Thomas Barrio2/7
#ConcertOfWills (2/7)
@InternetDev and I agree: revocability and sortition are key for real democracy. He’d put this first; in my plan, it comes at step 3—after the “polis” ends (as Serres said), and we enter the post-political era. Maybe it’s time to open debate on this: is demanding revocability reformist, or a necessary step before deeper change?
3/7
#ConcertOfWills (3/7)
My plan follows the logic of “dual power” (Morel Darleux): as citizens, we take care of the commons—because no one else will. We have a plan, timelines, and concrete actions. I believe the best way to reach a goal is to propose, test, and apply it ourselves, with committed collectives. No head-chopping: beware the tyranny of substitutes (Benjamin, Arendt, Orwell).
#ConcertOfWills (3/7)
My plan follows the logic of “dual power” (Morel Darleux): as citizens, we take care of the commons—because no one else will. We have a plan, timelines, and concrete actions. I believe the best way to reach a goal is to propose, test, and apply it ourselves, with committed collectives. No head-chopping: beware the tyranny of substitutes (Benjamin, Arendt, Orwell).
4/7
#ConcertOfWills (4/7)
@fixiemama, I share your anarchist inspiration and the Iroquois model—collaboration, equality, no imposed hierarchy. Yet, as @sz_duras noted, we need intergenerational transmission. That’s why I see value in a minimal, Proudhonian state, able to ensure this and maybe organize federalism between “insurgent communes.”
#ConcertOfWills (4/7)
@fixiemama, I share your anarchist inspiration and the Iroquois model—collaboration, equality, no imposed hierarchy. Yet, as @sz_duras noted, we need intergenerational transmission. That’s why I see value in a minimal, Proudhonian state, able to ensure this and maybe organize federalism between “insurgent communes.”
5/7
#ConcertOfWills (5/7)
@Amans @aaron: For me, this is a test of the Concert of Wills—a digital, transnational form of “insurgent democracy.” We start from what we have: a natural world artificially embedded in society, society denied popular sovereignty, the state captured by the market. To achieve degrowth and climate rescue, we must dismantle all forms of domination.
#ConcertOfWills (5/7)
@Amans @aaron: For me, this is a test of the Concert of Wills—a digital, transnational form of “insurgent democracy.” We start from what we have: a natural world artificially embedded in society, society denied popular sovereignty, the state captured by the market. To achieve degrowth and climate rescue, we must dismantle all forms of domination.
Dave Volek"we must dismantle all forms of domination."
This indeed a big part of the problem. We humans have a tendency to dominate others, especially if we are stronger than they. This instinct has to be broken.
I believe the TDG is the mechanism to sideline dominance and power accumulation.
Domination is hidden in the long term. It's interesting to deconstruct, following the invitations of #Foucault, #Derrida, and #Agemben, to question the naturalness of the state, and also to look at what so-called primitive peoples are doing who are fighting against the centralization of knowledge and power (#Clastres). They aren't "primitive" because they don't have state: They don't have state because they are fighting against centralization and specialization.
1/2
I also had a comment to make regarding the TDG, among other things: it's not possible to impose a "morality" through a new democratic system. I remember you telling me that voters in the TDG should vote on the value of the individual and no longer on a program. It's a mixture of morality and "populism" (without a program), which I must tell you I don't like very much. 2/2
As far as "program" voting goes, I would say most voters are unable to digest the various pieces of governance to put those pieces together very well. They may not have the academic background; they may not have interest to spend the time to cast a "wise" vote in this direction.
But with the "good character" and "capacity" vote, average citizens can indeed cast a wise vote.
In essence, the TDG is about finding trustworthy people to govern us.
2/2
@davevolek I remain convinced the system of total delegation can only end in democratic fiction. Since we speak of delegation when we speak of representatives. In my opinion, it is necessary to have a direct system in the long term. It is the only way that allows all voices ("wills") to be heard. The system of delegation could be considered in cases that require it (heavy charges) but always framed by revocability, a short and imperative mandate. Without this, we have the spectacle that we have.
In your wordpress group, someone mentioned only 20% of citizens participated in the Swiss cantons (at best). This leaves 80% not participating.
I would consider this arrangement as a "self selected" assembly, where anyone who want to be there can be there. Or just another minority running the show.
Eventually, self-selected assemblies are likely to turn in "stacking sessions" where proponents of one side or the other find friends to show up and vote a certain way.
@davevolek Regarding issue of stacking : it's a good point. the main thing is to encourage a dialectic. once the voices that want to express themselves can express themselves, this encourages deliberation. voting is only an instrument, which must itself be chosen or not, during the assemblies (it can be banned, authorized under conditions, authorized completely...) ... from my point of view it must be framed, as for delegations, mandates. I would tend to authorize it under conditions. 2/2
More people in TDG governance (and who want to be there) is a social relief valve. Such people are much less likely to revolt later.
And if the TDG produces better decisions to give us extra free time, other citizens will spend more time with music, children, games, ecology, etc. Not all of us need (or want) to be in politics.
But most of us need and want to have a say. The periodic elections of western democracy allow for that say. The TDG will enhance that say.
2/2
@davevolek The virtues of voting (if any) and deliberation are incomparable. Deliberation leads to understanding. Representative voting is pure delegation. Mandates can be short, a few months, or even a year, and also revocable: it is not the same thing. The end of a revoked mandate does not have the same meaning as the end of a term, in the same way as an employment contract. 1/3
@davevolek When I spoke of voting as an instrument earlier, it was to speak of a decision-making vote only. I question representative voting in its entirety. I prefer drawing lots, and to avoid aristo-oligocratic monopolization, without any filter, but again without making it a general rule. 2/3
@davevolek What bothers me most is the very idea of the need for representation. It is a naturalness that should also be questioned, I believe. At the risk of repeating myself, apathy for politics is above all a consequence... of multi-millennial "domination/grabbing". 3/3
I've had some discussion with a libertarian fellow. In theory, this system should work. But humans are too often not rational enough to make libertarianism work.
I see the TDG as a possible stepping stone to reaching a libertarian utopia. Maybe the same goes for direct democracy.
2/2
@davevolek for truck drivers and many others, a tool that could be used for democracy is mastodon, with a little bit of organization (hashtag referencing for example). I am against click democracy, but I am for "self-transcription" democracy (a bit like what we do here in a #ConcertOfWills!). The TDG could be a tool to consider to federate insurgent municipalities, the idea of a one-year federal mandate (revocable, imperative), in this case, seems reasonable to me.
The TDG will succeed because (1) its early builders created the right culture and (2) the current representatives are making decisions many citizens find acceptable.
No mandate, constitution, or theory can reach this level of acceptance. The TDG will rise or fall on its own merits.
I predict that the TDG will eventually marry the municipal, provincial, and national levels of government into one unitary system. But this future is at least 10 years away.
@davevolek "the current representatives are making decisions many citizens find acceptable. " could you develop a little ?
The difficult decisions will not go away after TDG governance is implemented. There will always be some citizens not liking TDG decisions.
But the TDG decisions will not have the cloud of the needs of the political party.
So citizens would be assured that the decision was not influenced by nefarious actors or motives.
As well, the TDG will handle corruption more quickly and adeptly. So the decision will not be clouded with influence of corruption.
@davevolek It seems to me particularly important to give a voice to those who disagree, which is why representativeness gets in the way, prevents deliberation. We should criticize representativeness for the same reason that we criticize hegemonic utilitarian reason. Because it is the only real reason why representativeness is "naturalized": efficiency. 1/3
@davevolek If we question the society of speed (#Virilio) or even of acceleration (#Rosa), this allows us to deconstruct the naturalness of representativeness, of parties, of the state, and of the mythical market. 2/3
@davevolek As for the criticism of parties, I find #Weil's criticism very relevant, it is that of an artificial factory of collective passions. It is the great war between parties if we look closely: to the one who will manufacture the collective passion that will bring in the most votes. That's all. 3/3
My take is that parties provide a way for second-rate politicians to win elections.
I anticipate that each TDG representative will hold one or two "town hall" meetings every year. In these meetings, citizens can bring their concerns to the representatives. If enough citizens in enough town halls bring the same concerns, those concerns will move up the tiers.
There are no parties to censor or artificially advance concerns in the TDG.
@davevolek This would be very good in a federalist framework, but it is bad for the communities in the system you describe because it does not call into question the centrality of decisions (which "physically" prevents citizens from deliberating and even more so, from deciding) ... Centrality that representative systems logically put in place since there is a search for generalized "efficiency": I refer you in this case to my critique of utilitarian science, which I borrow from #Adorno.
While you seem to be critical of unitary governance, the dynamics of the TDG are much different than the dynamics of western democracy. Consider:
1) the electoral units are much smaller
2) no political parties
3) voting is character/capacity based, not self interest
4) power accumulation is drastically reduced.
So the TDG unitarian system will find a better balance for responsibility and authority between the three levels of government.
2/2
@davevolek the size of a decision-making unit (and not "electoral") should be limited by the capacity to join the deliberation and to self-manage. Political party systems are definitely to be banned. The system of delegation cannot be governed by moral rules. It is education and the intergenerational transmission of the project that can contain what I would prefer to call an ethic. 1/2
@davevolek In itself, democracy must be a place empty of power (#Lefort), whether technical (voting..) or "moral" (capacity of a representative prioritized in the face of "personal interest): the rules must be defined by deliberation, each collective inscribing the rules of living well together in complete autonomy. Power accumulation must not be reduced, it must be proscribed. Thus, real democracy reaches its ultimate form: a space of incessant, insurgent and living reinvention-creation. 2/2
It sounds like you are describing the TDG.
The TDG will accomplish your objective more by culture than by bans. For example, aspiring representatives uniting themselves in a party, slate, or faction won't get enough votes.
@davevolek I don't think so : deliberations don't take place between citizens but between representatives. This distorts whole situation. Representative systems naturalize specialization and a centralized organization, with an oligarchization permitted by its very nature (#Michels). Without a paradigmatic break with efficiency-speed (#Adorno) that underlies any representative system, organization becomes oligarchized and the bureaucracy of domination-destruction returns (it is efficient).
As I have mentioned previously, a good TDG representative should hold one or two town meetings a year. Citizens can voice their concerns. Deliberations with different perspectives and possible solutions can be conducted.
These meetings can be made more frequent---if the political energy is there.
@davevolek Rather than being optional, direct deliberations between citizens are at the heart of the democratic process, centered around constructive dissensus, which themselves represent irreducible plurality. Dissensus and its dialectic are the embodiment of popular sovereignty and its inherent legitimacy. In other words, you make a central, fundamental element a regular option.
But what if very few people show up at these meetings?
@davevolek Then we will not have democracy, but only a delegation system.
If the citizens are not willing to participate in direct democracy to the extent you think they should participate, then what is the point?
@davevolek Then we will head towards an inevitable crash.
Unfortunately, a crash is plausible in these times. If so, the crash cannot be blamed on direct democracy or the TDG.
But when the world returns to some kind of sanity, it is most likely to re-create a system that got us into this mess. The political scientists do not want to investigate new ways.
@davevolek
(1/6)
#Dominations take many forms, squeezing us like a vice. There is political domination: the coercive state and specialists who are experts in politics produce #spectacle and are masters of representation. The legitimacy of delegation systems depends only on universal suffrage, without which these systems overturn themselves.
(1/6)
#Dominations take many forms, squeezing us like a vice. There is political domination: the coercive state and specialists who are experts in politics produce #spectacle and are masters of representation. The legitimacy of delegation systems depends only on universal suffrage, without which these systems overturn themselves.
(2/6)
There is also technical domination, as harshly criticized by #Virilio and #Rosa (society of speed/acceleration). The legitimacy of this domination is both conceptual—based on the myth of linear “progress”—and material: what I call “comfortism.” We accept domination in exchange for comfort, rarely questioning its cost.
@davevolek
(3/6)
By deconstructing the idea of linear progress (James C. #Scott, Emma #Goldman, #Latour, #Benjamin…), and the “golden prison” of comfortism, we see this domination also turns on itself. Think of “situated objectivity” (#Harding, #Haraway, #Barad, #Serres): objectivity is always embedded in context, never neutral or universal.
(3/6)
By deconstructing the idea of linear progress (James C. #Scott, Emma #Goldman, #Latour, #Benjamin…), and the “golden prison” of comfortism, we see this domination also turns on itself. Think of “situated objectivity” (#Harding, #Haraway, #Barad, #Serres): objectivity is always embedded in context, never neutral or universal.
(4/6)
The legitimacy of the market as a divinity to which sacrifices must be made is now quite well undermined: #Polanyi, #Benjamin, #Dardot, #Laval, #Brown, #Galluzzo have all shown this. When frenetic consumption ceases, the market will also collapse by itself—its legitimacy is already deeply shaken.
(5/6)
What remains is domination by mode of production/biopolitics (#Marx, #Foucault). This last form, though more complex and diffuse, could be the one that triggers the reversal of all others. That’s the wager of Marx, Dardot, Laval, #Negri, #Hardt, #Federici, #Ostrom, and those at the forefront: #Vercellone, #Giuliani, #Brancaccio.
(6/6)
If we want to avoid endlessly repeating the same cycles after a crash, we must address all these forms of domination—political, technical, market, and productive. Only then can we hope for a true transformation, not just a return to the old order.
Sidelining our domination tendencies is key to the transformation. Western democracy has conquered this to some degree, but it has reached its limit. We need to go further.
I believe the TDG is the vehicle. If an elected TDG representative gets too domineering, the TDG voters will vote for someone else.
In this way, the elected TDG representatives are motivated by a spirit of service to their society, not by a desire to acquire status, influence, and power.
@davevolek As I have already told you, it is not possible to impose morality through a democratic system. The judgment of who is dominant or who is not is highly subjective (there is perhaps nothing more "subjective"). The system of delegation reproduces the insatiable search for efficiency, utilitarian science, instrumental reason. The elected dominators are undoubtedly "effective". The question remains: effective, yes, but to what end? To reproduce multi-millennial dominations? No thank you.