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' odgovor:

(1) Ali lahko prosim opredelite, katere so po vašem mnenju ključne značilnosti in institucije družbe, ki jih je treba spremeniti, tj. ekonomske, politične, kulturne, spolne/spolne, ekološke itd.?

Za institucije gospodarstva menim, da bi bilo treba odpraviti zasebno lastništvo produktivne lastnine, trge, hierarhično delitev dela in plače. Za politiko je treba pozornost nameniti tudi trenutnim strukturam in procesom razvoja lokalnega, regionalnega, nacionalnega in mednarodnega prava, socialne politike in njenega sojenja. Za sorodstvene in družinske strukture vzgoje otrok, skrbi in socializacije bi nam lahko koristila drastična preobrazba. Za družbeno in institucionalno jedro naših kultur in skupnosti je treba predvideti spremembe v družbenih in materialnih odnosih znotraj in med religijami, duhovnostjo, etničnostmi in rasami. In končno, kar zadeva ekološke spremembe, moramo na splošno spremeniti tiste institucije, ki delujejo kot ovire za trajnost in ki ogrožajo planet.

(2) Kakšni so vaši cilji za to spremembo, ali jih želite reformirati, če da, s kakšnimi spremembami na splošno? Si prizadevate te institucije temeljito nadomestiti s kakšnimi drugimi? Če da, kako izgledajo nadomestne strukture, kaj so njihove značilnosti, seveda na kratko?

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) Kdo so po vašem mnenju strateški akterji pri doseganju teh ciljev, tj. politične stranke, delavci, ženske, queerji, priseljenci, določene države ali regije itd.?

Mislim, da so ljudje sami strateški akterji, vendar so družbene institucije in vloge, ki jih ljudje igrajo znotraj njih, tiste, ki večinoma določajo, s kom se identificirajo in vrste bojev, v katere se spuščajo, da bi spremenili družbo. Zaradi tega je smiselno, da obstaja raznolikost strateških akterjev, ker me skrbi tudi za okolje, globalno segrevanje in druge resne probleme, kot je odprava patriarhata, tudi za končanje vojn, alternativno medijsko delo in zagovarjanje alternativnega kapitalizmu. Dobro je, da obstajajo ljudje, ki se ukvarjajo s tistimi stvarmi, ki jih mi ne moremo, preprosto zaradi pomanjkanja časa v našem življenju ali okoliščin, v katerih smo morda. Vendar pa kratkoročno, če obstajajo dobri dokazi, ki kažejo na strateško težo za enim ali dvema gibanjema, recimo delavcev in priseljencev ali žensk in političnih strank, potem to počnemo, vendar ni treba vsem, niti ne bi smeli. Dolgoročno je trajni napredek na kateri koli od teh front odvisen od trajnega napredka na vseh teh frontah.

(4) Katere taktike se po vašem mnenju uporabljajo pri doseganju teh sprememb, tj. glasovanje, neposredna akcija, medijska akcija, stavke, demonstracije itd.?

Mislim, da je usklajevanje vseh teh taktik kot del široke strategije tisto, kar bi omogočilo napredek v velikem obsegu. Toda težava je v tem, da ni skupne vizije o tem, kam želimo iti. Na primer, vsi bi se lahko strinjali, da je treba globalno gospodarsko strukturo preoblikovati, da bo trgovina med državami in znotraj njih bolj pravična. V tej smeri je prišlo do napredka. Lahko pa bi bili veliko bolj učinkoviti, če bi imeli boljše usklajevanje med seboj in s skupnimi strateškimi cilji, zahtevami in časovnimi okviri z uporabo demonstracij, stavk, neposrednih akcij, militantnosti, medijev in političnih strank. In to bi lahko naredili tako, da bi nas premaknili naprej z usmeritvijo, da bi ljudem dali večji nadzor nad gospodarskimi in drugimi odločitvami, ki vplivajo na njihova življenja. In še več, tako usklajeno gibanje bi lahko imelo skupno vizijo o tem, kakšne nacionalne in mednarodne gospodarske in druge institucije, strukture ter proces odločanja in protokole bi želeli.

(5) Kako se druge perspektive, ki imajo drugačne predstave o družbenih spremembah, ujemajo z vašo strategijo in vizijo?

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.