From: Doug Everingham
Date: 13/08/2007

Friends,

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.

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 <rossin@tin.it> [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,

– Doug Everingham

From: "M. Kolar"
Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:33:48 AM Australia/Brisbane
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Dear all,
This is a copy of my post at the WDDM Forum, [www.world-wide-democracy.net] .
I encourage you to place any possible replies directly in the Forum (however, if something relevant comes here, I'll copy it into the Forum):

On July 28, 2007 I attended the Grassroots Social Awareness Festival (organized by Popular Participation Movement, [www.ppmnanaimo.com]. Many interesting local organizations participated. Several were calling for increased participation of citizens in decision making about various local issues (airport expansion, waterfront development). There was also an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist) stand where I picked up various literature. ...........

webmaster