[Campaignforrealdemocracy] [project2012] re lets get real or should we stick with fantasy

[Mark Barrett]

Hi Rich

>this means your not going to change much with your radical new plans.
>what practicaly (ignoring the slim posibility of a major revolution ) do to
improve the plight of the home less?  job less?
>or is this not the focus of this blog

I'm not sure what post you're responding to, but for your benefit and other
new members: in terms of "radical new plans" and the purpose of the Project
2012 and CRD lists, 2012 was started in 2008 on the basis that the UK and
wider world needs a grassroots rights-based democracy movement, with clear
aims.

This, in turn was a follow-up initiative to the 2006 C421 project between
members of People in Common (a picnic campaign group formed to fight
restrictions on protest rights in Parliament Sqaure and debate the nature of
our constitution), People's Assembly members and A World to Win. Together we
looked at the nature of the political constitution in the summer of 2006. An
interim campaign summary statement was then given, see:
http://www.peopleincommon.org/C421.html

Following a brief hiatus, the 2012 list was then set up in 2008 in order to
organise a conference in Dec (2008), held on the anniversary of the UDHR &
linking traditional human rights concerns with more collectivist concepts
such as lebfevre's "the right to the city", Henry George's LVT and so
forth. Following that, moving into 2009 Project 2012's focus shifted
towards a grand debate on how to facilitate the building of a really
focused coalition in the run up to 2012.

To bring the story up to date in the early part of 2009 came discussions and
meetings around the concept of Local Sovereignty (LS) as a possible uniting
idea, and then, following Climate Camper James Holland and other's
interventions amid concern that LS was not an accessible enough idea, a new
list and three further meetings were held, this time around the concept
of "Campaign for Real Democracy" or CRD.

So far CRD appears to have 2 main strands:

(1) the encouragement of greater ambition, more unity and a dedication to
really democratic (ie consensus) decision making at the grassroots local
level (ie in local neighbourhood campaign work) and a sharing of idea across
the communities and
(2) the development of a CRD manifesto which so might be attractive to civil
society / community groups and the independent voluntary sector.

The idea behind (1) being that if grassroots groups push harder together,
and are more clear about their shared aims and what makes for democratic
means, change will happen as power relations shift, maybe in one, two or
many more places. The prospect of Transition Towns people and Climate Camp
people coming together on this basis is exciting for this reason as they are
both national and international movements.

About (2) more news as and when but the basic idea is that, as time
progresses we, with others of like mind will be able to link art, radically
democratic ideology and social action into one big civil society, or civil
rights union. This list is for use in creating the conditions to make that
coalition possible, which means I think working out areas of agreement and
disagreement, across the political spectrum and ensuring we find a programme
or series of programmes over which a cross-section of campaigners will
be might agree and then campaign effectively together.

About the question of joblessness, because the proposed CRD manifesto is
about creating a parallel political economy, and specifically one in
which each  neighbourhood community becomes, in contrast with its
emasculated status today, a powerful producer of a new culture which could
effectively deal with these issues in ways that the state and private market
cannot. This is what some of us consider to be a real third way, civil
society independent and empowered, takling its rightful place as equal, if
not higher power to the state and the market.

To be more precise, with new structures and greater local sovereignty - the
right to raise independent revenue, and get a basic budget from central govt
equal to that given to all the other communities, + a building asset to make
decisions and offer services as an absolute bare minumum -  this new
power could be exercised (by civil society, ie local people, directly) in
one or more functional ways. For example operating as a democratic school,
creche, governing assembly, resident owned bank and, in response to your
concerns (1) housing provider and (2) benefits distributor  / employer. So
the manifesto seeks to answer that by putting forward the case for
a community employment scheme, under which anyone without work would be able
to choose between neighbourhoods, and therefore, because the neighbourhood
cultures will be so diverse in this new world, effectively choose what work
they do and the community for which they do it. So, in this inverted world
order, parallel economy to which all are invited to take part, and where
civil society is on top and the state and the market play second fiddle,
effectively the communities, which have become employers and governing
assemblies are on the one hand (ie given *power**) on the other they are
forced to develop / produce a new culture and compete with other communities
for labour. So the jobless get more power to shape their destiny by applying
themselves to a form of work they are desirous of and in a community that
offers them terms that are fair (which might include a provision of housing
/ camp site or whatever to connect to your other point)

**about power:* in accordance with the principles of CRD this must surely be
exercised carefully, ie *to include everyone in decision making and to not
make decisions which are not full consensus*. in the parallel democratic
economy, there must be no "majority vote" version of democracy, which
effectively shuts down and out a minority, nor secret decisions made behind
closed doors. If a group is split. and can't decide what to spend its money
on between one of two projects, they must look for another one that everyone
can  get behind, and not spend the cash yet. No harm in taking your
time. When fascists take over, as they are prone to do in small communities
from time to time, they must be forced, if necessary by cops to start the
project all over again because inclusivity and consensus are cornerstones to
the whole project. What if a whole community of racists forms, where no eg
non-whites live? There attitudes will almost certainly merit them getting
kicked out, because the new covenant must surely only be available to the
people of the one?

I am hoping to put on an event in 2010 around these ideas with members of
the voluntary and community sector and others.

Sorry for long reply!

Mark

2009/10/11 rich harbo <richonelove2003 at yahoo.co.uk>

>    In a democrasy everyone has the right to agree or disagree ?
>
> most people in UK have given their consent to long
> term blinkered compliance ?
>
> this means your not going to change much with your radical new plans.
>
> what practicaly (ignoring the slim posibility of a major revolution ) do to
> improve the plight of the home less?  job less?
>
> or is this not the focus of this blog
>
>
> regards
>
> richard H
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Project2012" group.
>  To post to this group, send email to project2012 at googlegroups.com
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> project2012+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<project2012%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
>  For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/project2012?hl=en-GB
>
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>


-- 
"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20091011/25c530da/attachment-0001.htm>