IPPS Strategy & Vision Q&A

Members of The International Project for a Participatory Society (IPPS) were asked to respond to a short list of questions relating to a future participatory society and how to get there. Although broadly formulated, the questions are aimed at extrapolating IPPS member thoughts and experiences on matters of strategy and vision. Here is Chris Spannos' responce:

(1) Poterisne cognoscere quid censes nucleum esse definiendi notas et institutiones societatis, quae mutari debent scilicet oeconomicae, politicae, culturales, sexum/sexuales, oecologicae, etc.?

Pro institutis oeconomiae puto privatum dominium bonorum fructuum, mercatus, divisiones hierarchicae laboris ac mercedis tollendas esse. Politica enim, hodiernae structurae et processus enucleandi legem localem, regionalem, nationalem et internationalem, socialem rationem eiusque adiudicationem etiam attentione indigent. Cognatio ac familiae structurae infantium educandi, curationis donationis et socializationis, ex inani transformatione prodesse potuimus. Pro nucleo sociali et institutionali nostrarum culturarum et communitatum, mutationes in relationibus socialibus et materialibus intra ac inter religiones, spiritualitatem, ethnicitates et natios praevideantur oportet. Ac denique, quod attinet ad mutationes oecologicas, plerumque, institutiones illas mutare necesse est, quae tamquam claustra sustineri possunt et quae planetae minantur.

(2) Quaenam ad hanc mutationem proposita sint, si sic cum quibus mutationibus late emendare petis? Visne fundamentaliter has institutiones cum quibusdam aliis reponere? Si ergo quid apparent structurae substitutionis, quae sunt notae definitivae, utique in summa?

For the economy, I advocate Albert and Hahnel's Parecon with its balanced job complex, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and decentralized participatory planning. For politics, I'm inclined to think that Stephen Shalom's "Parpolity" vision with its nested council structure is worthy of much more exploration. For gender, sexuality and kinship, it's still very unclear for me, other than some basic initial thoughts like diversity of family arrangements and a sharing of parental roles among male, female, queer parents, communities and/or "co-parents" so as to have divers sets of familial socializing influences and outcomes for children. More discussion and debate is needed but I think the work done by Cynthia Peters is on the right track. For culture, I like the concept of "intercommunalism", which over simplified here, proposes to remove the material and social conditions which create hostile competition between communities. Rather, communities are guaranteed the resources necessary for their reproduction -- interacting among and with each other creating a rich diversity of cultures, ethnicities and religions. Individuals within these communities choose the religions, cultures and communities they themselves identify most with. For ecological vision, we could imagine ways in which societal institutions could affect our consciousness toward our built environment and enable Just, judicious and sustainable interactions between people, our built environment and our planets ecological foundation.

(3) Quis actores opportunos putas in his metis assequendis seu partibus politicis, opificibus, feminis, immigrantibus, immigrantibus, nationibus vel regionibus particularibus, etc?

Puto homines ipsos esse actores opportunos, sed instituta socialia ac munerum hominum in iis exercent qui maxime determinant qui identificant ac certaminum genera ad societatem mutandam inducunt. Hac de causa, sensus efficit varias esse actores opportunos, quia, licet curare possim de ambitu, calefactione globali et aliis gravibus quaestionibus sicut patriarchatus finiendi, ego etiam curo bella finienda, opera media faciens et alterutrum advocationem. ad capitalismum. Bonum est quod homines laborant in iis quae non possumus, simpliciter pro defectu temporis in vita vel adiunctis, ut simus in. Sed in brevi spatio, si bona indicia sunt, quae ad nostram tendunt. opportunum pondus post unum vel duos motus, operarios dicunt et immigrantes, vel mulieres et factiones politicas, tunc id facimus, sed non omnes habent nec debent. Dum in unaquaque harum frontium progressione diuturna facta est, in omnibus his frontibus diuturna progressione pendet.

(4.) Quas rationes vides media in his mutationibus assequendis adhibita esse, scilicet suffragationem, actionem directam, actionem mediarum, ferit, demonstrationes, etc.?

Puto coordinationem omnium horum consiliorum in parte latis consilii esse quid prospiceret motus in magna magnitudine fieri potest. Sed queritur quod non est visio communis quo tendimus. Exempli gratia, inter omnes consentire potuimus structuram oeconomicam globalem ita reformandam esse ut commercium inter et intra nationes aequiorem redderet. Fuerunt enim motus quaestus in hac parte. At nos multo efficacius esse possemus si melius inter se coordinatio et cum communibus scutis opportunis, postulationibus et opportunitatibus utentes demonstrationibus, ferit, actionibus directis, militantia, instrumentis et partibus politicis. Fieri autem potest ita ut nos ulterius progrediamur cum propensione ad dandam popularem potestatem populi oeconomicam et alia, quae ad vitam suam pertinent decisiones. Ac praeterea adhuc, motus hic ordinatus communicare potuit visionem de quali nationali et internationali oeconomico, ceterisque, institutis, structurae ac iudicii processu ac protocollis faciendis velimus.

(5) Quomodo alii prospectus, qui varias notiones de mutatione sociali habent, in tuo consilio et visione conveniunt?

In addition to developing and refining a shared orientation towards strategy and vision we should also be seeking to interact precisely with those people that we do not agree with and who disagree with us. We should be able to listen and learn from others and we should also be able to convincingly, confidently, rationally and passionately argue our points. People, who do not believe that societies defining institutions can be transformed, who do not believe in the capacity of people to self-manage their own lives, who do not believe in the potential to achieve equity and classlessness, need to be carefully listened to so that we can respond to their disbelief or explore their ambivalence in such a way so as to eventually bring them into our movement. And we need to do this until our movement grows to such a size that by having shared and coordinated strategy, tactics and vision, we can win. Now, of course it's true that people may have a better proposal for the kinds of strategy, tactics and vision we seek, and so we should concede that they are right, and then join the struggle to organize along their newly proposed lines. Just as, if we are right, they should join our proposed way. As long as we're all seeking institutional arrangements and outcomes that best facilitate and explore human potential, development and liberation then being right or wrong is simply the maze taken towards a common goal. Sure some will remain resistant because their wealth, power and privilege is an outcome of the current institutional arrangement, and so they are invested in it; or they are simply stubborn or sectarian, and so will remain in the wrong. But, if we are persistent, patient and persuasive in our efforts, I think most people will eventually come around to a hopeful and rational vision and strategy. So those left disagreeing will be those who defend the current inequities, who will be in the wrong, and will be a minority. And how we unseat them from their power is another question.