ZNet Articles
Blog Posts
ZStores
PPS-UK: A New Society in the Making
By Mark Evans at Jul 01, 2010 |
|
Part One: What are we about?
As our name suggests PPS-UK is an organisation dedicated to the creation of a new participatory society here in the UK - in conjunction with other similar projects around the world.
By “participatory” we mean a society in which the people can interact with each other as equals. This means creating a society free from racism, sexism, classism and authoritarianism.
Today’s social systems are riddled with institutions that help maintain these different forms of elitism. Racism and sexism are still rife within British communities and families. Class exploitation is the norm within the workplace and broader economy and the true nature of British democracy as a system of manipulation and control is becoming apparent to more and more people every day. This leads us to reject the patriarchal family, mono-cultural communities, capitalist economics and representative democracy. But we also reject the traditional Left alternatives of centrally planned economics and democratic-centralism on the grounds that these are also elitist and authoritarian forms of social organization.
Understanding how these elitist systems work as barriers, stopping us all interacting as equals, is an important part of what we do. However this, by itself, is not enough! We also need to develop vision for alternative participatory social systems plus strategy that can move us from the elitist system we endure today to our future participatory society we desire.
Knowledge, vision and strategy is what we are about! We challenge elitist beliefs and expose elitist myths about why society has to be organise the way it is. We develop and advocate alternative participatory models - like parecon and parpolity - whilst also implementing participatory practises in our organising. Our knowledge justifies the need for vision, and our vision informs our strategy.
Unlike any other organisation PPS-UK gets to the roots of society’s problems and proposes radical solutions to them. By doing so we have the potential to address the major problems we face today - such as war, poverty and global warming - which in the end can all be traced back to elitist institutions and practices. Unless we take a radical approach and work to create a new participatory society such problems as these will no doubt persist for the simple reason that they are part of the current system.
Part Two: How do we organise?
Although it is probably true to say that our motivation to conceptualise an alternative society derives from our understanding of the elitist nature of the current system it is the development and implementation of participatory vision that is at the heart of what we do. From this we can see that our vision informs our strategy and is reflected in how we run our organisation. In short there is no real separation between our knowledge, vision and strategy.
Members of PPS-UK can get involved in organising in two main ways:
The first is to join a local chapter which are geographically based (if one does not exist in a particular area members can create a new chapter). Members can easily do this via the website.
In accordance with our vision local chapters are self-managed. This means that all members have the same democratic right to influence decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by the outcome of that decision. For example, if a decision only affects members of local chapter X then only members of chapter X have a say in that decision. However, if a decision affects chapters X,Y and Z then members from all three chapters have a say. From this we can see that self-management helps ensure that members interact as equals.
Another feature that we try to implement in the running of our local chapters that reflects our participatory vision is the balancing out of empowering and desirable tasks amongst members. This does not mean that all tasks are rotated so that all members do all tasks. Rather, it means that members assess tasks for empowerment and desirability and try to make sure that each members “bundle” of tasks is roughly equal. Once again, the balancing of empowering and desirable tasks helps ensure that members interact as equals.
Members of local chapters may engage in a number of activities including for example; solidarity work with other progressive organisations, bookstalls, organising local talks, film showings, etc.
The second way for members to get involved is to join a project. Projects, like local chapters, are self-managed and empowering and desirable tasks are shared out equally amongst participants. Unlike local chapters, however, projects are not geographically based. Depending on the nature of the project, in theory at least, people from different parts of the country, or even the World, can run projects together.
Projects may take many different shapes and forms. Some might be very short term, others running for years. Some may involve many people, other projects could just involve half a dozen, or maybe two, or even one member. This could include for example; writing, video or music projects.
In sharp contrast to organisations that have a central committee and / or top-down hierarchy - which can only maintain elitism - PPS-UK incorporates institutional features that help ensure that members can interact and organise as equals.
Part Three: Why should you join us?
It is important to understand that both local chapters and projects are intended as “seeds” of our future participatory society. Chapters and projects are the institutions of our alternative society in embryonic form. What we mean by this is that as chapters and projects grow in both number and popularity we are actually seeing and participating in the creation of our new society.
This means that when you join PPS-UK you will be helping to build a new society today!
Alternative
By Johnston, Jack at Jul 04, 2010 17:16 PM
How we are Organised
http://www.ppsuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=160&func=view&catid=10&id=1467 but also here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/parpolity-in-the-british-irish-isles-by-jack-johnston )
I feel that people have challenged my views for a while (which i appreciate) but then just got bored and have ignored me. As there is no way of actually making a decision, in ppsuk, i have been unable to force a vote on my ideas.
In the meantime I feel that our lack of being participatory (through having no clear decision making or consultation mechanisms) is stifling our growth, discouraging participation and preventing us getting to grips with any important activism.
For example: Taking stances as an organization is as of yet all but impossible, and certainly cannot be done quickly. My chapter could quickly take a stance (e.g. on the Honduran coup) as I am the sole member of my chapter. However, this would have little relevance, as my chapter has no representation at the national level. There should be a way for motions to be passed up to the next level, and then if necessary (i.e. contentious) down to all other local chapters for discussion and voting.
I am not sure how we decided to have this dual system, I am sure that the majority of the people currently involved in ppsuk had no say. The fact that there is no way of forcing a vote on reforming the system, I feel is symptomatic of it falling short of being participatory/ truly democratic.
Growing into the Future
Will we eventually have a political system that includes both? How will that work?
What is the rational for starting chapters covering millions in the first place? If we were a country with a population 7 or 3 million would you recommend we start with one chapter or one for each city?
Kind Regards,
Jack.
Reply this comment
Re: Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Jul 05, 2010 19:40 PM
Hi Jack –
You say “I find the chapters to be anything but participatory”.
What is this conclusion based upon? How many local chapter meeting have you attended?
According to you local chapters aren’t participatory “because the vast majority of the chapters consist of only one or two people (and only one consists of more than 3). This means that tasks cant be shared out and it also means meaningful issues cannot be discussed nor decisions made.”
It is not clear to me why you think that small numbers in membership means that local chapters can’t be participatory. Why can’t tasks be shared out amongst 3 people and why can’t these three people discuss meaningful issues and make decisions?
You writes “The website and national projects provides a means to discuss issues, and potentially, to decide. However, there is still no agreed mechanism for voting and decisions tend to be taken by a small minority with the time follow the long threads of discussions: no vote is required.”
The mechanisms for voting are those expressed in our vision. PPS-UK is a self-managed organisation but for this to function properly we need more active members. Obviously if we only have a small minority of active members, decisions will be taken by a small minority – what is the alternative? Also, because of the low level of active members decisions do tend to be made rather informally. But, as membership grows and chapters take off, the organisation will become more formal and serious – at least that is the hope.
You go on to say “It is my opinion that this dual system is hampering the formation of meaningful chapters; I believe that a single system would improve participation. This would be geographically based, but the combined regions would cover the entire country (so as to avoid leaving individuals isolated in there own chapter).”
What is this “dual system”? What you describe here sounds to me like what we already have. PPS-UK is a National chapter of IOPS. The hope is that others around the World will set-up similar National chapters. The hope is that within these National chapters people will participate in their local and regional chapters making the whole thing a serious international organisation. I don’t know what you mean when you say that “a single system would improve participation”.
At present we have regular National gathering which are open to all members. This creates an opportunity for members to meet, discuss ideas and make decisions etc, and of course we are always open to ideas that help membership participation.
You say “I feel that people have challenged my views for a while (which i appreciate) but then just got bored and have ignored me. As there is no way of actually making a decision, in ppsuk, i have been unable to force a vote on my ideas.”
It is true that PPS-UK, as a National organisation, is not yet fully functioning. Hopefully this will come with time as more members take an active role in their local chapters. As we move towards functioning local chapters we will be able to function better as a National organisation. Until such a time the possibilities of what we can achieve will be limited – but don’t think that that limitation is particular to you because it is not.
I also think that you are wrong to assume that people are bored and are ignoring you. Another possible explanation is that you are not in the UK and therefore have been unable to attend any meetings. I think that when you return to the UK you will find that people are more than happy to listen to you and consider your proposals etc. I certainly am – in fact I’m very much looking forward to meeting you when you return to the UK.
“The fact that there is no way of forcing a vote on reforming the system, I feel, is symptomatic of it falling short of being participatory/ truly democratic.”
There is nothing in PPS-UK’s design as an organisation that stops members interacting as equals. For example there is no central committee that constitutes an elite. On the contrary, PPS-UK has been designed to facilitate participation – however, we obviously can’t force members to participate.
If a member wanted to propose a reform to the system then they can add it to the agenda for a National gathering where they can present their ideas and where it will be discussed and considered by other members. Also members can consider such proposals at local meetings and / or debate them via the forum prior to National gatherings. This all happens at the moment – although on a limited scale due to our limited level of active membership - so I have to say that I don’t recognise your description of PPS-UK. In fact I am in the process of writing such a proposal at the moment for the National gathering on Saturday and intend to discuss it at my local chapter meeting on Wednesday.
You ask –
“When will the chapters begin sending delegates to a nested council?
When we have enough active members / functioning local chapters to establish such a system.
“How and when will chapters which currently cover regions such as London or Manchester divide to represent smaller areas?”
When we have enough active members in one area to establish such a system.
“How can someone in an isolated rural area participate in a chapter?”
By attending National gatherings, or making links with other members nearby, or via the forum, or by getting involved in a project.
“What is the rational for starting chapters covering millions in the first place? If we were a country with a population 7 or 3 million would you recommend we start with one chapter or one for each city?”
I would recommend both. I would say start a National chapter as part of our IOPS. National chapters should facilitate the establishment of regional and local chapters and helps isolated people who are interested in organising around participatory vision to networks with each other.
I’ll leave it there for now.
Mark
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Alternative
By Johnston, Jack at Jul 07, 2010 16:46 PM
My sentiment is based on that fact that I have attended no meetings, and neither have most of us!
Sharing tasks amongst one people is the difficult bit (i.e. most chapters).
They can ‘discuss’ meaningful issues and make decisions but its pointless because they have no representation to the wider group (no nested councilor).
The informal decision making is exactly what I am saying is non participatory. It is elitist, by accident or design. Members should be consulted and asked to vote on a regular basis. They are not, and that’s why we have only a few active members, because people aren’t included and encouraged to participate.
You misunderstand what I mean by dual system. I am opposed to having groups and chapters separate from each other. Chapters should be where the decisons are made, and the vast majority of them are being kept weak and insignificant by the groups and by the fact they dont cover large enough areas.
The regular national gathering is organized byLondon , and held in London
More members and active roles for chapters could be achieved quickly by implementing my proposal, instead, as usual, you talk of some vague point in the future when everything will be as it should be. Ever heard of Stalinism? Its when we don’t follow our own ideas in the present, instead we give vague future points when they will be implemented.
So people are not listening to me because im not in theUK Northern Ireland
If it has been designed to facilitate participation, its not doing a very good job.
Why should a member be forced to attend a national gathering in a place and at a time not decided by him/her to submit a proposal! That’s blatantly elitist. Everyone should have a regional representative (rotated of course).
As for my questions, “enough” is in no way an answer and in everyway avoiding the question.
So basically a rural member is left without a chapter for the long term, forced to rely on shoddy alternatives.
How would the city chapters and the national chapter interact? By nested council no? So why aren’t we doing that! (Don’t say “enough”.)
Likewise looking forward to meeting you,
Jack.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Jul 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Im sorry you feel that way Jack. I only hope that you will reserve final judgement until you have had actual experience organising with us.
My feeling is that your strong criticisms and conclusion that we are "not doing a very good job" is based on a number of assumptions that are questionable.
Clearly we both want the same thing but you seem to think that PPS-UK is structured in such a way that there are institutional barriers to participation - that explain why so few members are taking an active role within the organisation - whereas I feel that PPS-UK faciliates for participation - and the reasons people join PPS-UK but dont take an active role are personal to them.
So we have different assumptions but you see, the fact is that if we have members who are isolated there is nothing stopping them networking with other members in an effort to move towards the nested structure we both desire. However, this requires those members taking the initiative - the bottom line is that we can only facilitate for participation and can't force people to participate.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Jul 12, 2010 18:05 PM
Jack
I also look forward to meeting you in the U.K and working together to promote participatory society ideas. When are you in the U.K by the way?
Regarding your proposal you put forward. I don't think that anyone has ignored you. There have been exchanges in the forums and these issues have also been discussed in the online chat room and meetings locally and nationally.
As I understand it, please correct me if i am wrong, you propose for pps-uk to have a five level nested council structure now. Is this correct and still your opinion now? and do you still think it is sensible to do this considering the number of committed members we have? Rather, don't you think it should be something we aim towards?
To me the question is what steps can we take now to move towards our goals. What do you think of the idea of first creating a regional level between local groups and the national level? for example, dividing the u.k up into 10 or so regions that everyone falls into and each region would have the chance to communicate through their own forum or the instant chat room, arrange a delegate to be sent to the national meeting etc, I do think this would be a logical progression. However, I wonder if we have enough active people for this to work. But, I am not against trying it if you and others believe we should do this.
Regarding participation, I don't really understand why you would be opposed to having projects? they enable collaboration of people across large distances. things are discussed and voted on in a self-managed way. It makes me wonder if you think there is anything that you think is being done right?
Rather than assume the reason why other people are not getting involved, I think it would be better to ask them. Some of us are putting together a questionnaire to send out to all members to find out what their level of commitment is to pps-uk, what they suggest could help to enable participation and get further thoughts on what they think. if you have any suggested questions please put them on the forum.
you say 'If it [pps-uk] has been designed to facilitate participation, its not doing a very good job'.
Your assessment is that people are not participating and conclude it is because we don't have a multi-level council structure. You make it seem like there are hundreds of people eagerly waiting to do pps activist work but are prevented because there is not a five level nested council structure. Is this an accurate assesment and does the conclusion follow or instead is it that those motivated are in fact able to engage in activities and communicate with others if they so choose?
May I ask you if there is anything that is preventing you personally from participating with pps-uk, other than not being in the u.k i mean? for example, attending the online chat sessions, setting up a project or joining an existing onet? for instance, the above text mark wrote is for an introductory video project that a few of us are working on together. are you interested in helping? or organising for michael albert's tour of the u.k, etc this can be done over the website and in a self-managed way. It would be great if you were able to get involved in these ways.
you say 'my sentiment is based on not having attended any meetings and that neither have most of us.'
is that because they are not part of a five level nested structure, or is it because there are not as many people as we would like who are willing to commit time and energy? well, i guess we will find out what any obstacles could be by sending out the questionnaire.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Johnston, Jack at Jul 13, 2010 19:50 PM
Jason, to answer 2 of your questions specifically:
I feel that I personally am prevented from participating because I don’t have a vote! And I have no way of having anything I propose voted on.
I haven’t attended any meetings because I have no local chapter of any relevance, and am therefore not entitled to representation at the national level (also known as the London Chapter).
I have never said anywhere that we should have 5 levels now! What I have said is that we should have a nested council structure now, whether that’s 1 level (i.e. auk chapter with decision making procedures) or 2 levels (e.g. 5 regional chapters each electing delegates, to a uk
I do think we have institutional barriers to participation. I know we cant force people to participate but we could have someone doing some outreach (if we have regional chapters this will be a regional function). What we should have is a system that when new members sign up to ppsuk they have a regional chapter ready to join, meetings to participate in, and someone to reach out to them on a personal level. A place to propose ideas, have them voted on, and a delegate ready to convey any ideas upwards to theuk
Other than the projects what we have is: heres some leaflets, go make a chapter and once you have a half a dozen active members maybe we ll give you representation inLondon
My problem with the projects is that they are not democratic. I am a member of many projects and I have not had the opportunity to vote even once. What kind of democracy is that? Its time consuming just trying to work out whats going, certainly nobody has made any effort to keep me updated. I have spent a lot of time trying to get us to decide on some decision making methods in the constitutional and decision making group, to no avail. Meanwhile I have no chapter to turn to in part because the projects are depriving the chapters of important functions, and therefore stifling their relevance.
As for creating a regional level council, I agree whole heartedly (as long as it is nested council, with some actually decision making procedures). I don’t see any logic in 10 per se, I was think more between 2 and 5 based on current membership (they can divide as more members join). Two things are important: 1) Having a chapter for new members to join straight away and 2) having a mechanism for consultation (primarily betweenLondon
I have unilaterally created such a regional chapter, which I think will have 5 active members before too long as I was personally in touch with that many pps members in that region last year. I was uncomfortable acting without a vote, but really didn’t see any alternative. It seems logical for theCardiff chapter to be responsible for outreach in Wales
See you both this October,
Regards,
Jack.
http://www.zcommunications.org/establishing-a-pps-european-council-by-jack-johnston
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Jul 14, 2010 14:11 PM
Jack – it seems to me that your own action (“I have unilaterally created such a regional chapter “) has proved your own arguments (“If it [PPS-UK] has been designed to facilitate participation, its not doing a very good job “) wrong.
The crucial factor here is the initiative YOU have taken – and what we need, if we are to have a functioning organisation, is more members like you who take such initiative. Unless members take an active role within the organisation we are going nowhere. Part of the job of founder members is to help facilitate participation, so if you have any ideas to help us do that better then you can propose them on the forum, at local meetings and at National gatherings. But of course, there is no guarantee that people will like what you propose.
On this matter, in reply to Jason, you say –
“I feel that I personally am prevented from participating because I don’t have a vote! And I have no way of having anything I propose voted on.”
Here, again, I would point out that now that you belong to a chapter with other members you can propose and vote on issues. But, again, I would highlight the fact that you can do this because 1) you have taken the initiative, and 2) you have been able to do this because PPS-UK facilitates for such initiatives – thus again proving your own argument wrong.
More specifically, regarding voting, because PPS-UK is still not fully functioning, most of our activities are run quite informally. This has meant that decision-making has been geared more towards consensus rather than any formal voting process. However, it seems to me that this approach to organising is both appropriate for the level of development within PPS-UK at the moment, and is quite in keeping with our participatory vision. But of course, you can’t know this because you have not really been involved.
Your comment regarding the London chapter being the same thing as the National level strikes me as yet another example of your confusion resulting from your lack of actual involvement.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Johnston, Jack at Jul 15, 2010 12:51 PM
OK Mark and Jason. You are both adamant that pps uk is as participtory as it can be, and has been from the start. Furthermore any cryticisms i have seem to be a result of my lack of involvement or my being out of the country. Please can you explain:
1) How the chapters (complete with muliple levels of nested councils) and the projects (presumabley with nested councils also, depending on their size) will interact in a world where pps has been achieved. If they will both exist what will be their relative jurisdictions?
2) How the complete reliance on consensus decision making is in line with pps theory, given the very real threat of the tyranny of the minority? (See Shalom)
3) Why we have no nested council structure and no plan/ timetable for its implementation, given that this is a key aspect of parpol? (And, of course, that we want to include the seeds of the future in the present.)
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative
By Evans, Mark at Jul 16, 2010 19:34 PM
On the contrary Jack! PPS-UK could be a lot more participatory. Obviously if we had more active members we would be more participatory – so that is one way things could improve. Also we could have better organisation. This would obviously include the establishment of self-managed local chapters, federated up to the National (and beyond PPS-UK to the International) levels. But notice that both of the ways in which PPS-UK could become more participatory is in the hands of the members. So the real question is: Does PPS-UK facilitate for such developments towards more participation or (like democratic centralist organisations) does PPS-UK block such developments and instead tend towards elitism? Well, membership to PPS-UK is open to anyone interested in organising around participatory vision and strategy and once they are members people can set-up or join a self-managed project and / or local chapter. So it seems to me that as an organisation we do facilitate for more members and better organisation and therefore we encourage participation. But of course we can’t make people join PPS-UK and we can’t force members to set-up chapters / projects and importantly we have to organise within the limitation of the organisation and its development at any given time.
In reply to your first question –
We might find that as PPS-UK develops towards a fully functioning organisation the projects and the chapters merge. Or, we might find that some projects take off and turn into co-operatives run along pareconish lines. For example a media project set-up to produce promotional videos for ParSoc could evolve into a production company run along parecon lines. In a functioning participatory society such cooperatives would be part of the broader economy.
In reply to your second question –
I would be inclined to take this question more seriously if it were being raised by members regularly as a criticism during meetings. However, to my knowledge the only member who has raised it is you. Everyone else seems quite content with the informal –consensus approach we have been using and understand that it is an appropriate means of decision-making at this stage of our development. But we shouldn’t take this as meaning we are content with this as a permanent fixture. Everybody knows that we hope to move to more participatory democratic practices as the organisation develops. However, such developments require more members (like you) to desire more formal decision-making processes between chapters. The point is that our “complete reliance” on informal – consensus decision-making is (hopefully!) only temporary.
In reply to your third question –
I would be very interested to consider any time table you may have in mind for the implementation of the nested council structure. However, it seems to me that it is impossible to predict when PPS-UK will have enough members for such developments to make sense. Having said that we might be able to identify a set of minimum requirements for the nested council system to function – as you know I have speculated about this in previous blogs. Other than that I think the nested council structure will emerge, via the features on the PPS-UK website, as more active members get involved.
Reply this comment
Nested council, voting.
By Johnston, Jack at Jul 24, 2010 02:15 AM
Well I think you right about organizations such as the media project growing into fully fledged pps organizations. However, I think we should try and identify any projects that could merge with the local chapters, and encourage that process so as build the local chapters.
Despite the fact that it’s just me raising the voting issue, I would like you to take it seriously. I understand that you think pps functions better with consensus right now, but it’s important to define where we (as individuals) stand theoretically.
As for a timetable, it is my opinion that we should implement the nested council straight away. I would however be happy to consider any timetable you have!
Reply this comment
Re: Nested council, voting.
By Evans, Mark at Aug 15, 2010 14:13 PM
Jack - that fact that I disagree with you should not be interpreted as me not taking you seriously. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about what you say and replying to your comments. If that is not taking you serious then I dont know what is.
You write "I think we should try and identify any projects that could merge with the local chapters, and encourage that process so as build the local chapters." I agree but I think we should also not restrict the development of projects to any geographical area (as with local chapters). There is no reason why project should be restricted in that way - at least that I can think of?. Rather, it seems to me that projects should be free to develop between members with similar interests regardless of their location. Having said that of course some, maybe most, projects will develop within local / regional chapters.
You say "... we should implement the nested council straight away". But surely you understand that to do this we (PPS-UK) first need a level of membership participation - both in terms of quality and quantity. Anyway, I look forward to discussing this with you when you get back to the UK.
It is also worth keeping in mind that there is plenty of things for members to do that does not require any formal decision-making at the National / International level. In fact I think this is where our most important work lies at this stage in our development - and that formal decision-making at the National / International levels could actually stiffle this work.
What I think IOPS members should be focusing on is establishing National Chapters and then organing Regional / Local chapters within these National organisations. My feeling is that - given our shared vision - the nested council structure would naturally emerge out of this organising as membership grow.
Reply this comment