Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
> --- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
>
> > Georges,
> >
> > There are some flaws about your three functions (+1)
> > below:
> >
> > 1. Supporting individual proposals is at
> > powerholders' hands, who
> > usually support and select the proposals that are in
> > support to just
> > themselves.
> ==============
> G:
> Once in DD, there is no "powerholder" else than the
> Forum. Support of individual proposals is a function
> of the logistic support, which accepts and dieplays
> proposals for the next step, the debate.
> ==============
(ant)
I agree on what you wrote, that in DD there is no "powerholder" etc.

It is the word "Once" which makes me smile.  You're speaking as
if DD were just out of the door, ready to come in, and as if it were
the political reality we are dealing with.  Unfortunately, the political
reality we have to deal with is another.

> > 2. Consensus building is a matter of top-down
> > propaganda leading
> > to the bandwagon machinery among suggestible people.
> =============
> G:
> There is no top, nor down, but absolutely equal Forum.
> Nor is there any bandwagon, but just the Forum.

(ant)
See above.
> Secretary of Kibbutz has no legislative power, only
> executive, not by representation, but by delegation.
> In practice nobody wants it, as it's more work and
> responsibility without any personal advantage. They
> accept it, when selected by Forum, as a duty, like
> all members of Kubbutz, when selected for some job.
> So, there is no propaganda.
(ant)
It seems to me, the Israeli govt. though based on Kibbuts (your words)
is not the paragon of DD.   Maybe the Israeli Aki Orr will correct me -
hi Aki
> =============
>
> > 3. Decisions that are run accordingly can even be
> > correct formally,
> > but top-down orchestrated substantially by the 1.
> > powerholders.
> ===============
> G:
> There is no top, no down, no powerholding and no
> orchestration. Just a free debate and decision falling
> automatically upon reaching a consensus threshold.
> ===============

(ant)
agreed, but once only in DD
> > +1.  as for the Kibbutz as a basic point to build up
> > a nation, let me
> > CC your suggestion to Akiva Orr (see:
> > http://www.akiorrbooks.org )
> > who is very likely to witness this matter directly.
> >    Hi, Aki
> ==================
> G:
> False info will result in false reactions.
> I said that the experience of Ha Shomer Ha Zair is
> a valuable guideline, but that it has to be ADJUSTED
> not directly applied at the national level.
> In particular the necessary 3 Function E-Platform
> raises for such sizes, as yet unformulated, let alone
> solved problems. I proposed to identify and to
> study them.

(ant)

Any comment, Aki?  Please reply.
In the meantime, let me recall your URL:

http://www.akiorrbooks.org


Regards,

antonio



> Georges.
> =======================
>
> > Regards,   have a good Easter
> >
> > antonio
> >
> >
> > Georges Metanomski wrote:
> >
> > > --- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > No, Georges.
> > > >
> > > > (Direct) Democracy does not stand in what is
> > dropped
> >
> > > > top-down
> > > > to people, be it the Holy Scriptures.
> > > >
> > > > Democracy stands in people becoming capable of
> > > > approaching
> > > > any "truth", the scientific ones included, from
> > > > bottom-up, indeed,
> > > > responsibly and critically, to wit,
> > dialectically.
> >
> > > > Those self-claiming democracy-lovers who do not
> > > > understand the
> > > > difference, even though they are valuable
> > > > scientists, are a damage
> > > > to (direct) Democracy.
> > > ===============
> > > "Democracy" stands for a governance system and not
> > > for approaching any 'truth's", whatever it may
> > mean,
> >
> > > from "bottom-up". Voting bottom-up (ir)responsibly
> > > (un)critically and ignorantly for string theory
> > > against General Relativity would not be democratic
> > > but idiotic.
> > >
> > > The 3 Functions of DD:
> > >
> > > 1.Initiative (supporting individual proposals)
> > > 2.Debate (consensus building)
> > > 3.Decision (upon a consensus threshold; no
> > snapshot
> >
> > >   vote)
> > >
> > > support exactly the bottom-up people's governance.
> > >
> > > Struggle to promote and implement this structure
> > > is necessarily in the hands of some activist
> > groups,
> >
> > > as at the outset people ignore it. Thus the
> > activists
> >
> > > of Ha Shomer Ha Zair (HSHZ) battled for over 50
> > years
> >
> > > to implement first DD Kibbutzim (first ones in
> > Poland,
> >
> > > including the one leading the Warsaw Ghetto
> > Uprising).
> >
> > > HSHZ limited its action to informing, motivating
> > and
> >
> > > assisting motivated people to create DD Kibbutzim
> > > self-governed with the 3 DD functions. Once a
> > Kibbutz
> >
> > > created, HSHZ let it go by itself and stayed away,
> > > unless asked for technical assistance.
> > >
> > > We have a working and successful example and all I
> > >
> > > suggest is to walk in the steps of HSHZ, adjusted
> > > of course for the difference of context. Thus, to
> > > start by considering these adjustments, especially
> > >
> > > for the size moved from a Kibbutz to a nation.
> > >
> > > Georges.
> > > ==================