ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Third Draft of Possible Organizational Poll
By Michael Albert at Mar 13, 2010 |
|
This is the third draft of a future poll about joining or not joining an imagined new membership organization.
When we put this poll up online, it will aim to discover how much support such a new organization would attract.
Before that, however, we are posting it as a blog - and we have also sent it by email to all Sustainers - seeking advice on improving it. Regarding alterations, please don’t merely say that we should make it better, clearer, shorter. Instead, please propose actual changes you think would help.
DRAFT THREE: An Organizational Poll
IMAGINE that a new organization is established in your country. Imagine it has a chapter where you live along with other chapters in your country and in many other countries. Imagine as well that it has the defining features listed below - and that it has no additional features you significantly dislike.
1. Supposing such an organization was launched, would you...
- Be confident that with sufficient people and energy, the organization will have a positive impact.
- Hope the organization will prove positive.
- Fear the organization’s existence might do more harm than good.
- Expect the organization’s existence will do more harm than good.
2. Given your feelings, would you:
- Promptly join
- Consider joining
- Definitely not join
3. If you were to join, how would you most likely relate to the organization
- Give it considerable time, making it one of my priorities - including paying dues, participating in programs, trying to recruit, etc.
- Give some time, I like the idea and support it, but have other priorities as well.
- Have a wait and see attitude, hoping it would be worth my time, but waiting for evidence.
- Expect to give little or no time, given all my other responsibilities and my expectation that my priorities would not change much, regardless of the organization’s growth and effectivity.
Here, then, are the defining features that the proposed organization hypothetically embodies. In light of these features, please answer the above questions...
Organizational Description
The organization, as some general priorities:
- is anti capitalist, anti racist, anti sexist, and anti authoritarian and centrally addresses economics/class, politics, culture/race, kinship/gender, ecology, and international relations without privileging any one focus above the rest.
- seeks to transcend 20th Century market and centrally planned socialism.
- flexibly explores and advocates long term vision sufficiently to inspire and orient current activity, but without seeking detailed blueprints that transcend needs and knowledge.
- sees social strategy as largely contingent on place and time and therefore continually seeks to revise shared views in light of new evidence, including regularly updating analysis, vision, and strategy.
The organization seeks a new political system that:
- facilitates all citizens deliberating sufficiently to arrive at well-considered views and participate in decision-making.
- utilizes transparent mechanisms to carry out and evaluate decisions.
- conveys to all citizens a self managing say in legislative decisions proportionate to effects on them whether via grassroots assemblies/councils or communes and by way of various forms of direct participation or representation and delegation and/or voting options such as majority rule, some other voting algorithm, or consensus, etc., as needed to attain self management.
- offers maximum civil liberties to all, including freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and organizing political parties and other organizations and facilitates and protects dissent.
- promotes diversity so individuals and groups can pursue their own goals consistent with not interfering with the same rights accorded to others.
- builds solidarity among people and fairly, peacefully, and constructively adjudicates disputes and violations of social norms and laws, seeking both justice and rehabilitation.
- supports all community members contributing to solving problems and exploring possibilities to ensure that there are no political hierarchies that privilege some citizens over others.
The organization seeks a new economy such that:
- no individuals or groups own the means of production (land, mines, factories, etc.) ensuring that ownership doesn’t impact anyone’s decision making influence or share of income.
- payment for labor provides everyone morally fair shares of the social output and economically and socially effective incentives, including rejecting payment according to property, bargaining power, or the value of personal output, and instead establishing that workers who are able and who work longer at socially valued labor (including their own training) earn proportionately more for doing so; workers who work harder at socially valued labor earn proportionately more for doing so, and workers who work under more onerous conditions earn proportionately more for doing so, while those who are unable to work receive a full and fair share nonetheless.
- there is no authoritarian workplace decision-making by any elite operating above the workforce and instead workers have a say in decisions to the extent possible, and over time, proportionate to effects on them, where this degree of say is sometimes best attained by majority rule, sometimes by consensus, or by other arrangements in accord with the characteristics of different types of decisions.
- there is no corporate division of labor of the sort common to both capitalist and 20th century socialist economies in which roughly a fifth of the workforce do overwhelmingly empowering tasks and four fifths do overwhelmingly rote, repetitive, and, in any event, disempowering tasks - and, instead, each worker enjoys conditions of work suitable for him or her to be sufficiently confident, informed, and empowered to participate effectively in decision making, which includes having a socially average share of empowering tasks, whether this be accomplished by balanced job complexes or some other suitable new design of work.
- allocation would not occur by market competition or top-down dictate, but instead by decentralized cooperative negotiation of inputs and outputs consistent with self-management, whether this be accomplished by participatory planning by workers and consumers councils, or by some other suitable methods for addressing both day to day outcomes and longer term investment choices, as well.
The organization seeks gender and kin relations for a new society that:
- seek to eliminate hierarchies of reward of influence based on gender or sexual preference
- do not privilege certain types of family formation over others but instead actively support all types of families that are consistent with society’s other broad norms and practices.
- promote children’s well-being and affirm society’s responsibility for all its children, at the same time as affirming the right of diverse types of families to have children and to provide them with love and a sense of rootedness and belonging.
- minimize or eliminate the use of age-based designations, preferring non-arbitrary means for determining when an individual is old enough, or young enough, to participate in certain economic, political or other activities, or to receive certain benefits/privileges.
- respect marriage and other lasting relations among adults as religious, cultural, or social practices, but reject the idea of legal marriage as a way to gain financial benefits or social status.
- respect care giving as a socially valuable function including ensuring that it doesn’t disproportionately fall on women, including making care giving a part of every citizen’s social responsibilities or other worthy means to ensure equity.
- affirm diverse expressions of sexual pleasure, personal identity, and mutual intimacy while ensuring that each person honors the autonomy, humanity, and rights of others.
- provide diverse, empowering education about sex, as about all social relations including legal prohibitions against any kind of non-consensual sex.
The organization seeks ecological relations that:
- account for the full ecological (and social/personal) costs and benefits of both short and long term economic and social choices, so that future populations can make informed choices about levels of production and consumption, duration of work, self reliance, energy use and harvesting, husbandry, pollution, climate policies, conservation, consumption, and other aims and activities as part of their freely made decisions about future policies.
- foster a consciousness of ecological connection and responsibility so that future citizens are well prepared to decide policies regarding animal rights, vegetarianism, or other policies that transcend sustainability and even husbandry, consistently with their ecological preferences and their broader agendas for other social and economic functions, as they freely decide for themselves in future settings.
The organization seeks cultural and community relations that:
- ensure that people can have multiple cultural and social identities, including providing the space and resources necessary for people to positively express their identities, while recognizing as well that which identity is most important to any particular person at any particular time will depend on that person’s situation and assessments.
- explicitly recognize that rights and values exist regardless of cultural identity, so that all people deserve self management, equity, solidarity, and liberty, and so that while society protects all people’s right to affiliate freely and fosters diversity, its core values are universal.
- guarantee free entry and exit to and from all cultural communities in society including affirming that communities that do have free entry and exit can be under the complete self determination of their members, so long as their policies and actions don't conflict with society's laws.
The organization seeks international relations such that:
- international institutions put an end to imperialism in all its forms including colonialism, neo colonialism, neo liberalism, etc.
- international institutions are internationalist in that they diminish economic disparities in countries’ relative wealth while also protecting cultural and social patterns interior to each country from external violation and facilitating international entwinement and ties as people desire.
The organization’s broad action agenda or program, while of course regularly updated and adapted, nonetheless always:
- seeks to incorporate seeds of the future in its present projects at least regarding class, race, gender, sexual, age, and power relations, both in the ways members act as well as by actively building institutions that represent the values of the movement and which the organization can present as liberating alternatives to the status quo it combats.
- seeks to constantly grow support and membership among the class, nationality, and gender constituencies it claims to aid.
- seeks to learn from and seek unity with audiences far wider than its own membership, including emphasizing attracting younger generations and affirmatively empowering younger members and of course participating in, supporting, building, and aiding diverse social movements and struggles.
- seeks changes in society both for citizens to enjoy immediately, and also to establish by the terms of its victories and even more so by the means used in its organizing, a likelihood that citizens will pursue and win more change in the future.
- seeks to connect efforts, resources, and lessons across continents and from country to country, even as it also recognizes that strategies suitable to different places, and times will differ.
- seeks short term changes by its own actions and programs and by support of larger movements and projects as its affected members decide, both internationally and by country and also locally, including addressing global warming, arms control, war and peace, the level and composition of economic output, agricultural relations, education, health care, income distribution, duration of work, gender roles, racial relations, media, law, legislation, etc., as its members choose.
- seeks to develop mechanisms that provide financial, legal, employment, and emotional support to its members so that its members can be in a better position to participate as fully as they wish and negotiate the various challenges and sometimes negative effects of taking part in radical actions.
- works to substantially improve the life situations of its members, including aiding their feelings of self worth, their knowledge, skills, and confidence, their mental, physical, sexual, and spiritual health, and even their social ties and engagements and leisure enjoyments.
- sets up internal structures and defines its action agenda to facilitate everyone’s participation in the organization, including, when possible, offering childcare at meetings and events, finding ways to reach out to those who might be immersed in kinship duties, and aiding those with busy work schedules due to multiple jobs, monitoring and responding to sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia as they may be manifested internally, and having diverse roles in projects suitable to people with different situations.
- seeks means to develop, debate, disseminate, and advocate truthful news, analysis, vision, and strategy among its members and also in the wider society, including developing and sustaining needed media and means of face to face communication.
- uses diverse methods of agitation and struggle from educational efforts to rallies and marches, to demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, and direct actions, to win gains and build movements.
- places a very high burden of proof on utilizing violence, including cultivating a decidedly non violent attitude.
- assesses engaging in electoral politics case by case, including cultivating a very cautious electoral attitude.
The organization’s structure and policy:
- seeks to be internally classless and self-managing including structuring itself so that a minority who are initially disproportionately endowed with needed skills, information, and confidence do not form a formal or an informal decision-making hierarchy, leaving less prepared members to follow orders or perform only rote tasks.
- strives to implement the self management norm that "each member has say proportional to the degree they are effected" in its decision-making structures.
- guarantees groups of members rights to organize “currents” and guarantees these “currents” full rights of democratic debate.
- welcomes and even celebrates internal debate and dissent, making room, as possible, for contrary views to exist and be tested alongside preferred views.
- respects diversity, so that continental, national, regional, city, and local chapters can respond to their own circumstances and implement their own programs so long as their choices do not interfere with the shared goals and principles of the organization as a whole or with other local groups addressing their own situations.
- provides extensive opportunities for people to participate in organizational decision making, including engaging in deliberation with others so as to arrive at the most well-considered decisions and also implementing mechanisms for carrying out collective decisions and for the membership to assure that the decisions have been carried out correctly.
- strives to provide transparency regarding any actions by elected or delegated leaders with a high burden of proof for secreting any agenda to avoid repression or for any other reason.
- provides the membership with a mechanism to recall any leaders or representatives who the members believe are not adequately representing them.
- provides internal means for fairly, peacefully, constructively - and non destructively - resolving internal disputes.
- apportions empowering and disempowering tasks among its members to ensure that no individuals control the organization by having a relative monopoly on information or position.
- expects its members to participate in the life of the organization actively, including taking collective responsibility for it and presenting a unified voice in action.
- incorporates its members in developing, debating, and deciding on proposals, and treats lack of participation as a serious problem to be addressed whenever it surfaces
Adding a bit more on practical approach of the organization?
By Diaz aldecoa, Oscar at Mar 19, 2010 14:01 PM
In my opinion, the poll and the organization description are very thoughtful and well formed, though still there is something that I miss:
- I think the people behind Parecon have a very healthy approach towards putting ideas into practice. For instance, assuming the challenge of setting up real participatory businesses that incarnate parecon values. However, when reading the description, I don't perceive that practical approach (possibly because it has been intended so for reasons I cannot think of right now) and believe that someone could fear a tilt towards an 'intellectual organization'.
At the moment I would not join an organization to discuss theoretical paradigms with other people. I honestly believe it would be a great thing to do, but given the little time I have left after paying attention to other responsibilities, I need to carefully choose what organizations I commit my time to. In my personal case, I place more interest on organizations which try to act and transform our immediate reality (and I believe that the organization you are considering is of this sort).
I would join an organization of people that seeks the way to *empower* themselves and others, sharing experiences, analyzing success and failure cases in other places, training new people, and so on. In that organization of course there could be theoretical debates, though it won't be as important as the creative struggle to affect the present reality.
Please excuse my English, since I am not a native English speaker.
With my best wishes,Óscar Díaz
Reply this comment
Re: Adding a bit more on practical approach of the organization?
By Albert, Michael at Mar 19, 2010 14:55 PM
Hi Oscar,
Not sure why you have the impression that this organization - if it existed - wouldn't be doing the things you indicate - surely it would. Perhaps you missed the part of the description about broad action program - and the how the rest all relates to that?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Adding a bit more on practical approach of the organization?
By H, Joe at May 18, 2010 22:13 PM
Hello all,
Maybe the point is that the list somewhat emphasises "internal" actions -- things to do with the members themselves-- rather than "external" actions, by which I mean actions that effect people other than members. Hopefully it's a matter of presentation. Personally, for instance, I would like to be stongly assured that my group will make a difference in society, and not just be a (however internally excellent) back-patting bubble which has little interaction with and impact in the outside world (these things happen). Oscar, is this your concern?
"External" actions have not been neglected in the list: joining larger campaigns, media work, outreach etc. are mentioned. But because things are (perhaps necessarily) put in rather broad terms, I did not get much of a sense of exicting and inspiring concrete actions from reading the list -- there is much more on long-term aims and principles than practical actions, for example. I don't know what can be done about this while maintaining some generality, but it was my sense on reading this draft. Maybe the external actions can be grouped and brief examples given, including partipatory businesses.
In the PPS-UK, which I take to be a very similar organisation to the one proposed, people have mainly been doing what they can in this early stage of small membership: (a) communicating their ideas to other people in progressive movements (b) joining in larger campaigns ("climate camp", anti-fascist stuff, immigrant support etc.). We are also getting our act together to reach out to other socially concerned people, which I take to be an important goal, and the related task of encouraging more (and more active) members. But prospective new members need to be inspired with concrete short and medium term plans too. Otherwise we will be in the "small membership" stage for a lot longer that we need to be, I fear.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Adding a bit more on practical approach of the organization?
By Albert, Michael at May 19, 2010 12:58 PM
Hi,
The reason why any discussion of a new organization, creating one that doesn't exist, spends more time on its structure and internal relations, etc., then on its outward facing program, is twofold - the latter is a prerequisite for the former, and, as well, program is something that is decided by membership, in whatever contexts they face, not before the fact and by people who aren't even, as yet, members...
To make it crass, imagine five close folks form an organization - they don't spend much time worry about its structure and decision making, etc. etc., because they are such close allies and friends - but they do hammer out a five year action program. Now they go out to seek members - they are asking people to join something totally vague as to what being in it means, to carry out five years of inspiring program, which, however, the new members - which means almost all members, had no say in deciding, and have no means to even change...
Okay, it is a caricature, perhaps - but it does point up the issue of the need for structure and internal clarity...
So when you say, "Personally, for instance, I would like to be stongly assured that my group will make a difference in society, and not just be a (however internally excellent) back-patting bubble which has little interaction with and impact in the outside world (these things happen). Oscar, is this your concern?"
The answer is, of course! The whole point is to affect society, indeed history - but the prior step is having a process and organizational structure and methods able to sustain such activity - and then, the activity that is undertaken can be that which is decided by members, in context.
> "External" actions have not been neglected in the list: joining larger campaigns, media work, outreach etc. are mentioned. But because things are (perhaps necessarily) put in rather broad terms, I did not get much of a sense of exicting and inspiring concrete actions from reading the list --
Again, first, thinking about a new organization now, we don't know now what is needed later - in the form of program - but, more - program varies from country to country, city to city, even neighborhood to neighborhood, and workplace to workplace - so what is very specific and inspiring and worthy and workable in one situation, would seem off the mark, and maybe even counterproductive, in another. And the same holds over time, week to week, month to month, year to year.
Because strategy and program are contextual to time and place, and because they should be decided by those to be involved, the task in conceiving and creating organization is to create a tool that is able to arrive at inspiring plans, and implement them in different times and places, and in accord with the true aims and will of its growing group of members. Thus, at the outset, the focus isn't a few people discussing program, but conceiving means of many people later arriving at and sustaining program, while continuing to grow...
> there is much more on long-term aims and principles than practical actions, for example. I don't know what can be done about this while maintaining some generality, but it was my sense on reading this draft. Maybe the external actions can be grouped and brief examples given, including partipatory businesses.
I thought something like that was present, perhaps not... I think we can't really change the poll itself, this late in the game, though of course where people go with the ideas is totally flexible, naturally...
> In the PPS-UK, which I take to be a very similar organisation to the one proposed,
I agree that it is...
> ...people have mainly been doing what they can in this early stage of small membership: (a) communicating their ideas to other people in progressive movements (b) joining in larger campaigns ("climate camp", anti-fascist stuff, immigrant support etc.). We are also getting our act together to reach out to other socially concerned people, which I take to be an important goal, and the related task of encouraging more (and more active) members.
Excellent, but when you describe it here, I think it is not much different than in the poll, general, broad, indicative - and awaiting more people and more specific contexts to become more precise - even though the poll discussion is many steps earlier than your work...
> But prospective new members need to be inspired with concrete short and medium term plans too. Otherwise we will be in the "small membership" stage for a lot longer that we need to be, I fear.
Agreed. But suppose your group was established as a dictatorship, with Vladimir ruling - or as an assembly line for carrying out the will of folks in Rome, say, and so on. Then, from day one, it would be doomed...even if it was talking about brilliant campaigns, demands, etc. On the other hand, if it is creating worthy structure and foundations, even with zero mention of program (which is a bit too little) later, it can arrive at actions based on its membership and be fine...
In other words, don't think you can have national, regional, much less international program - nor even city or more local program - before you have sufficient members in those domains to decide on it and to work together to carry it out - but you do need to have some clarity about what a member is, how the group takes decisions, etc., to have a group at all, or members at all, or a program they control. And so on.
i doubt there is disagreement here - honestly...
Reply this comment
Growing like Bacteria !
By Wahhaj, Zahed at Mar 18, 2010 14:15 PM
I would join this kind of group easily, but I have no idea how the group would grow.
Inspired By Michael Albert's ideas, I've been thinking about growing non-hierachical groups.
We have many Znetter in the same city who have never met.
There are easily a quarter million people left facebook pages alone (e.g. Michael Moores page).
If we grow small groups from 5 to 10 in number, and split just six times (once every two months) we can have 16 million revolutionaries in a year !
Yes, I'm dreaming.
Why would the groups grow ? And why would they be revolutionaries ?
Are there some core principles that will make the groups grow and spread
while replicating the core principles again and again ?
These principles must encourage and reassure people that their voices won't be lost in a
sea of dissent.
Instead, they must believe that their ideas for positive effect will be given
leverage. Indeed, they must believe that they themselves will be strengthened by the group.
I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING CORE PRINCIPLES:
1. Grow the groups only to sizes (10-15) where people can still hear each other and then split, and then grow again.
2. Debate core philosophies from the right, to libertarianism, to the left.
This will give people confidence to talk to anyone.
3. No Hierarchy inside the groups.
4. Give everyone their time to speak. Remember we are growing seeders with the powers of persuation.
5. Be diverse in talent, experience, gender, race and class, as much as possible, otherwise people won't join.
6. Visit other groups to help strengthen the core principals.
7. Bring in experts to learn from them, but do not take orders from anyone.
8. Use the principals of participatory planning to plan action.
9. Improve the core principals and seed more groups with them.
10. Encourage, encourage, encourage and learn, learn, learn, so your group grows.
And then we invite people with something like the following:
" If we think our ideas are legitimate and valid, then we should find out where they came from, if we think our opponents are wrong, then we should read what they read, let them tell us where their beliefs came from. It is our belief that by the core principles, the best ideas will spread. From the legitimacy of our beliefs, we will grow stronger.
At any instance, we are just a seed, just a spark
and we must plant millions of seeds and light millions of sparks.
"
One thing that's clear, is that planning councils that demonstrate participatory democracy
in action would encourage people a lot.
What could go wrong ?
It is easy for people to see the promise in coming together, actually seeing each other talk,
getting inspired, educating, energizing each other.
But as a left anarchist,
I wouldn't want to be drowned in group of 20 unlike thinkers, and at the same time,
I don't want to be in a box with just anarchists.
The ideal situation is that we are able to develop ideas for education and action,
with someone who appreciates our understanding and background. The same circumstances should be desirable to regular republicans or democrats in the group. Thus, everyone needs a like-thinking partner within the group.
Unpleasant arguments, which are not enlightening, may destroy the spirit of these
groups. So people would benefit from an attitude that it's okay to make our case
tomorrow.
Also, people should be encouraged to find groups where they think the
atmosphere is healthy. Thus, people should visit various groups, join
if they like, or provide needed advise or personalities to strengthen the groups.
Another question is, can we offer ideas about what people can do when they meet.
Discuss, present, argue their most urgent ideas ?
Read most revelatory passages from historical, anthropological or other text they are currently reading.Share articles, video news and documentaries they have recently found ?
Discuss how they are going to act and what proposals are coming from other groups ?
I think we should begin by Znetters, in each city, meeting and figuring out if we
can seed these groups.
Awaiting your thoughts and your inspiration,
-Zahed.
Reply this comment
Re: Growing like Bacteria !
By Albert, Michael at Mar 18, 2010 15:39 PM
Zahed, Hi.
I think your ideas are very very sensible and plausible, and obviously motivated by the desire that any group which begins - succeeds - but I don't think it is time, yet, to do more than at most offer your ideas as you have because I think actively discussing such ideas, and then acting on what appeals to people, in many variants and styles, will make very good sense only if a project goes forward. Even then, however, about many organizational and practical matters "different strokes for different folks" or for different groups, all within a larger whole, will surely make sense, both because conditions make different approaches better or worse, and to try options and test their merits, etc. So the task isn't to whittle down methods to a "best set" via some kind of debate and vote - but to brainstorm lots of methods consistent with overall principles and aims, and have people inclined to try them do so, and see how they fare.
But in any event, the first question is not what array of diverse methods might various people involved in efforts to build a new organization employ where they are doing their work, but rather, should an effort commence committed to some minimalist list of defining features principles, such as those in the poll, to try to create a new organization?
How does anyone decide how he or she feels about that?
Well, the poll will hopefully provide some information about receptivity to the broad ideas, and then based on that information and their own impressions from the rest of their experiences, people will hopefully be able to assess what they think are the prospects of more people than themselves getting productively involved. And, then, if many people think that the prospects for growing involvement are good enough, one hopes some subset who share that optimism will have the time and inclination to work to make it happen.
How many people does one have to anticipate becoming involved to in turn have informed hope of serious growth and thus of a lasting organization emerging?
I don't know.
I could imagine some people feeling that just five or ten eager and industrious people in a town or city would be enough to generate a project, and in time to grow a chapter of a larger organization, perhaps with a number of component small collectives of the sort you mention, finally tied all together nationally and internationally.
But I could also imagine people feeling that starting such work with only five, or ten, or even fifteen or twenty or fifty or a hundred folks in some locale would not be enough. They might feel that even with that number, given our difficulties reaching out, etc., an effort would not be able to grow fast enough to withstand feelings of isolation and loss, frustration and doubt, leading not to growth but to shrinkage.
Getting started is the hardest step, in many respects. It involves an act of will, almost hubris - based on very little or problematic evidence. There are examples through history, sometimes of a handful of people kicking off something momentous, sometimes of hundreds and even thousands of people kicking up a bit of noise, and rather rapidly fading away.
Most people's assessment of whether to act or not looks a little like this. I know that for the same situation with the same group of people undertaking some optimistic effort - if it works, they were brilliant and correct. If it fails, they were naively wasting their time, or worse. And then, given that, I think the odds are bad so I will avoid being wrong by not acting at all.
My own take is a bit different than that, and comes from a German Revolutionary from the early 20th Century, Rosa Luxumbourg - "you lose, you lose, you lose, you win." You don't know when you win, you don't even know if it will be you, or others following you, who will win - but you do know, with very high probability, if you don't risk loss, if you don't in fact lose, you won't ever not contribute much to winning...
This doesn't mean "go for it" is the only possible answer to every possible query, but it does change the calculus, at least for me...from the glass half empty mindset when it looks to be actually three quarters full - to the glass half full mindset when it looks to be actually only a quarter full.
But, first things first - just a poll...to refine a bit more, make public, take, and then assess the results,
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Growing like Bacteria !
By Wahhaj, Zahed at Mar 29, 2010 10:17 AM
Michael, Thanks for your very kind reply! I took your advice and posted a slightly more formal draft of this algorithmic strategy to Zblogs. Hope, people criticize it and help bring it to maturation.
Also, I finally found and took the ReSoc Poll and took it. Hope this poll comes out soon.
Reply this comment
NOTE: Clarification?
By Evans, Mark at Mar 17, 2010 22:58 PM
I wonder if a note at the beginning clarifying the difference between this potential new international organisation (as part of the ReSoc Project) and the call to form a Fifth International (by the Venezuelans) might be helpful in avoiding possible confusion. Obviously this potential new international organisation might be part of a future Fifth International - but they are not the same thing. Some people might not realise that, especially as both topics are running at the same time on ZNet.
Reply this comment
Re: NOTE: Clarification?
By Albert, Michael at Mar 18, 2010 15:02 PM
Mark, Hi,
Probably right - I think I figured that since it was the third draft, and earlier ones said as much, it was unlikely many folks who hadn't seen the prior content but who did know abotu the other proposal would be seeing this. Probably an error.
Reply this comment
TEST
By Gmail, Rafael at Mar 16, 2010 23:20 PM
Hi Michael,
This is a test.
Reply this comment
Six suggestions
By Ji, Swaraj at Mar 15, 2010 10:44 AM
This organizational description is one of the more thoughtful and hopeful things I've read.
Reply this comment
Re: Six suggestions
By Albert, Michael at Mar 16, 2010 16:44 PM
Hi Carl,
Thanks for the kind words and serious attention...
> 1. Make explicit the abstract ethical perspective that unifies the various points of the proposal
I agree in general, but remember, first, this is just a poll and there is only so much we can ask a person to read in order to answer a few questions. Second, this is a poll - and about finding initial interest, not settling any final definition - which is for people later, if there are enough eager to participate!
When we go live with the poll we are thinking about giving it its own full page, so that it would have the questions and limited description, and then perhaps some links to related materials, plus ways for people to comment and display of the comments, etc. We are still thinking on how to do it...
I should say, as well, there are two different, and perhaps confusing, things up online on ZNet - one is a proposal about things a project creating a new international ought to assess, discuss, and hopefully affirm. That’s the Proposal for a Participatory Socialist International. If you look at the Resoc Poll and you look at that proposal, you will see that that proposal reflects very very closely the shared positions that emerged in Resoc and that it would also allow all kinds of diverse overlapping but also sometimes seriously disagreeing groups, projects, parties, and movements under one broad rubric. in a real sense that proposal is trying to establish a framework and mechanism that would allow an International to be constantly growing even as it embodies conflicting viewpoints, yet also able to have program, to act in the world, and so on.
The poll idea you are commenting on is quite different from all that. It is a poll to see the level of support - or dissent - regarding a new coherent single organization of a particular sort, tied to a particular quite broad and flexible, and one hopes always growing, perspective - but still one particular one, not others.
I think almost everyone and perhaps literally everyone in Resoc would if asked personally state strong agreement with the substance of the proposal about a new International, worrying only about possibility, often enough, however, to feel that involvement would be a waste of time. I also think many Resoc participants would like, though have even more worries about feasibility, the organizational vision in the poll you are addressing, but I also know many others would not like it. The poll does not take off from Resoc per se, and certainly does not try to embody only that which appeals to everyone in Resoc - but, instead, takes from the broad spectrum of activities and thinking that has been associated with participatory economics and participatory society - which is only one perspective that existed within Resoc. One could imagine, for example, others in Resoc offering other short polls to see support for or dissent from other frameworks.
So while any organization worth much is going to be flexible and growth oriented not just in numbers of people involved, but in ideas and aims - you do have to start from some initial point if there is going to be an organization at all, and the initial point, in this case, is what the description in the poll suggests.
You call what is needed a germ of insight - well, okay, but what if there are a lot of folks who believe they share more than a germ? What if there are a lot of folks who feel they share, say, the content of the description in the poll? It may not be the case. It may be the case. So, basically, we are hoping to see...
You are concerned that there is no underlying philosophy or world view in the brief description - or that it is only implicit. But isn’t this the point in some sense. Rather than setting all that out and saying, sign on or not - the poll says here is a minimalist set of features that a set of people (hopefully) believes are key to developing a very worthy and desirable organization. How many agree? If it is a lot, okay, then the now enlarged set of people can work more, together, and with others, elaborating the minimalist features into a framework sufficient to define a flexible new organization. It not, then they can’t - at least for now.
You note that, you “believe that the grounding of this proposed organization is inherently ethical in nature, and that its core values are centered around the concept of cooperative diversity (aka, "integrity," which is also equivalent to "being," and which has as one facet "sustainability"). Okay, suppose there are a thousand, or ten thousand people that say they like the idea - once the poll is up. At any rate, enough so that the project to create this new organization develops momentum...in that case you, and others, would present your views, etc. People will differ, and hash things out - perhaps the result would be an organization with structure and commitments but more than one set of underlying perspectives consistent.
You say: “Therefore, my suggestion would be to incorporate the more abstract perspective that underlies the present organizational description into the next draft of that description, as a mission statement.” But this seems to me to contradict your earlier points. Why not see the interest that exists for the minimalist features. If the interest is high, okay, embark on more steps, ultimately arriving, via far more engagement and discussion, and so on - at the point you recommend or some other that would be even better. The idea here is to offer a minimalist basis for embarking on the journey...together.
You add “More specifically, I would suggest that support for cooperative diversity (integrity) is the mission that is already inherent within the present organizational description, and would suggest that this should be stated explicitly in that description.”
I think for you, “that every point listed, including those that make no mention of diversity or cooperation, is motivated by the desire to support cooperative diversity,” is the case precisely because those are the terms that organize your thought - and because the descriptions in the poll are minimalist, and you find them congenial. I think the features emerge, instead, from a stance that elevates solidarity, diversity, equity, justice, and especially self management. But it doesn’t matter, at this stage. What matters, I think, is whether there are a lot of us who would be excited by an effort to create organization with the features that are described. If so, then there is reason to take further steps.
You point out that “In the compilation "Real Utopia," I write that in `battles around income, decision making, allocation and other facets of economic life...the rhetoric should advance comprehension of ultimate values’” and then you add - “If we are to do that, then it will be important to say what those ultimate values are” I agree, but I think that can better emerge from a collective process, even though you, and I, think we already have for ourselves elements of that in place, and even though the underlying framework you have, and the one I have, would at least sound and many be different.
> 2. Incorporate the ethical perspective described above into a catalytic outreach approach that could be called "integrity-based organizing."
Maybe. But it will be up to a new organization’s members to decide what they do, and how they do it - beyond the minimalist norms and commitments that they initially establish as their group definition. Agreeing or not about all that comes after, not before, greater collective exchange...
And even more important, while a powerful organization will need shared agreement on some matters - that is what the description tries to begin to address - on many other matters, at any moment there will be many contending views in a good organization. I suspect, indeed, on precisely the views you raise, there is neither need for, nor benefit that would come from having universal agreement, Rather much better to have diverse attitudes about methods, strategy, etc. etc. and experiments and projects undertaken with each, to discern what works and what doesn’t with all members hoping not the that views they currently hold “win” but that whatever views proves most valuable spread most widely, though always challenged to find still better.
> 3. Describe a conjunctural perspective that places the group within the present historical moment
Again, this is just a poll - not a mission statement, not a program. Etc. And, more, about all such things one would expect, even hope, an organization would always have dissenting themes and trends and subgroups present. The poll is about mimimalist features needed and perhaps desired by many, for an organization they would want to be in.
You ask, “Do we need to think in general terms about how this group will intersect with the present deteriorating situation? Do we need to think in particular about how the group will deal with the other, non-constructive, approach to this disintegration, the scapegoating and downward hostility of a nascent U.S. neo-fascism?” Well sure, and if this group, this new organization existed, its members would have to think about, and discuss, and experiment with contending views and methods regarding a host of concerns and possibilities including those you mention. But honestly, I don’t think it would have to reach some kind of single minded view about most, or perhaps any of them, and would be better off if it instead continually embodied contending views, even while on some minimal list of features it had shared agreement. But in any event, the organization doesn’t exist. Rather, all that exists, here in this poll, is a minimal set of features, to see if there is a basis on which to explore further...
> 4. Some issues regarding the "broad action agenda or program" section
And what you mention are all important issues, but for an organization’s members, not for a poll seeing if there is fledgling, initial interest...
> 5. A minor issue regarding the "cultural and community relations" section:
This point is more relevant to the poll itself...
I think you are correct that free exit is obvious, free entry much less so, and that read in some of course unintended ways is even negative. We will work on trying to get that cleared up.
> 6. A minor issue with the "cultural and community relations" section:
Ditto to 5...
> [Practical note: The email I received regarding this request for comment did not include a link to the online comments page, and it takes a little effort to find that page on the Web site, which may reduce your feedback.]
Agreed, an oversight...sorry!
Reply this comment
Re: Six suggestions
By Ji, Swaraj at Mar 17, 2010 13:26 PM
Michael,
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Six suggestions
By Albert, Michael at Mar 17, 2010 17:57 PM
Carl,
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, on a few counts.
First, this is a poll about some views, not about all views, and is not a mission statement, etc. So trying to hassle though the points that you raise, including delving deeply into your particular abstract formulations, is I think, not real relevant at this point.
I know you feel differently, but that is how I feel, so I don't want to give it too much time. Maybe others will, and that would be excellent, but what I would recommend is that you write an essay, of whatever length you require, and post that in the blog system, offering your world view, etc. That would be the place to discuss your world view, etc.
Second, though I admit that think this whole exchange is orthogonal to the poll, and while I would be happy to explore it some other place since I don't think it helps the process under way here, I certainly accept your saying that you think your single value leads yourself to the array of values implicit in the poll, but I don't accept it is the only place from which one can get to those views.
More, that's not just an opinion, or a claim or argument. I I got to the values implicit in the poll from other starting points and I suspect very nearly everyone else who will answer the poll positively, will have done so too.
More important, nor I do think there is any point in looking for one philosophical or value foundation for an organization, or movement, or politics, or life generally - a single claim on which all others can and more, must, be built. In fact I think doing that is potentially quite counter productive.
Giving that desire the best spin I can, even in mathematics or physics, much less in social matters, it is quite possible, and in fact common for people to work from different sets of axioms, etc. Why opt for one over another if they are literally equivalent in their actual substance, as in these cases they are?
Sometimes it is pragmatism that causes a particular person or group to go one way and not another - as in, one starting point is easier to communicate, to use, to not misuse, etc. Sometimes it is just personal preference. Sometimes it is a hunch, or bias, about which is more likely to propel new insights. And so on.
In the social realm, however, it is also possible not only that two different starting points - a value or set of values, etc. - can be and generally are not equivalent - but that that is almost always the case, and, more, even if they are in some sense technically the same, for reasons like those at play in math or physics, but far more powerful. They can tend to take their adherents (I am tempted to say virtually inexorably) to very different conclusions.
More, even one starting point for different users in social and political thought and action, can take them to different places. This happens all the time. Saying that you think the views I have, or that some other group has, have emerged from the foundation that you favor is very odd to me. To say they are in your view consistent with that foundation is fair enough. But to say they emerged from it, or stand on it, etc., that would be going way too far and I get the impression that is the kind of claim you want to make. In fact, I still don't even know what the foundation that constitutes your "axioms" is, and I would be very surprised if I have ever based my thoughts on it, or even if I would agree that they somehow lead inexorably to values I favor.
So why do I when thinking about economic vision, say, often start with solidarity, diversity, equity, and self management? Why not, just solidarity, or just self management, say? It is because I am looking for a short workable list, easy to explain, easy to work with, which however, is long enough and close enough to practical outcomes so that it tends to quickly and easily propel the adherent to useful insights. If someone starts elsewhere, and gets to pretty much the same place - in my mind we agree about what is most important to agree about.
I agree with you that most often each new feature one adds onto a list is likely to cause some who like the list to no longer like it, though sometimes it will also attract new folks to supporting the list, folks for whom the absence of the feature was a deal breaker.
So the point of adding features - actually - has to do with both those implications of doing so. The point is to find how many agree with, like, would be willing to work in context of, all the features, because none are left off that they feel must be present for them to want to join, and because they feel none are included that would deter them from joining.
Offering an abstract statement of a single value, or even a few values - is unlikely to cause any leftist to dissent, which means doing that would unearth the entire left, or much more, not the part of the left that could work well together in a particular type of organization. Both those tasks are worthwhile, but this poll is only doing the narrower of the two.
One last point. Say such a new organization is formed. Say I am in it, you are in it, Sally the Buddhist is in it, Stan the Marxist is in it, Sarah the anarchist is in it, Bill the Catholic or Jew or Hindu is in it, people of diverse underlying beliefs and philosophies and ways of being are in it, and so on. If we all favor and accept and abide what this new organization has defined as its minimum list of commitments and practices for membership, then in my view the fact that we have different underlying attachments, etc. is a big plus, not a big minus. If one abstract attachment inexorably leads to views that are contrary to the organizational definition - say that leninism does that or a very elitist conception that elevates men over women, or some cultural community, etc. - okay, then there won't be adherents of that particular abstract viewpoint present, but it won't be because they had some abstract view which was explicitly ruled out. Rather it will be because they don't like or could not abide the organization's defining features, or other organization members felt that to be the case.
You ask at the end of your comment "By all means, the mission of the organization should be honed by a collective process. So should the specifics. But the question is, who are you trying to bring together to participate in that process, and on what basis, and is that basis best described by specifics along with an abstract unifying perspective, or by specifics alone?"
I think, as you have said, that the specifics that are in the poll description more or less carry, in a subtle way, various abstract tendencies or allegiances, but, yes, we are posing a few questions to try to see how many people could and would relate positively to a particular type of new organization, with at least the features indicated.
Exactly that. It is a poll, addressed to Z's audience, via the web site. That's all it is. If there is a wide and positive response, maybe more can emerge! We will see.
Reply this comment
Re: Six suggestions
By Ji, Swaraj at Mar 18, 2010 12:29 PM
This is what happens when someone stumbles into a discussion without proper orientation. And the site is well set up for me to gain that orientation, so there is no excuse for it. Yes, I came here with a lot of baggage, and yes I did open it on the wrong platform as a train was coming by, and everything blew out on the tracks. So now I need to go back and put everything in its proper place - perhaps in a separate article, as you suggest.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Six suggestions
By Albert, Michael at Mar 18, 2010 14:59 PM
Okay, very good, and certainly no harm done!!
Reply this comment
reply to Carl Davidson
By Jones, Douglas at Mar 15, 2010 09:29 AM
The comment command is not working.
I thinkyou have misconstrued my post.
Daly under his proposed no growth economy sees growth as being made up mostly of human intellectual growth since as he assumes growth under present capitalism is not possible. My post agrees no further material growth is possible but to survive we must stop climate pollution now and reduce atmospheric and sea water Carbon. Taking the projections of climate scientists and a figure of 350 ppm CO2 postulated by Hansen based on past history time to do is short. The big hurdle is in changing attitudes and the usual vehicle to do this the media. This is a creatureof capitalism as equally seem to be governments. This will be a major effort which if succesful will not only allow continued survival but many of the features proposed in the N I. Starting a whole new system as proposed takes even more effort so effort per unit of problem decreases.
Reply this comment
Verbosity : )
By J, Miles at Mar 14, 2010 21:38 PM
Hello all,
I like the majority of this survey. Two strong reactions that I felt after reading it:
1) There is too much text! It seems like so much text defeats the exploratory purpose of this survey. So, for example, maybe the number of bullet items in the description of the organization could be reduced, and each remaining bullet item be limited to one sentence of phrase, not multiple phrases that flesh out subtleties of the point being made.
2) I think many people are not prepared to really conceptualize some of the workings of a participatory management/organization. Thus, much of the discussion of "member debating", "member participation", "self management", and related phrases may fall on deaf ears. Worse, they may frighten people away. I completely understand not wanting to "spin" any aspects of the proposed organization, but maybe including many of these concepts without context (concrete examples which the public can relate to) will make otherwise interested people hesitate.
By the way, is there a wiki or other central location where drafts and comments are more clearly organized and documented? (I feel like I am coming in to this discussion late, and don't want to repeat what others have already mentioned and are dealing with.)
Cheers!!
Reply this comment
Re: Verbosity : )
By J, Miles at Mar 15, 2010 00:21 AM
I think Michael Albert's response to a previous comment also satisfies, or responds to, my reactions listed above.
"As such, of course I and others with similar views are interested not in the widest possible support or formulations, but in finding out who likes these particular formulations." -M. Albert.
Also, for anyone else coming into this late like me, I found previous comments through searching through Albert's previous blogs about this poll.
Reply this comment
Neo-Transcendentalism?
By Davidson, Carl at Mar 14, 2010 20:26 PM
How does one 'transcend' markets and plans? We can abolish some and restrict others, but transcend?
And I'm in favor of public and worker ownership, not non-ownership.
The problem with this from my perspective, Michael, is that it's still mainly a referendum on Parecon, but by walking backwards through the rear door.
As such, it wouldn't make sense for me or any other socialists who think some markets are going to be around for a good length of time, and think socialism is going to have at least three classes, rather than 'classlessness', also for quite a while, to sign such a thing.
Which is fine, for your purposes. I put out my own 'ElevenTalking Points on 21st Century Socialism' to see who who sign on to our vision.
We'll have to see how it all works out.
Reply this comment
Re: Neo-Transcendentalism?
By Albert, Michael at Mar 14, 2010 21:53 PM
Carl,
You don't like the word "transcend" so much that it moves you to ridicule? Wow. It means to go beyond, to do better by some standards - and of course the rest of the poll evidences what those standards are, and in what manner it goes beyond... And it isn't markets and planning, but two old brands of socialism, which is to say 20th century socialism, that the poll talks about transcending. It speaks of markets and planning per se, later.
And Carl - unlike the proposal about an International, posted earlier and still up, this poll, not yet up, is about a new organization - not a compendium of organizations.
As such, of course I and others with similar views are interested not in the widest possible support or formulations, but in finding out who likes these particular formulations.
What is described is not exactly parecon/parsoc, but somewhat broader, but, you are right, that it is not so much broader that a proponent of market or centrally planned socialism would likely answer affirmatively, or a leninist, say. Or so I would guess.
Thinking markets are going to be around for a long time, however, is not even relevant. I want to abolish markets - but I know they are not going away tomorrow... Favoring markets for allocation, on the other hand, rather than preferring a completely different cooperatively negotiated approach more or less as described, is quite relevant. Similarly, thinking classes will be around for a time is again not relevant. Not seeking classlessness on grounds it is too far off, or impossible, or a bad idea, is, however, very relevant.
Think Venezuela, as an example. One can operate in Venezuela seeking to escape market logic and replace markets, to escape class hierarchy and replace the ownership and organizational bases of class division and rule - even realizing it will take time and having to operate, meanwhile, in context of continuing markets and class relations - or one could say, instead, well, you know, given that markets and classes are tenacious, it is better to accept them, employ them, use them, even celebrate them, then to oppose and try to replace them - these are very different stances.
The first might vote positively regarding the features in the poll. The latter would rightly vote negatively to features in the poll. They should be able to get along over a nice meal, if the former hopes the latter are right but believes they are wrong - and thus have mutual respect for their respective tenacity and courage, but even getting along they would likely want to be in very different primary organizations. Of course, in such a case, the one probably wouldn't call the other neo trancendentalist...
And so I agree with you that a person who favors or at least feels there is no point in actively opposing private ownership and the pursuit of surpluses and market allocation and three classes persisting, even as part of the economy they favor, and who doesn't feel these should all be opposed now in any event, as a focus of our thinking and actions, is a person who would answer the poll negatively. That is not a problem with the poll, however.
And the question I am asking folks to provide some help with in this blog post, by the way, isn't would you affirm or reject the described organization - that is what the poll will ask, later.The question I am asking nowis only, is the wording clear, are the questions well formed, and so on....
Reply this comment
WHY I AM NOT A JOINER
By Jones, Douglas at Mar 14, 2010 05:19 AM
I admire and in the main agree with the aims expressed however:-
I think effort along these lines will involve such argumenation as to detract from efforts at solving more immediate and issue related problems.
Wars for resources or climate change will operate to reduce humans to a much smaller population of near scavengers. Which effect will be first in producing change is debatable perhaps to gether. To solve either problem will mean confronting our economic paradigm including its means of distributing products. This means confronting current ideology which believes growth is still possible, substitution will solve shortages and potential profit togther with competition provide the siver bullet of solution. This implies Government action and a degree of demand economy larger than USA had 1940 to 45 quite at odds with current thought. The tools at hand are less than a democracy needs, the source of information is compromised as is government membership for it is no longer the free informed choice of the populace but rather that of lobbies money and position. See Alex Carey
Technology if combined with no growth may cope with climate pollution and perhaps with population multiplied by its consumption, if the latter is limited to necessities locally produced for the most part until population declines.
The biggest problem is to obtain recognition that there is a problem, something no Government is achieving. Effort from those supporting a better world as outlined in the new international directed rather to the acute immediate problems might be tactically fruitful and will set the scene for longer tem strategy....... should we survive!
Reply this comment
Re: WHY I AM NOT A JOINER
By Davidson, Carl at Mar 14, 2010 20:14 PM
Information and knowledge are commodities and social capital, and part of the political economy. Hopefully, this sector will continue to grow ad infinitum, In fact, it's mainly the growth in 'high design' that's going to get us out of this mess. So 'no growth' advocates are ignoring the third wave economy, while trapping themselves in second wave dogmas.
Reply this comment
phrasing
By Olivares, Nicole at Mar 13, 2010 22:04 PM
Hi,
My comments are regarding question 3.
When I first read 3b, I understood "give some time" to mean "wait and see" instead of "give some of my time". Of course, the intended meaning is clear when you compare all responses to question 3, but I think it should read "give some of my time" or "devote some time" for more immediate clarity.
I think 3c has a more negative connotation that (I assume) is intended. I wondered if it was just me... but then I looked up "attutude" in the dictionary and found that one of the definitions is negative. (It can imply hostility or arrogance.) So, I would suggest that it be rephrased, "Wait and see how it develops, hoping..."
Best regards,
Nic
Reply this comment
Re: phrasing
By Olivares, Nicole at Mar 13, 2010 22:06 PM
Oops, of course I meant to write "a more negative connotation THAN intended." :)
Reply this comment
Re: phrasing
By Albert, Michael at Mar 13, 2010 22:42 PM
Adding my won't hurt - it seemed evident, though...
The other question, honestly, the word had no hidden meaning - it just meant, wait and see - will try to fix that xomehow, too...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: phrasing
By Olivares, Nicole at Mar 14, 2010 00:03 AM
Of course it had no hidden meaning. I was just pointing out a possible unintended connotation.
Reply this comment