Marv said: *“Most people bring different levels of commitment to an organization. Not all want to lead. Many are too busy at work and with family, prioritize more compelling outside interests, lack the necessary self-confidence, or don’t want the responsibility for some other reason. They’re content to let the more dedicated and ambitious compete for leadership.”*
I completely agree with you and in my experience people with the lowest commitment levels often have great ideas which they have no interest in spearheading themselves. On the other hand there are those comrades who are ready to go to action but lack the strategic benefit of having the support of a broad based movement behind them. The only caveat I would raise is that from the standpoint of class consciousness it is psychologically beneficial to encourage workers to expand their horizons beyond their comfort zone. The idea is to build character in a way that allows everyone to preserve liberty and freedom. Hari said: *“But you know, I honestly am not sure this is very different from any big organisational Human Relations behavioural response. I am not trying to be funny or trying to put it down.”* I get what you’re getting at comrade. Sortition is neither a delegation or election of leadership; it requires rotating leadership in a provisional way that could be compared to many civic organizational models, most notably western style jury duty. Traditional democratic centralized organizations have active and inactive membership but participation aside, it typically comes down to who pays dues and who doesn’t. From the bureaucracy standpoint taking jury duty as an example the administration simply imposes a pecking order and penalizes those who fail to comply. In opposition to traditional and bureaucratic management the idea is to randomly select members and give them the option to accept or reject. If they accept, let them choose from the democratically deliberated task. If they refuse no harm no foul simply keep account of the refusals. Depending on the structure it could be decided that each comrade has a set number of skips before they are considered inactive; or a dues structure could be developed around contributions; maybe people who are more active pay less dues and those who are less active pay slightly more. My ideas are drawn from institutional analysis where hierarchical structure is combated by horizontal integration. *“The masses revolt only when the they're driven to it, most often when their society or organization is in crisis, when they conclude that the existing leadership - and sometimes the structure itself - no longer meets their needs.”* *"In the case of the Soviet masses, loyalty to Stalin was reinforced, despite their hardship and sacrifices, by their attachment to the goals and accomplishments of the October revolution. They were not only persuaded by state propaganda that Stalin was the worthy successor to Lenin, but took special pride in the Soviet industrialization drive and the promise of a better future."* The masses always desire that which will immediately benefit their preconscious interests of class. The most important word is desire. In a way similar to but markedly different from the Russian experience, with the Germans prior to WWII the masses were not duped; they actively desired fascism. In a similar way poor people today actively desire wealth in the form of capital. The second most important word is “needs.” A stalinist bureaucracy, a fascist war machine, and a capitalist political economy are not necessary; they are simply sufficient to the task of mobilization of mass desire. It is precisely because revolutionary investments of class exist alongside the reactionary investments that attunement to the quality of life of every worker or citizen is of paramount importance. In this context the masses are like the minefield waiting to detonate and the goal is not to defuse the tension but to channel the energy in a way that is productive like dynamite dislodging rocks to build a pathway through a mountain. Finally we can either entrust this technical leadership to a special segment of the population and run the risk of being subordinate to this special administration or we can share the collective responsibility of managing, training and handling the technical task. The tragedy of the Paris Commune wasn’t the organizational frailty but the inability of the mass organization to handle the military task and need to defend that which was created. Cheers, Ben -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39594): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39594 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116549413/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
