I don't think anybody really has a good idea what a democratic
organization of millions of members who aren't primarily organized by
geography would look like, or what it would do.
One thing that is pretty clear is that since there is no actual
hierarchy (no one can be fired from their job because Obama or Plouffe
says so - yet), anything heavy-handed that the list-leaders do will be
ignored, or lead to people leaving. So, in this sense, the task of the
central committee will have a certain cat-herding aspect.
Obviously Move-on - of which I'm an opportunistic member - is a
relevant example here. What its lessons are, is far from obvious. It
was constructed around a vision of a distributed organization for
lobbying congress. The Obama network can obviously do something
similar (and no-doubt it overlaps substantially with Move-on already).
There are potentially some interesting possibilities with such a
network. If, for example, congresspeople with alternative proposals
were able to solicit a national network for support (and those
proposals were substantively debated), it could significantly
influence what moved forward.
But, I suspect, the majority of net-activists don't have a good sense
of the many places in which power is actually wielded. Leaving aside
for a moment the positions of power in private economic institutions -
a pretty big leave-aside, obviously - there are a vast number of
elected and appointed positions, literally down to the neighborhood
level, which exert control over all kinds of quite important
decisions. Most of these positions are filled by whatever remains of
party machines, or local political entrepreneurs. State legislators
often come from quite small districts too, where weak machines are
frequently vulnerable to insurgent campaigns.
Then there's a whole 'nother realm of organization to be approached on
the basis of occupational or professional networks.
Ignoring what the central committee has in mind, though, a key
question is, how should communication to the network be mediated? It's
not just going to be a gigantic list-serv; the mind boggles. Nobody
even has a good sense of what is the largest number of people who can
usefully participate in a discussion. Right now opinion leaders tend
to be bloggers and columnists; it's not entirely clear how people
penetrate the to the level of "someone whose opinion is sought out and
respected."
Some thoughts...
--pb
On Nov 16, 2008, at 6:57 PM, ken hanly wrote:
Well it won't be to the gang of four!
Cheers, k hanly
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html
Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
--- On Sun, 11/16/08, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Pen-l] the Obama movement
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 2:22 PM
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[this "grass roots" movement is extremely likely
to be run using what
the Leninists call "democratic centralism," i.e.
top-down rule,
tempered only by fears of driving too many members away. If
an
individual doesn't like what the network is doing, he
or she should
leave. There will likely be some flow of suggestions from
the roots to
the top, but only those that fit with the elite's goals
-- or involves
mass discontent among the membership -- will be heeded.]
^^^^
CB: Yep , and like you predicted , this crisis of US
finance capital will probably cause the Chinese Commnist
Party, of all people, to lose state power to....??? ( ?????
smile; Now that's complexity theory and wishful
thinking)
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl
plc. www.surfcontrol.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
