Charter Document -- Debate the Contents

Charter Document -- Debate the Contents

Guest

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 03:00 am Post subject:



I will begin again.

There is a DRAFT proposal at
http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=2

This is my response to most of it.

FROM THE DRAFT:

The International De Leonist Federation (IDF) is a loose,
decentralized, international association or confederation of
individuals and groups, bound together by the conviction that the
basic "Socialist Industrial Union" program is the best, or one of
the

REPLY

I do not know about others, I do not advocate SIU to "achieve and
implement democratic or libertarian socialism." I advocate SIU
because the current epoch and social system are coming to an end
and either the abyss or the SIU will replace them. I know wha

On this same basis I do not know what "DeLeonist" means. If it
would only mean the DeLeonist SIU concept that would be one thing.
but what else is DeLeonist? The statement jammed down many a SLP
member's throat that "the organization and the principal are

FROM THE DRAFT:

IDF members should commit .

REPLY:

I would suggest affiliates.

FROM THE DRAFT:

The .is principally an educational federation.

REPLY:

I would suggest: The principal purpose of the .is to advocate for
the SIU program throughout the world.

FROM THE DRAFT:

The De Leonist movement has moved through several iterations in
organizational form, including the Socialist Labor Party, the
Industrial Union Party, and the New Union Party. None has found
continuing wide audience; the latter has disbanded.
We see the traditional "party" form as presently unnecessary, or
even disadvantageous, for reasons including these .

REPLY:

Isn't the affiliation open to all "DeLeonist" groups including the
SLP?
The given reasons may be why some don't like to be in the party,
or have been kicked out, etc. but that is not a reason for
defining the SLP out of the affiliation - indeed the moderator of
the group is proposing to the SLP that it join. You can't serious

FROM THE DRAFT:

The IDF is decentralized, and possesses no central governing
structure; thus, it can expand or contract easily and dynamically
as interest in De Leonism grows or wanes. Additionally, because it
has no central governing structure, one or more individuals c

REPLY:

I would drop everything after "decentralized, and possesses no
central governing structure" . The charter doesn't need to explain
itself, not restrict itself as to why a decentralized set up was
chosen. If it is to be in the charter, it will because of va

FROM THE DRAFT:

Other structural forms can appear as appropriate to later
conditions.

REPLY.

Awkward. And I doubt that it is needed to be said that if people
don't think that the current form of this thing does not pan out,
that they can always change it. Or make it obvious by including a
process for amending the charter.

FROM THE DRAFT:

Additionally, as Dan Read, De Leonist Activist, has pointed out,
since capitalism is now more global than ever before, our
organizational response to capitalism must be global, as well.

REPLY

I don't know who Dan Reed is, but I doubt that he needs to
credited with that concept. It seems that Big Karl may have been
just a bit ahead:
"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the
whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies,
and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a
manifesto of the party itself." From Big Karl's Magnificent Ma

FROM THE DRAFT:

The ultimate form the IDF will take must be unknown at present.

REPLY.

There is no "ultimate" form. The form at any given time will that
what people say it is. One form would not be ultimate over
another.

FROM THE DRAFT:

However, of utility in organizational development may be the
thought process of this writer, initially brainstorming with, and
in, conversation with Mike Lepore, in initially conceiving and
formulating the IDF. This section may overlap with other sections

REPLY.

Who is "this writer" ? And why would the thought processes of
"this writer" be of anymore value than any other's?

FROM THE DRAFT:

1. The movement is small. There are relatively few De Leonists in
the world.
2. Therefore, there exists no urgent need to run candidates for
political office, save perhaps for the educational value of
candidate appearances, campaign literature, etc.

REPLY.

This implies that if there were a large amount of DeLeonts that
there would be an urgent need to run candidates. The premise is
not universally accepted that I know of.

FROM THE DRAFT:

3. There has been a pernicious and undeniable undercurrent running
through the De Leonist movement arguably from its beginning,
starting with Marx himself, then running to De Leon, Peterson,
Karp, and now seemingly manifest in one or more persons heading
Therefore, what is needed, essentially, is a mechanism (i.e. an
organization, group, mobilization, or other structure) which: blah
blah blah

REPLY.

Even if all of it is true, what does it matter? And if it doesn't
need to be in the charter in order to set up the group - don't.
Besides, again it seems that the intent here is to write the SLP
out of the Charter. That seems contrary with the purpose in
FROM THE DRAFT:
is principally an educational organization, to increase the
literacy of the general population about socialism generally, and
libertarian socialism, specifically.

REPLY.

Not everyone (actually very few) in favor of the SIU program is
going to recognize the meaning of the term "libertarian socialism"
if indeed an established meaning does exist. The goal is SIU, not
that everyone believes that SIU means that "libertarian so

FROM THE DRAFT:

There are such small numbers of De Leonists at present, that what
is really needed is an effective, consistently applied mechanism
by which to educate people.

REPLY.

No there is not.

FROM THE DRAFT:

2. should, for now, actually consist in many individualized units
(individuals and/or groups) working to the same goal, but in an
independent manner. Of course, since each unit is independent and
self-directed, they can choose to affiliate and combine wit
3. is structured such that it cannot have control wrested by egos
and power grabs, even if well-intentioned.

REPLY.

Again explaining why decentralization is the decided present form
of the group. It's not the complte set of reasons, and even if it
was, so why is it necesary to go into them?

FROM THE DRAFT:

4. provides a much-needed center for, or organization around
which, De Leonists can come together, for both moral and practical
support.
5. serves in a de facto way to increase the internal and external
strength of the De Leonist movement, by uniting it, generally,
combining, facilitating, and focusing its people and resources.
6. is resistant, if not essentially immune, from ruling class or
other outside-or inside-interference or sabotage. For example, no
injurious action can destroy the Internet, because it is a highly
decentralized entity void of a central "core."
7. will serve, in part, as something of a De Leonist "cauldron,"
"pool," or "hot spring," from within which bubbles of interest,
enthusiasm, ideas, plans, strategies, questions, answers, growth,
and goodwill, can and will simmer to the surface.

REPLY.

Unnecessary

Too tired to continue.

Dave




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 06:25 am Post subject:



> I do not know about others, I do not advocate SIU to "achieve
and
> implement democratic or libertarian socialism." I advocate SIU
> because the current epoch and social system are coming to an end
> and either the abyss or the SIU will replace them. I know what
SIU
> is. I do not know what "democratic socialism" or "libertarian
> socialism is - I think these terms are not necessary to describe
> SIU nor do I think that they are even helpful terms.

During the past ten years or so, the term "libertarian socialism"
has actually become quite recognizable by many people who read
political theory. Essentially, it signals to the reader: "You may
not yet know much about us, but so far you do know this: Unlike
most people, we don't define socialism to mean state ownership or
state control. We also condemn repressive societies for their
denial of civil liberties, even if this repression was
supposedly done in the name of socialism." Yes, that two-word
term says all that, but nothing beyond that. The specific goal
and program are not yet described by the term.




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 06:41 am Post subject: More Info for Dave



Dave,

Thanks much for your thoughts.

However:

1. You're working from an old version of the Charter. If you go up
five posts you'll read my message apprising everyone that new
document versions have been posted. You perhaps need to read
through things more consistently before making remarks or taking

2. If you don't know who Dan Read is, then it might appear you
haven't been carefully reading through all the posts in this
forum. Dan was interested in the idea of the Federation from the
beginning, was posting accordingly from that time, and he is now t

3. In the latest version of the charter, I have added some
language to address your specific concern regarding whether part
of the organization's role was "directly advocating socialism to
the workers. The new language should make clear that such activity

Go up about six posts to "Further Reply to Dave re Nature of IDF"
to read the added language. As I wrote to Mike recently regarding
the new language:

"This makes more explicitly clear the manner in which units can
collaborate, addressing concerns like Dave's-this shows that if
affiliates want to "advocate socialism to the workers," or do so
in a particular manner, the organizational structure easily ac

I also addressed this point in a long post entitled "Reply to
Dave." dated Wed. Feb. 09, which states, in part:

"Additionally, however, I see no reason why we can't build in as
an officially stated parallel or subsidiary goal that in addition
to bringing together De Leonist groups for collaboration, the IDF
also has as a goal a direct appeal to workers. Of course,

4. I respectfully suggest you read that post from me, it's an
important one, as well as every other post in this forum which you
may not have carefully read already. Then, review the very latest
version of the IDF charter and other documents.

After all this, you will be better acquainted with the IDF
documents, the current state of the project, and the people
involved, and you will thus be in a better position to review and
assess the Charter, and everything else.

5. By the way, I agree with some of your remarks and concerns. For
example, if De Leon was a narrow thinker and a racist, that is of
utmost concern for me. If such an improper and unfortunate mindset
characterized most or even much of the body of thought

By "De Leonism," I think most people mean the SIU program, and his
large body of supporting thought, in the form of written pieces
and transcribed oral addresses, from Daniel De Leon, himself. They
probably also refer, more peripherally, to supporting pie

Ultimately, if we could find a sort of "catchy" or otherwise
appealing name for the org which referred more explicitly to the
SIU program, and not to Daniel De Leon, I'd be inclined to
strongly consider it.

Although, having said that, is it not true that the SIU program,
and much valuable supporting material, really is the brainchild of
this man, alone?

I'm not a De Leon expert, far from it, so that is as much a
genuine inquiry as a rhetorical question.

(I read recently that Eugene Debs also advocated action on the
political and industrial fields...is this true? If so, did he get
the idea from De Leon, or someone else?)

Yours,

vince

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 06:42 am Post subject:



I agree with much of what Dave just said. First, as a trial lawyer
would word it, an "opening statement" isn't supposted to contain
"argument." Second, even if the charter were going to contain
argument, I don't agree with some of the points there.

We don't yet have a concise statement that I feel is "ready to
go."

How are we going to handle this? It may be better to take a blank
sheet and to pull "well-liked" sentences in one-by-one, rather
than decide to remove certain sentences. Sorry, Vince -- It truly
and definitely was necessary to begin with a complete draft

However, some of the content that Dave disliked is already gone,
because Vince sent me some amendments about 2:00 in the morning.




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:02 am Post subject:



> FROM THE DRAFT:
> The IDF is decentralized, and possesses no central governing
structure

I think it must have a governing structure, at least to some
extent. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to do anything. It
wouldn't be able to delegate the writing of a website to a
committee, or do anything else.




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:05 am Post subject: Are We Re-inventing
the Wheel?



Hi,

Here's a wild and wacky thought, from the "let's not reinvent the
wheel" department:

Instead of forming this De Leonist federation, why don't we all
just join the SPUSA?

Ok, ok, stop chuckling...this is a serious inquiry!

(I realize this suggestion does not necessarily help our UK De
Leonist brothers and sisters)

I was told some years ago that there are De Leonists in the SP;
whether there are enough to constitute a De Leonist "contingent" I
don't know.

I realize there is, or at least was, a historical antagonism
between the SP and the SLP. Does it still exist? If so, is it
strong enough to render implausible or undesirable the notion of a
De Leonist joining the SP?

I've been surfing their site lately; they are indeed involved in
much reform, but they seem to maintain what at least appears to be
a serious revolutionary posture, as well. And I've recently
learned of their "Deb's Tendency," which is apparently a contin

In sum, then, it appears that there is a serious revolutionary
impulse in the SP.

Of course, the SP is "multi-tendency" and does not officially
espouse the SIU program, but providing they do not forbid members
from promulgating it at meetings and otherwise within and to the
party, wouldn't joining the SP instead of, or in addition to,

Here:

1. They appear to already have a thriving, established
organization.
2. They advocate democratic, revolutionary socialism
3. They are multi-tendency and so presumably are amenable to De
Leonists joining.

Thoughts?

I Remain,

vince

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 07:25 am Post subject:



I'm sorry, Vince -- While moving posts around, a minute ago, I
didn't mean to move your last one re SPUSA, but I moved it by
accident, and now I can't move it back without producing the
danger of destroying the first 80+ posts

My answer would be: multi-tendency is not good.
I think the SLP-NUP-etc. are the SAME tendency.




Guest






Posted: 10 Feb 2005 11:57 am Post subject:



Mike says:

mikelepore wrote:


During the past ten years or so, the term "libertarian socialism"
has actually become quite recognizable by many people who read
political theory. Essentially, it signals to the reader: "You may
not yet know much about us, but so far you do know this: Unlike
most people, we don't define socialism to mean state ownership or
state control. We also condemn repressive societies for their
denial of civil liberties, even if this repression was
supposedly done in the name of socialism." Yes, that two-word
term says all that, but nothing beyond that. The specific goal
and program are not yet described by the term.


Unfortunately being a parent I have been battling other tigers
over more than the last ten years and there is a bunch that has
gotten by me - IF this term "libertarian socialism" actually has
this wide spread meaning I would like to see where.

I did a google on the term and came up with an interesting piece
at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/lamb.htm

I would suggest going back to the charter wording and actually
advocate a SIU concept that incorporates the important elements of
"libertarian socialism". (This is part of the reason why I favor
focusing on the SIU instead of "DeLeonist" From what I see,




Guest






Posted: 10 Feb 2005 12:10 pm Post subject:



Dear all

If anyone wants to join the SP, that doesnt mean they have to
cease work on the IDF does it?

Im not so sure if the SP is a valid vehicle for revolution. Those
members who I have encountered generaly seem to be of the "head in
the clouds" type, who pretty much jump on any reformist bandwagon
going, while advocating some utopian "everything should

They also appear to have anarchists and Trotskyists in thier
ranks, and annoying and disruptive bunch indeed!

I have not heard of De Leonists being present in the party, though
there is some hostility to De Leon from what I can gather.

I never really understood the point in a "multi-tendancy" party.
Is it not better just to have a common program of theory and
principle? The fractured ideology of the SP leads it to some very
bizzare conclusions and statments, such as not actualy being ab

From what I have seen, Eugene Debs had some sound ideas. I am a
member of the Debs tendancy discussion forum, and the debate is
very lively.

Regards
Dan Read




Guest






Posted: 10 Feb 2005 12:42 pm Post subject:



VINCE WROTE

Thanks much for your thoughts.

However:

1. You're working from an old version of the Charter. If you go up
five posts you'll read my message apprising everyone that new
document versions have been posted. You perhaps need to read
through things more consistently before making remarks or taking

DAVE REPLIES

In fact the group does have a charter draft at
There is a DRAFT proposal at http:

//www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=2

That is the document that I said that I worked from. You say that
the draft has been updated. Who is updating the charter - you
individually? Has the group accepted these charter draft changes.
I haven't seen it. Until the site administartor changes the d

DAVE ORIGINALLY WROTE

>from the draft:

>Additionally, as Dan Read, De Leonist Activist, has pointed out,
since capitalism is now more global than ever before, our
organizational response to capitalism must be global, as well.

>reply

>I don't know who Dan Reed is, but I doubt that he needs to
credited with that concept. It seems that Big Karl may have been
just a bit ahead:
"It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the
whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies,
and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a
manifesto of the party itself." From Big Karl's Magnificent Ma

TO WHICH VINCE RESPONDED:

If you don't know who Dan Read is, then it might appear you
haven't been carefully reading through all the posts in this
forum. Dan was interested in the idea of the Federation from the
beginning, was posting accordingly from that time, and he is now
the

DAVE REPLIES

I still don't know who John Read is or why he should be credited
with the concept that captilaism is global therefore the workers
organizational response must be global. He hasn't even claimed
credit. IF creidit is to be ascribed, doesn't Big Karl stand i

VINCE WROTE

In the latest version of the charter, I have added some language
to address your specific concern regarding whether part of the
organization's role was "directly advocating socialism to the
workers. ...

DAVE REPLIES

The changes that you say have been made are not in the document at
//www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=2

DAVE CONTINUES

As I stated at the top of my post "I will begin again"

People will see that my post contained none of the tone that was
contained in my earlier posts. I offered my comments in good faith
on the document that I understood to be the offical version of the
charter draft. If the GROUP actually made changes to it,

Since the remainder of Vince's comments are not specifically in
response in what I have written on the charter draft at
//www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=2

I will not respond.

To be able to seriously continue the charter draft discussion I
request the moderator to indicate the http of the GROUP's charter
draft proposal.

Dave




Guest






Posted: 10 Feb 2005 12:46 pm Post subject:



MIKE WROTE

I think it must have a governing structure, at least to some
extent. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to do anything. It
wouldn't be able to delegate the writing of a website to a
committee, or do anything else.

DAVE AGREES




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 06:30 pm Post subject:



This is me doing a Frankenstein job on Vince's draft,
sewing together the parts that I think are most
essential. If others think that the whole document
should be much more than this, I'd like to hear why.



Draft of Charter Document
Lepore version 10 February 2005


Text moved to file:
http://www.deleonism.org/cgi-bin/text.cgi?j=8

Last edited by mikelepore on 12 Feb 2005 06:56 pm; edited 2 times
in total




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 10 Feb 2005 06:47 pm Post subject:



> IF this term "libertarian socialism" actually has this wide
spread
> meaning I would like to see where.

I exaggerated the extent of the recognizability of the term.

It's meaning has come mainly by being used by certain
syndicalists. There was an offshoot of newsgroup
alt.politics.socialism to form an additional newsgroup
alt.politics.socialism.libertarian. There is a wobblyish magazine
called "The Libertarian Labor R

It was the term that Frank Girard (Discussion Bulletin) always
prefered when he argued that there was some similarity between
DeLeonists, the IWW, the Workers Solidarity Alliance,
worldsocialism.org, the International Communist Current, Spunk
Press, and m

The SLP has denounced the term, saying that it's merely a synonym
for "anarchist."

I suggest not using the term in the charter.




Guest






Posted: 11 Feb 2005 09:38 am Post subject:



"I don't know who Dan Reed is, but I doubt that he needs to
credited with that concept. It seems that Big Karl may have been
just a bit ahead"

Alrighty, then lets have the bit that mentions me removed, there
is little point to it and if its causing offence then its best to
be done with it. There is really no need to keep bringing this up
and changing my name from Dan to John or Read to Reed.

Regards
Dan Read




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 11 Feb 2005 05:50 pm Post subject:



I'm making a formal motion now. Please vote, discuss, or amend.

(1) that we next try to quickly find at least one sentence,
paragraph or outline that we all agree on without reservation,
however brief, and put that online as soon as possible as a
tentatively ratified "charter", so that we don't have to delay in
contac
(2) that all other documents that exist as of this point in time
shall be identified in the link list as: individual motions,
resolutions or commentary: still under debate and not yet ratified
by the group.




Author Message
Guest






Posted: 11 Feb 2005 08:11 pm Post subject:



Sorry I just submitted a version of this that I didn't proof. Here
is a better version.

mikelepore wrote:
I'm making a formal motion now. Please vote, discuss, or amend.

(1) that we next try to quickly find at least one sentence,
paragraph or outline that we all agree on without reservation,
however brief, and put that online as soon as possible as a
tentatively ratified "charter", so that we don't have to delay in
contac
(2) that all other documents that exist as of this point in time
shall be identified in the link list as: individual motions,
resolutions or commentary: still under debate and not yet ratified
by the group.


Mike you brought up the question of my affiliate status. I
affiliate for the duration of the charter "draft" period and will
at the end of that time decide whther to remain or walk. I hope
that is acceptable to everyone.

As to your motion I agree in part, that we nedd a quick fix to the
draft problem. The more bare bones the better - HOWEVER You do not
want to contact the SLP with this other "draft" language hanging
out there. There is a lot of language in the draft (unne

Dave




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 11 Feb 2005 10:36 pm Post subject: Drafting Meeting
Required



Hi,

1. Bear in mind the Charter does not necessarily have to conform
exactly to the strict technical definition of a "charter."

2. Mike said:

>>>I agree with much of what Dave just said.

Well I don't! I found many of the thoughts just expressed by Dave
in his first analysis of the Charter to be nonsensical,
ill-formed, incomprehensible, or simply incorrect!

(But more on the process of hashing out our respective thoughts,
especially on such an important document, below.)

3. FROM THE DRAFT:
> The IDF is decentralized, and possesses no central governing
structure

[Mike said:] "I think it must have a governing structure, at least
to some extent. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to do anything.
It wouldn't be able to delegate the writing of a website to a
committee, or do anything else."

I envision the IDF being run as widely and often as possible by ad
hoc committees. Keeps things flexible and dynamic, and prevents
accumulations of power.

As far as this one particular structure goes, the "central
governing structure," it might be the one instance where something
permanent is required, I don't know. We'd really have to kick it
around....

4. And now is the appropriate time to segue into something Mike
and I touched on telephonically some time ago: working online vs.
in-person.

You'd better sit down, because I'm about to blow your minds with
the following remarks.

I think the fact is, historically anyway, people forming serious
organizations or creating landmark documents or otherwise making
serious collective decisions typically conduct such processes IN
PERSON. Precisely because so much detailed back-and-forth co

There is a sterility, and a large inconvenience factor, to this
online method, which is stifling, and does not do justice to the
task. Certainly not such an important and complex task as hashing
out principles for a charter--not if we want those principle

People simply cannot fully and properly argue points through the
typed word; it's ridiculous! Participants need to see each other's
facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, diagrams on a
blackboard, on and on, to really understand each other, to reall

How much typing can one person do? I can't possibly respond, via
typing, to all Dave's, and your, and everyone else's remarks about
what I've written. And if I can't properly and fully respond, then
a full exchange has not taken place, a full vetting of i

Thus our document, hence our principles, hence our organization,
is compromised right out of the starting gate. We've lost the race
before we've even begun running.

You guys want to do this the CORRECT way? Then do it the
old-fashioned way, the time-tested way. Let's plan a drafting
meeting with ourselves and whoever else is interested; we'll get
together, in person for a full day or 3/4 day, and hash it all
out! We'

Regards,

vince

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 35
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 11 Feb 2005 11:14 pm Post subject: Drafting Meeting
Required, Part II



Hi,

Here are further thoughts on the necessity of an in-person
drafting meeting (an idea which appears to have generated a
conspicuous silence, so far).

1. Even if subsequently-affiliated individuals change wholesale
the charter we generate now, the fact is that the contents of the
present charter will frame the debate, in some measure, right up
to the vote which ultimately accepts the new, radically-chan

So any changes made now, even if modified or reversed later, are
extremely important.


2. To be a bit more explicit about one of the points made in
"Drafting Meeting Required," above: I don't doubt that some
people--perhaps you, Mike--are temperamentally suited, or
otherwise willing, to attempt to conduct the proper, far-ranging,
detailed,

But others are not temperamentally inclined, or so willing (like
me).

So it's not simply a matter that it can't be done properly; it's
also a matter that some persons don't want to, or can't do it.

(And one of the reasons I don't want to do it...is that I feel it
can't be done properly.)


3. I mean you are already throwing all kinds of charter changes
and proposals around which I am simply unable to respond to in a
proper and timely fashion using the sheer typing power of my
fingers.

And even the head-butting Dave and I have done would probably not
occur were we in the same room talking, because I'd be able to get
him to explain himself directly, in words, and if I didn't get it,
I could respond with questions or subsequent statements


4. As a secondary option, I propose a three (or four) way
telephone call to accomplish the task. Even that would be far
better than this sterile, alienating process.

Best,

vince

PS. If my suggestions here go unheeded, which I hope they don't, I
would suggest keeping the present draft online under a heading
like "Original Draft Charter Backgrounder," to give people context
for your revised charter, and as a way of making people aw

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 411

Posted: 12 Feb 2005 10:11 am Post subject:



Vince,
>>>> further thoughts on the necessity of an in-person drafting
meeting


(1) Objecting in principle:

I consider it undemocratic for a group that is later going to be
(just to pick a random number) 500 people, to have a charter that
was written by the first four people who happened to convene.

It's almost certain that the larger body of people will later
re-do and re-do and re-do anything that we have proposed.

So why waste time in pretending that we have so far completed
anything official?

So for now let's collectively adopt a very short statement, just a
couple paragraphs or sentences, and allow everything else that we
have written to be treated as a body of public "letters to the
editor", to be delivered to a real drafting committee which


(2) On a personal level

No meetings for me. About anything. Ever. None.
I would not attend. No phone calls about it either.
I choose to know all other socialists merely as patterns of dots
on a computer screen.
Zero probability that this will be negotiable.



Guest






Posted: 13 Feb 2005 06:29 pm Post subject:



Dear all

Apologies if I jumped the gun a little, but the SLP have just been
contacted. Perhaps I should have discussed this with everyone, but
since I have been contacting other De Leonist organisations, I
felt it fell within my scope of activity as acting general

If any feel I acted inproperly then I apologise, but I feel we
have reached a stage when input from established
parties/groups/publications is required.

Regards
Dan Read