[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...

At 02:33 a.m. 8/01/2003, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

On 17:22 06/01/03, DPF said:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 12:13:44 +0100, "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin"
"Let be pragmatic: you call for global action and for leadership. This
has a name: Fascism. This has never worked"

I consider my response extremely mild when you bandy such provocative accusations about. Especially when some of us have relatives who were executed by actual fascist regimes.
It happens that my family is among those who have been victim of Nazism.
This is most enlightening.

Instead of declaring zero-credibility for each other, why don't you realize that your very closeness in experience causes your sensitivity to fascism, dictatorship, tyranny, L'Etat c'est moi, "fuehrerprinzip", call it what you will.

You only disagree because you draw different conclusions from the same experiences.

Members of my family too have been interned for years and suffered torture, both in German and Japanese concentration camps.
I too, grew up on true stories of heroic resistance fighters who were willing to risk their lives to do what is human and, in their view, right.

And I too have associated certain cyberspace characters with totalitarian bullies and said "jawohl!" when a self-appointed chair started laying down numbered decrees in the IDNO.

It has not been helpful.

Let us try to understand each other as human beings first, before we try to score ad hominem political points.
Both Jefsey and David have sound idea's that are valuable. Both should be able to work together and come to a good compromise. We would all benefit.

My conclusion from earlier experience is that we need both approaches.

Jefsey's Networking approach is necessary in order to take advantage of the medium that we operate in.
David's "need for a leader" approach is necessary in order to get the Network booted up.

If you are both truly anti-fascists, you will agree on a good set of Rules that will hold the "leaders" in check, distribute the "power" , make sure that the membership can always replace its' "leadership" with one of its democratic choice.

(The Charter that David proposed is perhaps a bit too prone to irreversible capture. More discussion on it is needed and I would caution against rushed implementation)

Parliamentary democracy, flaws and all, has been functioning successfully for centuries, both in Greco/Roman times and in recent history.
For the price of slow decisionmaking, it has provided an assurance against tyranny, that has been much appreciated by those who have practiced it.

It is under constant threat, "make no mistake" about that.

"Leadership" in its various forms has "worked" (sorry, Jefsey) for thousands of years.

Somebody or some group of friends/volunteers have to give the energy to start creating an ordered structure out of chaos and find wider agreement with that structure.

So far, the only agreement we find among *our* members is that they agreed enough with the contents of the original website to associate their name with it and sign up as an icannatlarge member. They also agreed with the election of a Supervisory Panel for the website.

All other "agreements" are presumed. We don't *know*.
Specifically: there is no known agreement on the mandate of the Panel.

If we want to be more than a blip on the radarscreen it is imperative that we try to find further agreement on a course of action by elected "leaders" (Panel or other) and the only way to do this is to poll the membership.

I am offering the use of a reasonably secure Polling Facility.
I can see that there is considerable concern about how the polling questions will be phrased. It is very difficult not to phrase them in a "leading" way, consciously or sub-consciously.

Either we leave this task to a 3 man Polling Commission, or we allow a hundred questions, where all built-in bias will cancel out.

I am willing to help bootstrapping a Polling Commission by taking Nominations and prepare for an election in the Polling Booth.

(this Polling Commission is not your "executive". All it does is be open to the membership and pass on Polling Questions, both from the executive down and from the grassroots up, to a membership that *wants* to be polled.
As its purpose is to create a division of Power, Polling Commissioners cannot serve the icannatlarge in any other capacity)

Along with this election, for the convenience of the members, will also be presented the (seconded) questions of Richard and the (modified) questions of Judyth.

This is the time to find out what our members want.
If you have key questions of your own, please submit them.

I am not keen on administering the election myself and would like a volunteer bootstrap Polling Officer to receive an admin account in the Polling Booth until the Polling Commission is elected and appoints its own Polling Officer.

-joop-


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de