[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-09-19 17:41:06+0200

> >I do think I understand what FA are, but I am speaking of organisations > >in a much more general fashion. And am particularly including those that > >control assets, power. > > Yes. And in discussing this, when we mention what is required for > organizations in general, and the requirement is not necessary for > FAs, then I mention this. > > It is an entirely new realization, though, as far as I know, that any > democratic power structure could be enhanced by having a parallel FA. > Indeed, many nondemocratic organizations could benefit. A for-profit > corporation could benefit, as would its stockholders, employees and > customers, by having a parallel “interest group” that is an FA/DP organization.

In France a concept looks similar to this => cooperatives. They are a reminiscence of the 1871 Parisian revolution called la commune, in which they implemented the first enterprises under auto gestion.

Today, there are still remnants, and I know of enterprises which operate normally, but are in fact controlled by the workers. In one of them, called easter eggs, the employees created an association which controls the enterprise.

But even if that association only counseled, I believe it would still become a place of power. Because those that are heard can change everything!

Read more… / Lire plus…

What would then become of your ideas and your intention to sidestep the issue of power?

> Deciding to go with FA/DP and setting aside the question of the power > structure cuts through this Gordian knot. This is, I believe, a > critical realization: if the public is organized, it can control > almost any reasonably democratic structure. It can even, as > necessary, overthrow tyrants and dictators, and relatively easily.

If it controls anything, then it becomes a center of attention and power!!!

> So if the public were well-informed and well-advised, which is a > product of the kind of organization I’m talking about, it does not > need changes in the power structures, though it can easily make them > if it so decides. The problem with present power structures is simply > the absence of a structured public intelligence, not of means whereby > the public can control governments. The means exist, but the > intelligence and coordination necessary to use them does not, > generally, exist, except in defective ways that are themselves > vulnerable to manipulation.

I’m proposing to use the internet for communication. It’s the revolution that has the power and energy to change everything in human society.

> This is why I’m promoting FA/DP: it postpones finding ideal solutions > to the problem of government but instead focuses on what should be a > precondition: an awakened body politic. “Awakened” does not mean that > everybody is actively engaged in politics. That’s not going to > happen, nor should it happen. But it does mean that people become > connected with government in away that has never before been > possible in large jurisdictions.

Have you read the clue train manifesto?

What is your opinion on those ideas?

> >If it is open to “hear” what the public says, but then dismisses it > >without due process, is it really open? > > No. So due process is part of the picture. > > >(in a democratic context, this due process could be a vote) > > Right. But not just a vote, it means the full deliberative process.

We are in a society where information can flow freely, thus I’m mostly concerned with the vote itself.

I know I know, you want to organise that flow, thus the proxy-client relationship. Yet there are already many many ways to communicate: newspapers, blogs, radio, tv, phones, books, forums, chat rooms, instant messaging, meetings etc.

Isn’t the proxy-client relationship mostly a blog and its associated news feed? What if you add into that mails, instant messaging, phone, real life meeting?

I’m mostly interested in DP as a way to organise votes and propositions, through an increase in the signal/noise ratio. FAs would just be one place, but I consider all organisations interesting.

> >DP is here to increase the signal/noise ratio. But I think any > >participant should be able to propose anything. It will get interest if > >more people look it up and vote for it. > > But if it is hidden in 126,547 proposals made the same day?

It will remain hidden unless/until it gathers votes and appears on the radar of more people.

> Yes, anyone should be able to propose anything. But not necessarily > to the whole public at once. Which is next to useless anyway. Rather, > to structures that receive and respond to input. Not just “Yes” or > “No,” which is what you get from a vote, but “This is why we have not > accepted your suggestion,” followed by an explanation that shows the > suggestion was considered and was rejected after due consideration.

“parlement” is used to propose and vote, but it is designed as a forum. Thus no problem.

> What is needed is a communications structure, it is actually more > important than control. If you can communicate, you can control, > presuming that the resources are available to those who communicate.

I mostly agree yes. Control occurs through communication (unless a would be dictator developed god like powers).

> >Do public always include everybody? Can “public” be a subset of > >"everybody"? > > No. Unless you specifically define it in the usage. For example, the > English-speaking public is only that part of the public which speaks English.

Then “everybody” include everybody on the planet. That means you give control to the largest body of people who might have any sort of interest in your organisation. I’m speaking of any kind of organisation, including those that have some sort of power.

What of a small organisation being “attacked” by a much larger one? (again, I’m speaking of organisations that have some kind of power)

> > > >Membership has to be controlled or you end up at the mercy of any large > > > >body of people. > > > > > > Depends. Yes, with power structures, membership is very important. > > > But what of a government? Can a government be TOP? I think so! In > > > this case, “public” is defined as that body of people who are subject > > > to the sovereignty of the government. Citizens, in a word. All of > > > them. Including felons, by the way. > > > >I agree 100% > > > >But then, it does not include people who are not subject to the > >sovereignty of the government! > > Yes. We are talking about governments here, and the government is not > controlled by people who are not subject to it. That’s pretty basic.

It is, and this is what I’m speaking about!!!

> The structures that can be proven to work in Free Associations can be > adapted for use in power structures. DP is one obvious example. In a > power structure, it is very close to what is standard in business: > proxy democracy. DP makes it scalable. But FAs may show that much of > what we take for granted as necessary, i.e., coercion, is not > necessary, is not even truly functional. And maybe they won’t. But I > think they will. We won’t know until we try it….

I think you would discover that a FA that reaches any sort of political usefulness will become a center of attention, a power structure.

Ever heard of ATTAC? It is such an association. And lately it has come under the scrutiny of many.

(note, attac is definitely not TOP, as it is statutorily controlled by its founders)

> >[…]I agree, and [FA/DP] is a fine system. But I’m also considering power > >structures. Those that use coercion to control us, or that define what > >is legal and what is not, or that control infrastructures. > > Yes. What I’m saying is that we need to solve the communication > problem first, before we will know very well how to solve the power > control problem.

And what I’m starting to fear is that any human institution of relevance will gather power and have power control problems.

> >I’m interested. I definitely am interested in a panarchy, but I think > >power structures have to be designed. > > They do. And I’m suggesting that the problem of the design of power > structures is extremely difficult, compared to the problem of > designing communications structures. And communications structures, > theoretically, should make it possible not only to design far better > power structures, but also to implement them.

Power structures occur everywhere humans are. I’m sure AA have those too. I’m sure some organiser is using it for his own benefit, somewhere, somehow.

echarp – http://leparlement.org