From: | David Parker <davefparker(at)shaw.ca> |
---|---|
Date: | Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:27:20 -0700 |
Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD |
--- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:(ant)
Georges,=============> G:
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.
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.
=============>
2. Consensus building is a matter of top-down============> G:
propaganda leading
to the bandwagon machinery among suggestible people.
There is no top, nor down, but absolutely equal Forum.
Nor is there any bandwagon, but just the Forum.
Secretary of Kibbutz has no legislative power, only executive, not by(ant)
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.
============>
3. Decisions that are run accordingly can even be==============> G:
correct formally,
but top-down orchestrated substantially by the 1. powerholders.
There is no top, no down, no powerholding and no orchestration. Just a
free debate and decision falling automatically upon reaching a
consensus threshold. ==============>
+1. as for the Kibbutz as a basic point to build up=================> G:
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
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.
Georges.
======================>
Regards, have a good Easter
antonio
Georges Metanomski wrote:
--- Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:dropped
No, Georges.
(Direct) Democracy does not stand in what is
dialectically.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,
mean,Those self-claiming democracy-lovers who do not==============>>> "Democracy" stands for a governance system and not
understand the
difference, even though they are valuable
scientists, are a damage
to (direct) Democracy.
for approaching any 'truth's", whatever it may
from "bottom-up". Voting bottom-up (ir)responsibly (un)criticallysnapshot
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
vote)groups,
support exactly the bottom-up people's governance.
Struggle to promote and implement this structure
is necessarily in the hands of some activist
as at the outset people ignore it. Thus theactivists
of Ha Shomer Ha Zair (HSHZ) battled for over 50years
to implement first DD Kibbutzim (first ones inPoland,
including the one leading the Warsaw GhettoUprising).
HSHZ limited its action to informing, motivatingand
assisting motivated people to create DD Kibbutzim self-governed withKibbutz
the 3 DD functions. Once a
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.
=================