On July 28, 2007 I attended the Grassroots Social Awareness Festival (organized by Popular Participation Movement). 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. What caught my eye first was the text titled "WHAT IS ANARCHISM?". It is quoted in the inset below. You can also find it in on the Nanaimo Anarchist Network site, while you are there, I also recommend to read WHY DO WE NEED ANARCHISM? - it's about what to do to improve society, something we seem to have hard time here to arrive at).

There was some posts against anarchism in our mailing lists rather recently. I am posting this here because for me the points listed below do constitute exactly what I believe is the Democracy (ideal of Democracy or True Democracy or Direct Democracy). So apparently I am also an anarcho-syndicalist. Note that the Anarchists also have Direct Democracy only as one constituent point in what makes a good society, that is what we called I&R here.

Thus

1. we should really make clear what we understand under the term Direct Democracy. I for one always meant under this term all what is listed in the inset below. And I had this in mind what I accepted to task of the webmaster to help revive WDDM some two years ago.

2. It would be interested to know what others think of the list below. How many do agree that all these points are necessary for a functioning democracy. I suggest that you post your thoughts on this in replies to this post.

3. Do you still have any objections to anarchism?

WHAT IS ANARCHISM?

It does NOT stand for chaos, violence, bomb-throwing or disorder. What it does stand for is:

* Decentralization - Centralization of political and economic power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic structures should be human-scale.
* Liberty – each person should be free to do what they wish providing they do no harm to other people.
* Self-management - Each person should have control over those situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and the community.
* Federation – decentralized groups, whether communities or work places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale" without creating an authoritarian, top-down structure.
* Autonomy – each group or community should have the right to control those aspects which effect it.
* Direct Democracy – Decisions ought to be taken directly by the people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger scale, such as with a federation, recallable delegates are selected.
* Localism – It is best for the environment that as much as possible of our needs are met locally.
* Regionalism – We live in a place and that place is a region. Each region has its own history, environment and culture and these are the basis of community.
* Community – A lack of community brings social breakdown. We must work to restore community.
* Internationalism – Nothing exists in isolation, and in truth "an injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a community abroad helps to undermine community locally. The repression of workers overseas, leads to the oppression of workers here.

In this context it may be appropriate to place one more link, a link to a quote from the lecture by Andre Carrel Democracy: Back to Basics. There you will find: "Democracy’s premises are equality and responsibility. These simple propositions have yet to be achieved after centuries marked by wars and revolutions fought in the name of democratic ideals."

Democracy = equality and responsibility seems to be very compatible with the list above. And having this in mind you can see why I was so strongly questioning (opposing) the admission to WDDM of somebody who calls 'True Democracy' a system based on unequal classes of citizens. (While this may be a workable idea for a transitional system for some jurisdictions to give some voice to classes of citizens who do not have any voice at all at present, I am strongly against calling such a system a democracy, and even add the qualifier 'true'. Again, we should made our mind on what we want to be: a group promoting the ideal of Democracy, or an unfocused discussion club.

Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2007 11:23AM by MiKolar.

Dear Mirek, and Wddm,

I am very glad you posted this Mirek. It is quite impossible to dispute someones view if they do not post it. This is a key matter in Cyber world, it must be posted to be known.

I certainly do not want this to appear as if I want you Mirek out of WDDM, we are simply having an argument (politically correct “discussion”) However we cannot continue until we decide if we are a democratic organization or an anarchist organization. Anarchists are by their beliefs independent and although they may meet in groups rallying over a particular issue, they have a record of not being able to achieve unified decisions and carry those decisions out. If a decision to build a firehouse is made and the building begun, anarchism allows a new vote and the construction stopped. This violates basic contractual morality and law.

Does Anarchy accept the “Common Law”? If not is theft, murder, fraud etc. legal?

I find anarchism conflicts with development of any community, even an anarchist community.

Mirek: 1. we should really make clear what we understand under the term Direct
Democracy. I for one always meant under this term all what is listed in the
inset below. And I had this in mind what I accepted to task of the webmaster to
help revive WDDM some two years ago.

BE. Did the WDDM group ask you to do this? Were you a member of WDDM? Did you read and sign the agreement to join WDDM and agree to the principles of WDDM? Did the members vote to allow you to become a member of WDDM or did Antonio who is obviously an anarchist, and fought the development of infrastructure in WDDM install you solely on his own? A hint should have been World-
Wide Direct DEMCRACY Movement, not World-Wide Direct Anarchy Movement
3.An application for membership shall be posted by the Secretary for 2 weeks for discussion. If none of the members oppose the application for membership, then the applicant shall be automatically adopted to be a member of WDDM.
WDDM had a Coordinating Committee from the start, (Centralization) democratic, not anarchy.
WDDM in it's founding documents states:
2.3 We the Founding Members, established a Coordinating Committee (CC) consisting of 12 persons. Based on democratic principles, the role of the CC is to lead the WDD Movement by overwhelming majority vote. The Membership of the CC remains permanent until the size of our membership will permit the rotation of its members.
1. Each issue must be presented and considered independently and its best alternative be selected strictly on its own merit.
1.5 Peoples Initiatives, backed by sufficient number of signatures, should mandate a binding Referendum and/or recall of unworthy representatives (I&R+R) decided by public vote.
Note also the emphasis on I&R+R.
The whole Coordinating Committee came to a screeching halt as Antonio charged it was not following Antonio's views of how it should be. (anarchist) The conflict has continued to this day. The Anarchists in WDDM can not agree even amongst themselves and refuse to compromise. This was the long rant on infrastructure. Democrats wanted one, anarchists did not.
Mirik you apparently are against “Centralization”. Thus the concept of a coordinating committee, and infrastructure seems to flounder in present WDDM.
A major difficulty was Antonio's refusal to develop an infrastructure to initiate, discuss and decide issues. This should be a community decision. However after destroying the WDDM process, no other was allowed to develop.
Mirek you have done much to get an election system up and running. Grateful for that! Now we need to continue the Official Forum and have require all Initiatives and other business shall be done only in Forum so the issue may be easily found and commented upon. If another process is eventually decided upon in referendum, than that system would be the official process. All matters of that Initiative are than in one place. This is Democracy with Initiative and Binding Referendum, not Anarchy,
When Mirek came on, apparently charged to “do something” he did well. However the WDDM community was not involved. So it is up to the WDDM community to take back it's power and decide where to go from here.
Democracy or Anarchism. They defy each other so which one is the question.
Interestingly, Antonio fought Aki Orr's Autonarchy which holds a key in democratizing anarchism. It is a very good infrastructure. Further development of discussion process by the people is needed in Autonarchy however. The people could build from scratch, however a basic plan would help Autonarchy. [www.abolish-power.org]
This is Miriks letter, I comment within:

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):

Mirek, many are not yet using Forum so I reply directly.

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. What caught
my eye first was the text titled "WHAT IS ANARCHISM?". It is quoted in the
quote below. You can also find it in on the Nanaimo Anarchist Network site at
[www.geocities.com]. (While you are there, I also
recommend to read WHY DO WE NEED ANARCHISM? at
[www.geocities.com] - it's about what to do to improve
society, something we seem to have hard time here to arrive at).

Bruce> “Why do we need Anarchism “not available - vcmtalk I haven't started building my site.
Only points of anarchism. First point defies any community.

Decentralization. Centralization of political and economic power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic structures should be human-scale.

We are dealing with the WORLD and it is huge. Save me a seat if you have a meeting of the world.

Mirek: There was some posts against anarchism in our mailing lists rather recently. I
am posting this here because for me the points listed below do constitute
exactly what I believe is the Democracy (ideal of Democracy or True Democracy
or Direct Democracy). So apparently I am also an anarcho-syndicalist. Note that
the Anarchists also have Direct Democracy only as one constituent point in what
makes a good society, that is what we called I&R here.

Bruce> – Please show me anarchist DD.

From Wikipedia:

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement.[1] Syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism" – hence, the "syndicalism" qualification. Anarcho-syndicalists view labour unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system[2] and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Anarcho-syndicalism remains a popular and active school of Anarchism today and has many supporters as well as many currently active organizations. Many contemporary anarchists argue that Anarcho-Syndicalism is more of an anarchist workplace organizational structure than an economic system in and of itself. Anarcho-syndicalist trade unionists differ on anarchist economic arrangements from a Collectivist anarchism type economic system to an Anarcho-Communism type economic system. [3] Historically most anarcho-syndicalists were/are also anarcho-communists (such as Lucy Parsons) or anarcho-collectivists (such as Buenaventura Durruti) but there have been many anarcho-syndicalists who preferred mutualist-type economic arrangements such as Joseph Labadie and Joe Hill.
Please recall the battles, killings and manipulations of our grand Unions. They need infrastructure also. Sure the people can, should run Unions, however there are always people seeking to “lead” and be powerful. The requirement is to make an infrastructure which allows people power but not allowing individual power.

We need an infrastructure which allows the people to initiate, discuss and decide in Unions and all groups. This must be a democratic process. Capitalism and all the ism's are not necessary in a democracy. These “ism's” were accepted by the people and these ism's can be given the boot by the people. IF they have Initiative and Binding Referendum. Also, the people even need to be regulated (by themselves) to maintain democracy, and infrastructure which follows the Human Rights criteria etc.

Mirek continues:>

Thus

2. It would be interested to know what others think of the list below. How many
do agree that all these points are necessary for a functioning democracy. I
suggest that you post your thoughts on this in replies to this post.

3. Do you still have any objections to anarchism?
Bruce:> YES

WHAT IS ANARCHISM?

It does NOT stand for chaos, violence, bomb-throwing or disorder. What it does
stand for is:

* Decentralization - Centralization of political and economic power
leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic structures should be
human-scale.
Bruce> to have community, we must have a group and that group has power. By joining a group, community we are part of that group. If that group decides democratically to pave the main street, everyone in the group pays for it, even those who vote against it. That is centralization of power. We must have centralization of power, it is how we restrict and manage that power which is important.
* Liberty – each person should be free to do what they wish
providing they do no harm to other people.
Bruce:> Fine ideology, does not work in community where there must be compromises as in any relationship. We have laws and ordinances decided democratically by community. Obviously there will be direct opposite opinions in many decisions. But those who have joined have agreed to follow the democratic decisions of the group.
* Self-management - Each person should have control over those
situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and the community.
Bruce:> Control? One person doing their thing? If painting a house occupied by four people, each wants a different color, wat rainbow? One persons control is dictatorship in a community.
* Federation – decentralized groups, whether communities or work
places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale" without creating
an authoritarian, top-down structure.
Bruce:> Certainly the people can make an infrastructure which allows all their input, their Initiatives, their vote. The people could develop an infrastructure with no president, prime minister (King). No “Top.” A democratic community decision may not agree with all individuals “vote”. But there must be a decision. You can not decide to build a road and not build that road at the same time. Thus a democratic decision is taken.
* Autonomy – each group or community should have the right to
control those aspects which effect it.
Bruce:> Certainly, and just how will Anarchists make decisions? Democratically? But they don't want centralization which is necessary to democratically hold an election.
* Direct Democracy – Decisions ought to be taken directly by the
people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger scale, such as with a
federation, recallable delegates are selected.
Bruce:> Oh? Now you have representatives, named delegates. What if you did not personally choose those Representatives? Do you follow their decisions? What if you disagree with their decisions?
Sounds like you need I&BR as well as democracy.

Bruce:> All those below are general ideological aims, shared by many people and democracies:
* Localism – It is best for the environment that as much as
possible of our needs are met locally.
* Regionalism – We live in a place and that place is a region. Each
region has its own history, environment and culture and these are the basis of
community.
* Community – A lack of community brings social breakdown. We must
work to restore community.
* Internationalism – Nothing exists in isolation, and in truth "an
injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a community abroad helps
to undermine community locally. The repression of workers overseas, leads to
the oppression of workers here.

In this context it may be appropriate to place one more link, a link to a quote
from the lecture by Andre Carrel titled "Democracy: Back to Basics" at
[canadianvoices.org]. There you will find:
"Democracy’s premises are equality and responsibility. These simple
propositions have yet to be achieved after centuries marked by wars and
revolutions fought in the name of democratic ideals."

Bruce:> This site is nice. It seems to overlook the fact that some growth has been made since the Greek “democracy”. The reason that more has not been done is most likely the lack of involvement by people to instigate change. The changes need to be made democratically within the system. That is our responsibility. If our democracies had Initiative and Binding Referendum, the people could legislate what they chose by referendum.

Mirik:>
Democracy = equality and responsibility seems to be very compatible with
the list above. And having this in mind you can see why I was so strongly
questioning (opposing) the admission to WDDM of somebody who calls 'True
Democracy' a system based on unequal classes of citizens. (While this may be a
workable idea for a transitional system for some jurisdictions to give some
voice to classes of citizens who do not have any voice at all at present, I am
strongly against calling such a system a democracy, and even add the qualifier
'true'. Again, we should made our mind on what we want to be: a group promoting
the ideal of Democracy, or an unfocused discussion club.

Bruce:>
There is an unfocused discussion which is quite fruitful at CICDD Yahoo groups. A very worthwhile read. I suggest all WDDM members who want a “discussion club” join CICDD and resign WDDM. The rest of us will try to make a go of WDDM, arguing all the way. Eh eh eh eh

Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

On the second thought, it would be more "tactical" (interesting) to post the list of those 10 principles for your judgement first without mentioning the source ...

Some comments in response to Bruce's post:

Decentralization does not mean lack of "infrastructure". It just means that the "infrastructure" (government) is decentralized, i.e., all that concerns the local group/community is decided only by them, no higher levels of governance have any business in that. Where interests overlap, higher level coordination kicks in.

The same about personal liberty. Note that is is limited by the condition "not to do any harm to others". That is, one's unlimited freedom (liberty) stops when other persons' freedoms begin. The same as above, when interests (freedoms, liberties) overlap, coordination is necessary.

Of course, I do not advocate that we transform ourselves in a trade union (syndicalism). But those principles seems to be universal to me. They may be more easily implementable among the trade unions because the workers are already quite equal among themselves. But these seems to be principles accepted by most modern anarchists except perhaps for some fringe groups. And these are direct-democratic principles to me.

The third largest trade union confederation in Spain, CGT, [www.cgt.es], is organized on those 10 principles. It has 70 thousand members and represents one million workers. So you see that such DD can work well in large groups. They use them not as a closed doctrine, but as guiding principles.

The main purpose of my original post was to show that they may be many other groups thinking direct-democratically. We should not pick up and dwell on differences among us and them, but try to find what we have in common, and join forces around such common democratic principles.

Of course, the question is why to stick with labels, such as anarchism, that were discredited by their enemies. But the same can be said about the term Democracy. It has also been completely discredited ...

Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2007 09:58AM by MiKolar.

These are the main differences between this form of Anarchy and Direct Democracy as I understand them:

In Anarachy, there are really no public services in the traditional sense. All services, including police and fire are done by private companies that form to handle such needs for their community. Companies are owned and managed democratically by their employees, rather than as an owner with employees. For example, if you want police protection you pay one of the local police companies in the area to provide the service for you. Anarchy is like a combined political and economic system.

Direct Democracy has public services, but they are initiated and decided upon by all voters rather than representatives. The downside is that you pay for services that the majority of voters want, even if you don't have a personal interst in them. It doesn't specifically address the economic system, but private companies would have almost no political influence, and voters can limit the power of companies that are anti-competitive.

My issues with anarchy are that it doesn't adequately address issues of public good. For example, I feel it's important for me to help pay for schools even though I don't have children because it's an important public service. Very large projects such as building a new interstate freeway would be difficult to manage as well.

Copied from the WDDM list:

From: Vijayaraghavan Padmnabhan
Date: 12/08/2007

Dear Mirek and all,
I am giving below the link to an article on the merits of Anarchism:
[www.hindu.com]
Anarcho-syndicalism, the term used in Mirek's post is probably synonymous with Voluntary Socialism advocated by Noam Chomsky.
The reason that Anarchism is attractive is that it recognises the basic human need for freedom of the spirit. The challenge is to devise a system that allows this freedom and yet has a working structure that enables people to coexist and live in a community.
The various struggles, including the 'Oxaca story', are attempts to manifest the spirit of freedom in the face of authoritarian system, that fails to appreciate because of its own inadequacy to do so.
Simply downplaying Anarchism, as Bruce is doing, without trying to understand the spirit behind it will not help to make progress in human thought.

PVR

webmaster

From: Martin Jackson
Date: 12/08/2007

Dear Mirek and all,
l agree with PVR ,

* the spirit of freedom
* spirit behind it will not help to make progress in human thought
* WDDM is a disscussion group

webmaster

From Antonio Rossin

Date: 12/08/2007

Message 1:
~~~~~~~~~~

Dear PVR,

I agree on Anarchism as the accomplishing the human need of freedom.

Buttt... as soon as the Anarchism principles are put into current communication
relationships, i.e. free discussion, since communication is in itself hierarchical,
anarchism becomes paradoxical. nonsense. Anarchism cannot but be a private
business, outside from (public) discussion sharing-in.

Hoping this helps,

regards, antonio

Message 2:
~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mirek (and list)

Thanks for this very enlightening post.

Now here are my comments to your 10 points below, plus a 0 point
about the term "Anarchism" itself.

0. Anarchism.
I am no native English speaker. Therefore, since the English is
the shared language of worldwide democracy, I am obliged to
apply to an English dictionary in order to check out the shared
meaning of the English words we use. Let's suppose, also the
great majority of the eligible democrats worldwide are no native
English speakers , so I think we should point out and suggest to
all the eligible democrats a shared English dictionary in order to
legitimize a shared meaning of words.

On this basis, I go to my Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary
and read under the items:
- Anarchy = 1. absence of government or control in society.
Lawlessness. 2. Disorder, confusion
- Anarchism = political theory that laws and government should
be abolished.
- Anarchist = person who believes in anarchism

Well now, I have nothing against some inhabitants of the world
who decide to adopt a different, personal meaning for words that
have a shared meaning by the remaining majority of the inhabitants
the world. But -- if they do so -- they are a sect, not a member of democracy.

BTW, I go back to my shareable OAL dictionary, and read under
the item "sect":
- Sect = group of people who share (esp religious) beliefs or
opinions which differ from those of most people.

Now, Mirek, let me comment each at once your quoted 10 theses:

1. Decentralization - Centralization of political and economic
power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic
structures should be human-scale.
Ok. to me

2. Liberty – each person should be free to do what they wish
providing they do no harm to other people.
Not so clear. Who is he, or she, who decides that something is not
harmful to other people? This implies others' awareness. And what
about, if the harmed people were unaware? Let's look around with
sensitive eyes, and we will see how many people are unaware of the
damages they undergo, to the advantage of few. This is the problem
of the so-called Golden Rule. More on this point at
[evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com]

3. Self-management - Each person should have control over
those situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and
the community.
Ok.

4. Federation – decentralized groups, whether communities
or work places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale"
without creating an authoritarian, top-down structure.
Ok.

5. Autonomy – each group or community should have the
right to control those aspects which effect it.
Ok.

6. Direct Democracy – Decisions ought to be taken directly
by the people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger
scale, such as with a federation, recallable delegates are selected.
See item 2 and 5 above; This implies full awareness by all the people,
because, in the age of globalization, it is very hard to know whether a
decision does or does not affect other people [ is "effected" a mistyping?]

7. Localism – It is best for the environment that as much as
possible of our needs are met locally.
Not only. Every proposal or policy should have a local grassroots
bottom-up origin.

8. Regionalism – We live in a place and that place is a region.
Each region has its own history, environment and culture and
these are the basis of community.
Isn't it the same as 7. Localism?
9. Community – A lack of community brings social breakdown.
We must work to restore community.
Not only. A lack of Family brings community breakdown. We must
work to restore the family. I've stressed this very point at
[evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com] ,
(and throughout my website [www.flexible-learning.org] )

10. Internationalism – Nothing exists in isolation, and in truth
"an injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a community
abroad helps to undermine community locally. The repression of
workers overseas, leads to the oppression of workers here.
Ok.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the ten points in your quote
belong to genuine democracy, something else but anarchism.

That the anarchist may claim that those ten points belong to
"anarchism", it sounds somehow abusive, the dictionary tells.

Hoping this helps, best regards

antonio

webmaster

From: Mark Antell
Date: 12/08/2007

Hello Mirek,

I like the pamphlet. One small criticism: I think the pamphlet tends to mix goals and programs. It calls, for example, for decentralization and expanded initiative/referendum. Both are desireable. But I see the former as a goal; while I see the latter as a program.
You also asked about chat versus action. I'm oriented towards accomplishing positive change. I'm not much interested in discussion that is completely dissociated from action. I'd like to see WDDM as an actual player in moving toward direct democracy. That is to say, an organization that takes stands, and develops expectations and models of direct democracy through that process of taking stands and acting on them.

Mark Antell

webmaster

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

Dear Mark,
What you are proposing is far far beyond the intent or means of WDDM.
WDDM sole purpose is to advance the implentation of DD in the form of Swiss Initiative and Binding Referendum
Discussion and sites on WDDM are for people trying to implement I&BR for their own communities.
You have a broad agenda, with far to many issues to accomplish.
Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

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. sociocracy@yahoogroups.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 <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.
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
www.doinggovernment.com

By pure coincidence the leading Canadian daily Globe and Mail had on Aug 11. a review of three anarchist books presented as three books for thought.
The title of the review was "Government? Who needs it?" The subtitle was "People use the term 'anarchy' recklessly, Daniel Morley Johnson says. They might be surprised at what it actually means".

The review starts with two recent examples of two self-proclaimed anarchists (an employee of Environment Canada, an American professor) begin clearly dealt with more harshly/discriminated against, because anarchism is (still) associated with some sort of menace.

The three books were:

1. The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kropotkin, 1892 (first time in English in 1906)

2. An Anthology of Emma Goldman'd Mother Earth (Counterpoint 2001)

3. Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, by Canadian Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred (Broadview 2005)

Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]

The question of public good is an interesting and important one.
It would be good if some anarchists could answer it directly. I am personally not sure that they have a universal plan how to organize community services, such as the police service through local private police companies as Warren presents it. First, there would be no private companies but only public companies (i.e., cooperatives managed by those who work in them). Thus a public company in a sense automatically provides a "public" service. Second, I would expect that due to the Decentralization, every community could have a somewhat differently organized police and other community services as it would suits best each particular community.
The the Federation arrangement of decentralized communities could take care of dealing with the large-scale projects mentioned, and also of the public good on regional and more global scales.

In any case, the attitude of people to 'public good" is and will continue to be determined by the level of education of citizens, which can only be expected to be improved in a free society.

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]

From: Giorgio Menon

Date: 8/20/2007

Dear Antonio,
i cannot understand your refusal to accept anarchy as something that has ruled mankind's social behaviour for millenia and has been replaced by democracy just in recent times, after the creation of the elites (elites, mind you, allow top-down and bottom-up, impossible in anarchy).
About sect: your definition perfectly fits neurologists (among others), seems to me. Are you a member of that sect? Does it feel wrong, weird or else? How can a member of that sect actively partecipate to DD, if i may ask? Why can neurologists partecipate but anarchists cannot?

Regards

Giorgio

PS my compliments to Mirek for the clarity of his post and position. Noble and democratic are postive attributs forged in the workshops of nobles and democrats (guess why?) while anarchy (maybe) represents a direct threat to those workshops drop forging words and minds.

webmaster



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2007 08:58PM by WddmAdmin.

From: Emmanuel Charpentier

Date: 8/20/2007

About definitions.

Any word and/or concept can be defined and redefined at will. They are
just symbols which carry whatever meaning we want!

Thus, anarchists define anarchism in a specific way, which most of the
time is very different to the way dictionaries define it. But this is
the pleasure of a good conversation, to dig through labels and see what
they really relate to.

Dictionaries are the cemeteries of our living words

(in Greece, the very word "democracy" might have been used almost as in
injure, technically it should/could have been called "demarchy". See
[en.wikipedia.org] )

echarp - [leparlement.org]

webmaster

Received by e-mail on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:47:00 +0000
From: larry gambone

Hi Miroslav,

I am always amazed by otherwise intelligent and well-read people, who when
it comes to the subject of anarchism, reiterate “received wisdom” and mass
media cliches. Furthermore, in the age of the Internet, there is no excuse
fort such behavior as thousands of pages of information are ready at a click
away.

Some thoughts on the debate:

Anarchism is not a “thing” but a never-ending process. We will most likely
never eliminate coercive authority, but the task is to minimize it.

Direct democracy has always been part of anarchism, yet anarchism is not
reducible to direct democracy alone. Furthermore, direct democratic
movements are not in and of themselves anarchist. Rather direct democracy is
a common aspect that is shared.

My goal is not so much to make everyone anarchists, even if it was possible,
but to show the convergence of ideas that has been developing among all
people who are dissatisfied with the undemocratic and authoritarian nature
of our present economic and political system.

Any movement to change this situation will be larger than any single
ideology and will encompass a number of differing – yet at a fundamental
level – similar views. Anarchists have important things to say about power,
organization, the work place, etc and ought to be part of that process.

Anarchism is applicable to the large scale or universal. Federalism is the
answer to uniting great masses of people without engaging in top-down
centralization. As but one example, 40 million French people belong to
Mutual Aid health care systems. Much of this system was developed by
mutualist and syndicalist anarchists in the past and exists not as a
top-down corporation or state bureaucracy but a decentralized federation.
There is even a non-statist form of nationalization that was developed by
anarcho-syndicalists after WW1 See “A Neo-Proudhonist Program” in
[dwardmac.pitzer.edu]
Thus "public good" could be dealt with in an anarchistic way.

Cheers, Larry
[porkupineblog.blogspot.com]

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]

There are effective Mutual Aid models in long-term existence, but tend to have some major factors in common:
1) Limited scope of responsibility: (emergency services assist other provinces only in large emergencies, Alcoholics Anonymous only deals with alcohol addiction, etc.)
2) No financial motive for a greedy person to attempt a takeover of the organization.

Legislative power fails both tests, and Anarchism breaks down into opposing factions under these circumstances.

The situation in Oaxaca demonstrates this as the APPO members were divided among different parties and others left to seek political offices.

A second problematic anarchist model I can present is actually an online video game called Eve Online. The basic model is a large region of space that was cut off from Earth with remnants of security in the center and no government control farther away from the center (various levels in between). Everything is player controlled including resources, technology, and the economy. The developers of the game add new content, but set no rules. This is about all I know, as I haven't played the game personally.

The result of this scenario is several paranoid warring imperial factions, many of which are large federations, constantly fighting and raising resources in order to improve their military strength. The penalty for travelling through any zone where a person not been welcomed will almost certainly get them killed on sight, no questions asked. A current map (also created by one of the players) shows the current state of the Eve universe.

[www.eve-galactech.com]

Take the United States on a national level. I would predict at a minimum that the south, west, east, and midwest would form separate, hostile factions with people from these factions trying to gain control of any federal organizations.

Until humanity can unlearn their current models of government they will seek to emulate them through other models.

--Warren

Interesting view in this E-Book
Socialism vs Anarchism

[dwardmac.pitzer.edu]

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

We do use language to discuss these matters so terminology must be universal. The dictionary definition of Anarchy is thus correct.
However, like Chomsky,if you state your personal terminology we can than understand your deviance from the accepted. But to simply state "my anarchy is different" lacks any understanding of what you meant.Here Chomsky shows the argument is with Capitolism, not necessarily government, and advocates Socialism to be the method to defeat Capitolism. I agree. But Chomsky's deviance from Anarchism includes democracy, socialism and necessary hierarchy which follows the process we are in to take over government so the people have control via democratic Initiative and Binding Referendum.

The people could than alter or abolish capitalism as they see fit. The Monetary also system needs major alteration, which is in another article but also confronts the capitalistic views.

I quote the Hindo article here; " John McGilvray, Canadian philosopher, posits a pertinent question in his book on Chomsky: "Isn't anarchism the complete absence of any obligations towards others?" He then goes on to take the view of James Buchanan who says, "the ideal society is anarchy, in which no one man or group of men coerce another." But in the next breath he contradicts himself by saying that "any person's ideal situation is one that allows him full freedom of action and inhibits the behaviour of others so as to force adherence to his own desires. That is to say, each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves."

In the context of economic accumulation and domination this view is correct. But Chomsky disagrees:

In today's world, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation— and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.

A type of "voluntary socialism"

Thus, according to Chomsky, anarchism is a type of "voluntary socialism" and is synonymous with "libertarian socialism." This is not found in capitalist societies where labour is subjected to coercion when it is not allowed to own the means of production or have any effective control over the productive activity. Freedom and creativity are two privileges of human beings so essential to their need; any unjust exercise of power leads to victimisation as well as psychological depression. To fulfill human nature and to see to it that human life thrives, it becomes essential to counter any form of oppression or control. This is the reason that Chomsky supports anarchosyndicalism, which according to Mcgilvray "is defensible as an empirical claim about the nature of a society in which human beings cannot just survive but thrive, by fulfilling their natures."

Chomsky, argues McGilvray, "sees anarchosyndicalism as a modification of the basic Enlightenment conception of the person as a free and responsible agent, a modification required to meet the challenge of private power. Empowering individuals by putting control back into their hands is the best way to meet this challenge and provide a meaningful form of freedom." Chomsky suggests that the anarchist way of putting an end to the imposition of control from the top is one step towards implementing a worker's control over the means of production. Thus anarchosyndicalism used as a critical practice refuses to put all initiatives and solutions in the hands of the technocrats or bureaucrats. Each individual, according to Chomsky, has the responsibility and the creative acumen to take control of his/her society. Therefore, the idea is not to overthrow governments but to take over the corporates so that they begin to work more in favour of the people. Anarchism, in favour of the people, involves the recognition of plurality and diversity, and difference of interests, ideas and opinions. This is the Cartesian underpinning to Chomsky's thought, an impulse towards the non-systematic and highly relative and flexible character of everything in society from organizations to individuals. He takes governance inherently as a communal activity not to be left simply in the hands of the specialists who focus too narrowly on their respective areas of interest, ignoring the larger well being of society. For instance, undesirable jobs like cleaning the sewerage system, or repairing the electrical wires during a snowstorm should necessarily be mechanised, and if there still exist more undesirable jobs, the community should share them. Another solution that Chomsky suggests is that people who do unpleasant jobs should be paid the highest, not the lowest.

Bruce comment; The "anarchism" which Chomsky has now adopted is so profoundly different than the "anarchy" of old that it can no longer be considered anarchism. If we can not define what our aim is, how are we to hit it? The Latin American Countrys call their "new ways" Populist. The key's are democratic hierarchy, people controlled, socialism.

A key here is to realize that it is the Capitalistic ways which are destroying US. capitalism requires GROWTH and this world has had enough "growth". Time for a bit of quality.
Regards, Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com