|DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY|
This forum is dedicated to seeking efficient ways on how to promote and spread DD
Dear Doug and WDDM,
The original topic was Mirek thought WDDM should consider Anarchy instead of Democracy as it’s base. To me the two are opposites. Basic Anarchy demands power to the individual (rulers all). Democracy places power in the group, community. Mirek was inspired by [www.ppmnanaimo.com] which is obviously following the Popular Democratic Socialism movement.
I hope we don't find our selves in a war of words, but clarity may be the result.
Doug, if you enter your community meeting, and state from now on we will be Sociocratic. If nobody understands the program and nobody agrees to the program and nobody votes for the program, yet you install the program, than to me that is not “democratic”, it is Anarchy. Individual power.
Doug brought up Sociocracy, however sociocracy is not anarchy.
Sociocracy is the new “thing” and it does have uses. However the first thing you need is willing participants. It is easy to assign a student to sociocracy, it is another matter to find busy people, members of a community who have the time. Those who do have time are generally in certain groups. Students, of course students usually move on. Than the retired, or wealthy may have time. The rest of the population would have “no say”. I subscribe to the sociocracy email list. email@example.com
The recent discussion was on the topic of sociocracy in government. The discussion revealed it seems quite impossible at this time, based on the fact that with millions of
people and numerous governments ie: local, county, state, national it would be terribly time consuming. Sociocracy may be a tool, however it certainly could not involve all people as democracy demands. City of 1 million, 50% registered to vote = 500,000. If 50% are active, than you would have 250,000 people in 25,000 groups. If each group has one initiative, and each group must review each initiative passing through, wow – that is a lot of stuff. Security? I mean computer security gathering Tally's. Of course an “interested party” could hire a person to advance their “interests”.
I believe the Central and South American country's are instituting democratic socialism. This takes the capitalism out of democracy. YAY YAY YAY
Doug goes on; Mirek's philosophy (as expressed below) seems to me hardly distinguishable from that of the Sociocratic Center www.sociocracy.biz or that of Dr Shann Turnbull [Principal, International Institute for Self-governance, PO Box266, Woollahra NSW 1350 Australia, [www.aprim.net] ]
They give examples of how such self-monitoring, transparent, accountable cooperative networks surpass conventional pyramidal hierarchies in durability, efficiency and equity (in private or public enterprises / projects).
Pioneers of group dynamics (study of how members interact in groups), including psychiatric group therapists and some Quaker groups, suggest 12 to 15 people is about the practicable maximum size for a group to arrive at total consensus or at least eventual compromises where no member persists with an objection. Less frequent meetings of larger groups can be tolerated where majority vote is sufficient to satisfy participants, but the more detailed ad specialized their discussions the more care is needed to secure community solidarity.
I see forming specialized groups (law administration, health services, transport experts etc.) as not necessarily against democratic principles. We may need to have them but they need not be exclusive and secretive – they can follow syndicalist or anarchistic principles by ensuring their decision control groups include due representation of all relevant stakeholders (providers, clients, monitors etc.) in cross-liaison with related groups, including those at adjoining 'levels' of complex organizations, much as a living organism has vital organs each specialized for certain functions but 'subservient' / deferring to each other in other functions.
Bruce> I agree, these groups have their interests to express. Unions, schools, business’s, manufacturing, etc also community groups concerned with art, buildings, zoning etc. These groups always form and need to have input through a citizen member of that group. However none of these groups can vote, make initiatives etc. Think tanks, NGO’S also provide information. If they become ‘lobbyists” they should be controlled by law.
Doug continues; > We need to have parents aware of the conflicting trends in the way infants interpret (and deeply absorb) essential interaction / communication patterns: at one extreme hierarchical ('top dog' or unchallengeable parent / monitor and docile follower, the dominance pattern too often expressed in intolerant extremism, rebellion, escapism, mind-altering substance abuse etc.) and the opposite more 'matriarchal' or constructive trend, giving equal say to alternatives, cooperating in the search for common ideals, not seizing on the views of parent-like leaders who seductively claim exclusive compassion, truth, equity or beauty for a leap of faith in a particular divine father, mother Earth, nor for a militantly atheistic view. Dr Antonio Rossin <firstname.lastname@example.org> [www.flexible-learning.org] is participating in a school experiment to test his psychiatric theory that the parents' example of dominance or more flexible consensus-forming lays down a precedent in our first 3 years of social interaction that tends to persist.
Bruce> Always agreed with Antonio’s view on children. We have many great programs here in the US, Open/Closed Family dynamics is included. Antonio's theory would indeed compliment these programs. However those who need such programs often do not enroll. Another matter is schools and government. The “No Tolerance” dictate is still alive and well giving students no rights, and many teachers are not open to the new “JR” who has much to say about everything. “JR” may well be punished for his views. (reaction – violence in schools and family) Than send JR off to the military where he learns the “Chain of Command,” and he becomes totally silent. (stuffing) (Reaction he violently rebels.) So, we must demand more freedom to speak, to write. Presently all those freedom’s are being shut down in the US and many democracy’s from fear.
The gravest fear is fear itself.
Regards, Bruce Eggum
– Doug Everingham
ps we need I&BR
Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
|Anarchism and Direct Democracy||5283||MiKolar||08/11/2007 10:47AM|
|Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||489||BrEggum||08/11/2007 08:38PM|
|Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||386||MiKolar||08/13/2007 09:31AM|
|Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||432||Warren||08/14/2007 03:14AM|
|Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||453||MiKolar||08/21/2007 08:41PM|
|From PVR: Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||443||WebMaster||08/14/2007 10:00PM|
|Re: From PVR: Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||410||BrEggum||09/20/2007 04:47PM|
|From Martin Jackson, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||420||WebMaster||08/14/2007 10:02PM|
|From Antonio Rossin, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||439||WebMaster||08/14/2007 10:05PM|
|From Giorgio Menon, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||466||WebMaster||08/21/2007 08:55PM|
|From echarp, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||420||WebMaster||08/21/2007 08:58PM|
|From Mark Antell, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||425||WebMaster||08/14/2007 10:08PM|
|Re: From Mark Antell, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||396||BrEggum||08/14/2007 11:58PM|
|From Doug Everingham, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||403||WebMaster||08/14/2007 10:11PM|
|Re: From Doug Everingham, Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||441||BrEggum||08/15/2007 04:54AM|
|Re: Anarchism and Direct Democracy||426||MiKolar||08/21/2007 08:01PM|
|Comments of an anarchist on our dicussion||423||MiKolar||09/04/2007 07:08PM|
|Re: Comments of an anarchist on our dicussion||410||Warren||09/06/2007 05:43PM|
|Re: Comments of an anarchist on our dicussion||428||BrEggum||09/20/2007 04:04PM|