obedient repetitious positions. But, in fact, this is nonsense now, as it was nonsense then. So it is both for moral reasons which would be more than enough, but as well also for productivity reasons, that society should do away with corporate divisions of labor...

> There ought not to be a true democracy in the classroom.

This is actually a debatable point - but there is no need to debate it because I agree that where there is a disparity the dispartiy should be respected, sure. But I hope you will also agree that false disparities should not be institutionally imposed.

> Tolerance and respect and interchanges, yes, but not equal weight in the classroom.

But what if we are in a classroom in a university, say, and everyone in the room is a grad student, and all spend some time in classes, some time teaching, and so on. There are still disparities to be sure - how boring if there weren't. But now I doubt that you would say the person who got the highest score on the last test should make all the decisions. I hope not, at any rate. I doubt you would say, if Albert and beat me on an economics exam - Albert should define my economic life from above. Or vice versa. I hope you wouldn't say that.

> Absolute egalitarianism in determining what is to be done is in my view doomed to inefficiency of outcome. 

I don't know what absolute egalitarianism even is. See above.

> To say that a talented engineer or scientist or writer or musician should sweep the floors when he/she could be applying him-herself to that which they are most endowed would seem to be creating a system bound to mediocrity and/or worse. 

Well, I think you should rethink your intuition - which arises very naturally, I agree, from inputs all around us, but is nevertheless horribly wrong. If the above discussion doesn't help motivate a review, there are many others online. Or even just notice this, your argument differs in form and I think evidence and logic, not at all from the argument earlier made to justify racist distributions of tasks, sexist distributions of tasks - hell, even slavery. Yes, slave owners argued it was more productive for society, and even better for the slaves who were more comfortable not having to have responsibility for their lives - given their inadequate capacities. This symmetry of defense of hierarchies doesn't alone make you wrong, not all hierarchies are structurally imposed, but it ought to make you very cautious about your stance...

> As for remuneration, that is another complex issue, which needs to be ironed out. "Effort" is hard to evaluate. Voting on this issue has its own limitations.

Yes, everything in the poll is complex and subject to disagreements, of course. And so an organization created with this type definition will not, initially, be an organization everyone would want to join, of course. And yes, all such matters would need to be further pursued, not only inside such an organization, but between it and its members, and the rest of the population. Again, of course.

Carl, Hi

If you mean the description rejecting markets in the long run is too far from your views, okay, fair enough. Same as if someone felt the rejection of private ownership of capital was too far from their aims. 

But if that long term aim regarding markets, or private ownership of capital, for that matter, would be okay with you, and you are only concerned that in the short and medium run you are doing things which presume markets (and private ownership too) and function in light of them and you think this organization would somehow preclude that o - I don't get it. Everyone who answers, everyone alive, operates currently within market systems. Look at me. I responded positively, but of course I operate in context of markets, including creating a site which works within the market system, doing most of my commerce via markets, etc. 

I forgot to add: If this organizational structure and poll were put up on the Economist web site it would most likely provoke a significant amount of debate. Any thoughts of asking them to give it a go? I'd love to see the results :)

It is a bit had to reply - given that you are so brief. 

Send me an email and I will discover your difficulty for you - and perhaps it will help others, too...

Hi,

Where are you in Australia - I was there once, on a speaking tour, quite a few years ago. Honestly, it reminded me of the U.S. which surprised me a bit... Have you been here?

You note that the poll description falls a bit in the middle - and I agree. It is a poll, not a call, not a finished definition. 

I wonder why people would take it "as a draft organisational constitution." It says very clearly that an actual organization would of course change, evolve, etc. The point is to ASSUME those changes are not anathema to you, if you like what is there already, broadly, and then make your responses.

You did indicate - and thank you for this since I think you are the first to do so...two actual concrete points in the description that concerned you...

• "no individuals or groups own resources, factories, etc., so ownership doesn’t affect anyone’s decision making influence or share of income.
• workers who work longer or harder or at more onerous conditions doing socially valued labor (including training) earn proportionately more and there is no payment according to property, bargaining power, or the value of personal output."

You concern is "because both of these to me it seem entail a complete commitment to a Parecon or complete property-less socialism or communism model - rather than say, a Mondragon or "Solidary Economy" economy that guys like Carl Davidson and those over at http://www.solidarityeconomy.net promote."

Well, it does not commit to parecon. But you are right it does commit to some points - one being no capitalist ownership, another being no remuneration for power, property, etc. There are many in Solidarity Economy who would agree with those and other points. Others would not. You are right about that. 

And yes, I do think these are issues over which people can disagree, respectfully, but, in doing so, may well need to be in different organizations, so those organizations can be coherent and effective actors. If one person thinks capitalist ownership is okay, and another thinks it is not, it is not clear the two can be in an organization unless it is NOT devoted to creating a non capitalist future. So they could be in Solidarity Economy, yes. But this new organization would be devoted to winning a non capitalist future...thus the issue is raised. 

You write: "This is analogous to your (in my view worthwhile) effort to build consensus on a left position on Libya intervention, in a context of diverse viewpoints."

I think there is a loose analogy between that case, and a revolutionary organizational description, yes. However, I would think of it perhaps a bit differently. There can be an outcry against war in Libya that contains at demos, etc. folks who are against it because they think it is a mistake, or who are against it because they think it goes too far, and so on - and people who are against it because they oppose imperialism in all forms...however that difference is  rather fundamental, and one might very reasonably also want to be in an organization that doesn't have constantly discuss this disagreement before doing anything. 

The same idea arises for the left broadly. Yes, there can be people fighting injustice who think private ownership can be retained, and others who think not, and they can both support some strike or other activity, etc. But they would do so quite differently, having different aims. And I would not want to be only in an organization where I had to constantly discuss the merits of private ownership, or remunerating for property, etc. I would want to be in one where these matters are part of why I and others are working together.

You write, "I guess this gets back to a crux of the organisation and the poll - perhaps you _want_ quite a high "minimum commitment" in terms of radical values, so as to differentiate the "radicals from the reformists". But how high should this commitment be right up front in a constitution presented to people, versus emerging in a participative manner after deliberative debate ?

First, this poll is just a temperature taking operation - or was conceived as such. The discussion would be whatever people talked about. And in general this and the left and practice in general constantly emerge from debate. And such an organization, if it began, formed, and developed a clear definition, would still certainly debate, and discuss, etc., issues of property with others, outside, and many issues of continual refinement inside, as well. Of course. But in its own space, so to speak - it would want a level of coherence that, I suspect, would include clarity on certain issues - such as private ownership of productive property, profit making, etc.

I agree with your Aussie friend - finding the sweet spot is important, and hard. But (a) this is just a broad description, not a final definition of a new organization. The early members, in pretty large numbers, would have to arrive at that, presumably culminating at some kind of founding convention. And (b) while I think your points are highly relevant to many possible strategic issues (electoral participation, non violence, and lower level visionary issues too, all of which can be embodied in an effective organization rather than requiring many organizations - I don't think, at least for me and people I would want to be in this type anti capitalist new organization with, they apply to having or not having capitalist ownership. That to me is one, among a set of, critical areas of needed agreement.

You add: "I do realise re the above question that I'm a bit of a "newbie" to ZNet, and perhaps you'd argue that the Reimagining Society project gave people an ample chance to put forward alternatives, thrash out common ground between them, as an input to this sort of poll."

As an input to the poll, yes, I do think so. But the poll is not a founding convention. And before anything like that would happen, assuming there was enough support and energy, etc., there would obviously be much more discussion...and development...

You write: "So that's my core comment: suggest thinking on whether the 'poll' is about generating momentum around organisation efforts, or rather about thrashing out organisational constitution & structure."

But it says very explicitly that it is the former - though it tries to lay out enough substance so the momentum is coherent, rather than likely to fall apart.

You next suggest people might react more energetically if it was posed as "ZNet is seriously considering assisting launching new organisations in timeframe X, and now's your chance to have optimum input and participation in the vision and structure of those organisations" - it will invoke a 'put up or shup up' response in us to actually get involved ;)"

Well, we didn't think it was our place to do that. Yes, we might react that way to high support. But why couldn't one think, others might do so...too or instead?  At any rate, we are now seriously thinking about this adaptation of the approach...

You conclude: "A final reflection - in one of Noam Chomsky's videos recently posted to ZNet, he mentioned in passing your role way back in bringing about a strong left-wing culture in your university days via a combination of activism and electoral strategies. Perhaps lessons from this experience could illustrate some of these discussions around organisations and organisation-forming?"

Well, many many people have many many experiences and lessons - but if you happen to be interested in those, and related ones since, you might check out the book Remembering Tomorrow...

Hi Tom,

Thank you for taking the poll, and indicating you would not join. I wish all those who wouldn't join - or would join - would take it. That's the point of a poll, of course. 

As to your reasons...

You write: I think saying, "it didn't seem to me the proposed organizational definition says anything about how a different society is to be brought about" is going too far. It says quite a lot, I think... but of course there is much more that would emerge in practice.

But even if you think there is not enough, wouldn't that then be a reason to think you would wait and see...

I suspect you and I may disagree about this - though. For me, (a) strategy and tactics are largely contextual. Far more so than, say, broad analysis of the ills of the present, or broad commitments to features of a desired future. So strategy has to emerge, and changes. (b) disputes over strategy, that do not rise to the level of vision or basic concepts, say, should be containable within an organization - which is one of the strategic features that is discussed. 

You mention the level of focus on electoral activity - some could want more, or a whole lot, some could want less, or very little. True. But all should hope that the organization and movements find what in fact does work...to win the desired aims...and to me, that should allow including those differences and working with them, etc. Indeed, that is one of the things the organization description emphasizes... by showing how the organization might operate to not violate and obliterate contending positions, to explore options, even while largely following the preponderant one, etc. After all, we will have to be in society, even a wonderful one, with people with whom we have such differences...working with them, etc. 

I agree that there are, however, fundamental issues over which it makes sense for people to be in different organizations - but very few of those are matters of strategy, actually, I think - which tend to have to be hashed out, tend to change, can be respected, etc. 

But - okay, those are the kinds of disagreements that fuel a good discussion and exploration of the possibilities. 

Hi Justin, 

No the prompts aren't stopped by taking the poll. Rather, the alternate top page was visible unless one had taken the poll AND was logged in. Otherwise the system can't know you took it. The current three column overlay is visible, period...when you newly arrive, or leave and come back. But a click gets the top page instantly - removing the overlay. 

I believe you are correct, poll problems are a factor - but explanations of, for example, the need to log on or sign in, and to enter a country, went up very early in the process...

I also agree that not knowing where the poll will lead is a factor - but then again, isn't a poll to learn things so as to think through where to go, what to do? 

Instinctive avoidance mood is no doubt a problem, too - but it is just another name for the phenomenon. Why do people avoid, is the question. 

The fund raiser succeeded, though, I agree, one would think it would be possible to raise much more. And I do think the phenomena are related. 

You write: "But ironically, perhaps before we can act even to this small degree (essentially providing our collective opinions in order to move forwards from there), we need more of a collective vision, some stated goals of what the exercise is actually for."

But the exercise says what it is actually for - to uncover attitudes to a hypothetical organization, to see whether there is enough support - or too much opposition - to warrant people trying to make such an organization real.

You add: "In terms of that copy – at present there’s way too much of it. You need to streamline your style of communication with something like this. No one wants to be confronted with several pages of point-bulletins as their point of entry. Keep it simple dummy! :-)"

Here I am afraid I have to respectfully disagree, for many reasons but I will limit it to one. Describing an organization to change the world is not a matter for one liners - the description is already short and brief. 
 
You add: "Make it contextual. Make it emotional. Make it quick. Leave the details until you’ve gained the reader’s attention."

The attention gainer is supposed to be the title - organizational poll - and the presentation, a page in people's way on the road to the usual site contents. The context is today. The emotion is whatever you bring to the question - how do we win a new world. 

I don't mean to say you are wrong - you may be exactly right. In coming days we will try some new steps. Let's see how that goes.

Stephen,

Well, yes, I think one should have a lot more promise from a constituency that one can predict is nearly optimal for the project, among all those constituencies one might query.

But I could imagine that if we had 5,000 folks saying that if it came into existence, and if it had the features described, they would join that that would be enough, at least in my view, to warrant the costs and efforts associated with proceeding, remembering that to fail would just induce new layers of cynicism...so one shouldn't proceed with a good likelihood of success.

I would think that membership level would be able to sustain the costs of development of a massive and very effective site - with great facilities for internal debate and voting, etc. - plus to build up an account to pay for a convention, etc. And I would think it would be enough as well, to not only keep recruiting, but at least in some countries attain enough members to have serious program. And to attract lots of new organizing of new instances. And so on. 

That would be my hope, at any rate. 

Do you disagree?

Tell me something else, please. Suppose the poll indicated that if it attained that level of support, we would throw our efforts into such a scenario, spelled out. Then, replying would be even more meaningful. Do you think large numbers would then reply, one way or that others.

It is from a long time ago - and I guess it is deactivated...

Marcus - hi.

Do you think, say, 10,000 or even 30,000 people, o many more, who have come to the site since the poll went live, have read the organization description, and then not taken the poll? Or do you think of those who have read the description, virtually all have taken the poll?

We don't know which it is. But I think it is probably the latter. I think very few people, relatively, have read it, and then not taken it.

Let's work with that possibility for a second. 

So Joe comes to the site and sees the alternative top page about the poll, and immediately clicks through, without reading it, to see the usual top page, and presumably to read an article or two...etc, as usual. 

That may be most site users - it is certainly a lot of site users. 

Now, I obviously spend my life creating systems to disseminate information, etc. So I don't for a second think it is a bad thing to come to ZNet and read a bit. Of course.  

But why if one has enough time to read the newest article about Libya or budgets, etc., which is, I think we have to admit, very likely to be quite like other articles one has already read on the topic, does one not have time to read a description of a possible new organization, that for most folks is probably quite different than they have typically read? The site this person, Joe, is using, has obviously made this a big priority. We aren't going to give up easily. I suspect if I had put up an article about organizing and a new organizational idea - it might get more readers than the poll with the same content. To me, that seems strange. It says isolated articles are more attractive to people than a poll that could fuel activity - albeit one can very reasonably wonder if it will.

I understand what you are saying. I get the logic of it, of course. BUT...

You add... "We Stand changed this by putting serious Left names on it." 

Maybe. I hope so. Perhaps we will be able to see the effect of doing that, soon.

Actually there are already various organisational attempts around the ideas included in the poll in different places around the world.

You may wanna check out OFS in New York: http://www.afreesociety.org/, parecon finland: http://parecon.fi/parecon-finland-ry and in the U.K. where I am based, the 'project for a participatory society U.K.' www.ppsuk.org.uk,  which have been established to organise around participatory society vision and strategy.

Interest in these ideas are growing, hence the poll and consideration of establishing an international framework.

A poll - polls. That is, it tries to discern interest in, or motivation around, or willingness about, etc. etc. - something. 

This poll is about developing new organization of a described sort. So it asks about reactions to that possibility, willingness to join that effort should it occur, etc. 

What happens after the poll will be up to how people take the revealed information and run with it.

To me, it would be strange for someone to say they won't give a few minutes to answer it, because they doubt anyone will do anything with it - when people answering is a precondition for people doing. They would, it seems to me, be bemoaning a problem they are contributing to. 

So far, of those taking the poll, the sentiment in favor of this type organization - including inclinations to join and to support and work with and for this type organization - is enormous.  

If I thought, if I could plausibly entertain the possibility, even, that this sentiment was representative of the whole Z audience - or even half or a third or a fifth representative of it - rather than merely being overwhelmingly preponderant among those who have already answered - I would already be galvanized into devoting myself into trying to help bring such an organization into existence. More, I have to tell you, I would wonder about the mindset of any leftist who said they were interested in far reaching much less fundamental social change - who wouldn't be at least similarly excited by the results - again, if we could believe the results to be generally representative. 

The trouble is, we cannot confidently believe that. The reason is because the 1200 who have so far taken the poll are self selected. They are not a random cross section of Z users. They are, instead, the 1200 from among Z users who have first answered the poll. It is quite reasonable to think that those who answered first are disproportionately attuned to organizational issues, and even to this type organization. I don't know that is true, either, but it is certainly plausible. And if it is true, then we are left not knowing - is the 1200 the end of the line, or does it reflect a fifth, or a tenth, or a fiftieth of the positive response out there, even just among Z's audience. 

So I keep saying - let's get people to take the poll. Let's learn something important. 

Gary,

Hmmmm....this would be incredibly frustrating news - but also good - In that it would mean there are additional people who think they have taken the poll, but haven't been counted. I doubt it, however.

So, first, where did you see some list of people who took the poll? There is no such list...for this poll. At least , not that I know of. 

Did you take the three question poll - just three questions? Not the old resoc poll - but the new, current, organization poll?

If so, please now go to the site and log in. Then say you want to take the poll, and click to see the actual poll - as if you want to take it - again. You should see the simple page - but instead of take the poll, there should be see cumulative results - or edit your results. If you see that, your taking it registered. 

Indeed, this applies to everyone who feels they have taken the poll. If you go to the top page of ZNet, for example, and click in the content box in the middle column you should be able to see your own answers, and even edit them.

Well, being overstretched is certainly an issue, of course. And everyone always points to it, yes. But does being overstretched preclude taking a poll, or really even impact it? When a person sees the alternate top page and clicks on to read an article or two - well, if they took the poll instead, it would be no more of a time drain. So I don't think that that lack of time explains clicking through and not taking it. O maybe it explains it once, but then next time you would be ready...

The poll, however, was looking for the effect you note once people take it. Thus, people might say I like it... I would want to join it, but I wouldn't give it time...and some do say that, in the poll - you can see -  and that seems more closely related to the point you raise. And quite understandable.

Of course your questions are the ones that arise, I agree, for what to do about the situation once it unfolds. And different folks may well have different answers, indeed, I suspect they will. But for now, it seems to me all who are interested should be able to agree that more people taking the poll enhances information, and perhaps prospects. So we can all try to provoke or elicit or inspire that!