Re: DRAFT FRAMEWORK

12/20/2000, Geoff Holland wrote:
    > I don't think it is a question of leaving any one out, but
    to define the core vision - a flexible ideology or
    meta-ideology (based on democracy, human rights, minimum
    levels of equity, rights of future generations,
    environmental sustainability etc etc.)
      > A 'meta-ideology' because it can encompass anarchism,
    socialism, social-democracy, various theocratic/spiritual
    political philosophies, deep ecology etc.
      > Where people differ from the core vision (eg elements of
    racism, fascism, advocation of violence etc creeping in) we
    can enter into dialogue to come to new levels of
    understanding, but we also need to differentiate, and say
    the ideals and philosophy that led to the Oklahoma bombing
    are misconceived in the same way as preditory capitalism,
    and corporate fascism are misconceived.

Dear Geoff,

I can see what you're trying to accomplish here, and in many
ways I think you're on the right track.

You speak of a need for 'ideology'. This is a whole topic
unto itself, but I suggest we don't need any ideologies.  An
ideology is a pre-packaged set of ideas.  Once you have one,
then you try to sell it in competition with other
ideologies.  The main function of ideologies, historically,
has been to control populations.  We need a dynamic process
for dialog and collaboration, not a static package of
answers.

On the other hand, many of us have ideas, or proposed
platforms, and these are a necessary contribution.  But they
should, I suggest, be the _starting point for dialog with
others, not _pre-conditions.  The grasping for an ideology
reveals a fear of dialog, or a mistrust of our fellow
humans.  We need to engage without trying to pre-structure
the outcome.  The time to represent your 'position' is in
the dialog itself.

    > I am not intending to be negative.  I hope to emphasise
    the enormous effort required to construct true grassroots
    democracy - aside from the resistance of the elite (who
    currently offer us tokenistic 'community consultation').  It
    requires new values, ethics, ideals, forms of communication,
    decision-making processes, futures thinking, commitment to
    community, new ways of organising time, work, lifestyles,
    remuneration

However long it might take, we need to figure out what
democracy is and how it can be achieved.  You threw a
shotgun of 'requirements' in the path of that endeavor,
above, but I think many of them miss the mark.  Not until we
have a notion of _how democracy might be brought about, and
_what it might look like, can we try to estimate how _long
the process might take, and what related changes go with it.

regards,
rkm