Cºlevel

what's the best way to start the process?

let's say that democratic communities are 100-150 people and that that they could possibly federate together through a 'spokes' system of 50-100.

what's the best way to start the process?

i think one good approach is to split up into areas of about 15,000 (borough wards are about this size) and find a group of people who are interested in starting out, then over time try to find people in each of the 100 or so communities and gradually build the capacity of what will eventually make these the sovereign communities. This approach gives a context for activists and residents that may live close by, but not live in the same street or block to make a start, they will be able to engage people from the whole community and then help to build core communities when numbers start to grow.

maybe we should aim to start by identifying and supporting a small group of ward size areas with a good concentration of interested people / campaigns / resources?

obviously this is all for discussion at the first meeting, but these are just a few thoughts

--

why previous attempts at communes or intentional communities fail / succeed

answer to one of the questions and problems in bringing about real democracy

"One of the sticking points i had with intentional community was a sense that at its very core, it was all about control. If you just get the right people, the right place, the right leadership, the right processes, the right economy, and so on, you can have the nirvana-esque community experience of your dreams. Those folks who failed, well, they just made mistakes in judgement--poor planning--bad personality mix...you've heard it. I propose that the reason most intentional communities fail, is that the meaning of intentional, implies at its deepest (unconscious) level the belief in control. And anybody who has taken a look at living ecologies of relationship can see that they are complex systems whose order emerges organically out of chaotic conditions always present at some level. It is the confusion of harmony with changeless bliss. Harmony is NOT static. It is the dynamic tension within healthy ecologies of relationship."

http://wordgravity.blogspot.com/2007/09/beyond-intentional-community-conscious.html

i believe that this is quite important - so much is put into building perfection, but this is unattainable and anyway - a group of people each of whom almost certainly have a slightly different view of what perfection is, which will change over time, means that these communities are brittle. communities that are diverse to start with and focus on pragmatic needs first are more more likely to thrive and last.

20(ish) questions and problems in bringing about real democracy

why previous attempts at communes or intentional communities fail / succeed
how do we make real democracy something useful to groups working on local campaigns
how do we move from democratic single issue campaigns where everyone essentially agrees, to geographically based democratic communities (DCs).
should DCs be geographically based at all, what are the alternatives
what size should DCs be
how can DCs claim legitimacy when only a small proportion of people in an area are involved
what can DCs do to try and be representative of people that are not yet involved
how do DCs encourage people to get involved.
how do DCs interact with existing structures (especially those that call themselves 'democratic')
what can DCs actually do for their members and wider society rather than being talking shops
how can we answer the critics who see small communities as backward looking, tribal, inefficient etc
wont people be spending their whole life doing meetings and administration - leaving no time for productive work?
should DCs aim for complete self sufficiency
how do we prevent DCs coming into conflict with neighbouring communities
what structures can we build to help democratic communities work together, without these larger scale structures becoming like current hierachies
when we have truly DCs what's to stop them doing the things we criticise current states for (aggression, repression etc)
who is a member of a community - residents, visitors, family/friends of residents - what rights should they have (IE should visitiors be welcome but denied the right to block) how do we define that?
do all members have instant involvement (should people who move in have equal rights straight away, can new born babies block motions !?)
how should DCs deal with dissent - should they exclude people (from processes or in extreme cases completely exile them) what alternatives might there be to this
should decisions be binding
how can people be 'accountable'
how should communities deal with immigration, when more people might impede or eventually prevent consensus decision making)
should democratic communities allow themselves to divide / combine - (surely combining could lead to building state or large corporation type structures)

local sovereignty developing into a campaign idea

after exchanging a few emails, the local sovereignty idea is starting to take shape into an actual, practical campaign idea.

name ideas -
campaign for local consensus government
campaign for real democracy
consensus works

twin track approach

1) giving people involved in local campaigns (who are almost certainly being frustrated by what passes for 'democracy') both a tool to help with their campaign and a broader goal that could stop the kind of things they're campaigning against happening again.
2) giving people who have seen true democracy working (such as climate camp) a mechanism for spreading it

and bringing these 2 groups together

firstly with a questionnaire / mapping project of campaigns in london
communicating with people with a general desire to achieve real democracy (anarchists and others that might have experienced consesnsus decision making at places like climate camp)

then a meeting / conference entitled something like 'from single issue campaigns to real democracy'

what we need is much much more bureaucracy

as usual the talk around the budget includes promises of 'cutting back on government waste' and 'slashing bureaucracy' from all sides and to a point i agree - most of the current bureaucracy is a waste, but that's because there isn't enough of it.

The problem is the level it rests at - a nation of 60 million or borough of 100,000 with very little power means that any administration is either totally separated from the needs of real people or totally without influence. what people need is a bureaucracy they can see working and really be involved in that takes real decisions. Then people won't mind how big it is, because it'll be working for them and nobody minds working to make their own life / community better. If 'government' was done at this level (no more than a few thousand people and with real power equivalent to those currently held at the level of the state) then everyone would constantly be arguing and discussing 'politics' and 'governance' and 'budgets' only we probably wouldn't call them that - we'd probably just call it 'life' and 'community', and all the things that are part of that.

Q - how do you know when you've been in too many climate camp meeting? A - when, while in the dock on trial you absent mindedly do 'wavy hands' when your barrister says something you really agree with.

are police the law or do they uphold it?

today i was convicted of obstructing a police officer that i was trying to walk around, as he followed me to push me back with his shield. i think most people would accept that i was being obstructed by him. the difference comes when you realise that i was walking towards a power station which apparently makes it alright. he said the police had established a 'sterile cordon' which people weren't allowed into but couldn't say which law had been used to establish this - the reason - there was none. police think they are in a war film 'take your men and set up a perimeter over there' they are ordered 'and don't let anybody through' and off they go and do it. the law doesn't matter, they are the law so whatever they want to do is ok. when i arrive i'm told to stop, in court he said 'most people stop when i ask them, they don't need to ask what my legal basis is for doing this' maybe they should? he admitted he had no idea what law he was using or even who's decision it was that people weren't allowed in to that area. but he was happy to repeatedly push me with his shield and eventually wrestle me to the ground and pin me down with his hand around my throat. this is the tactic that forms the basis of kettling - restricting people arbitrarily just because they are police and we are not, deciding what people can do without telling them or referring to the law.