simona on decision making
via nika dubrovsky‘s tweet:
Nika Dubrovsky (@nikadubrovsky) tweeted at 0:41 PM on Sun, Jan 17, 2021:
Museum of Care in conversation with @SimonaFerlini
#Collective #Documentary #MuseumOfCare #DecisionMaking #Dem25
notes/quotes from video – [from simona unless otherwise stated]:
4 min – effort to get unity – across europe (diem) – so every new policy must be approved.. then everybody that wants votes.. the way we decide everything..
5 min – 2nd most important board.. 100 member board randomly selected
we want to be a movement and do everything a movement does.. we don’t think elections in a democracy is something we can avoid.. so elections whenever useful
13 min – (nika asking how did you come up w that decision – to be party or not) 6 months discussion.. then vote.. many voted w their feet and just got out of diem
15 min – nika: what is ideology behind majority vote.. if diem founded on direct democracy.. now sounds like electorian authority.. majority vote and others left.. ignored..
16 min – they weren’t ignored.. they could have voted.. their choice to leave..
the problem w direct democracy.. this requires very small groups.. our desire is to have a direct democracy decision at a european level..t
that should involve people from 28 countries.. and from all over the world because we have members
17 min – the main problem.. in my opinion.. one of the most important issues with direct democracy.. how do you get (?).. at a large scale.. t
begs a means to undo our hierarchical listening
real democracy means discussion, deliberation, informant deliberation, and ideally having a choice/vote.. but reaching consensus requires an immense amount of time.. even if you are in a very small group.. t
18 min – if 1000 and 1000 of people.. the best approx to direct democracy is to have everybody discuss and vote..
and ideally contribute to form the motions that are put to vote
but you can have a vote.. so.. i’m not against rep democracy.. this is the reason.. i experienced this in bologna .. practicing direct democracy.. everybody was equal.. but at end of the day.. the decision were taken by the 3-4 people that could stay till 4 in the night .. t(everyone’s head nods)
let go guys.. there’s a nother way.. it’s what new tech can do for us.. if we try something legit diff.. ie: tech as it could be
19 min – i was pregnant and had a job so i couldn’t.. so.. i did the cleverist speech.. but it counted nothing.. real decisions were up to those who lasted longer
20 min – this is the problem w having no structure..t
yes structure.. but one (simple/deep enough) we’ve not yet tried.. one that gets data from all the voices .. everyday ie: infra
so i prefer stocatic/random selection.. better than nothing..
21 min – nika: on extinction rebellion dm process.. main purpose is civil disobedience.. so discussing how to break the law.. in this case.. to not have a consensus.. ie: if people don’t want to go to prison.. they would leave.. if zapatista and have to deal w govt outside.. then have to have this long process that involves consensus because they’re talking about land and own way of living.. so very diff situation
that’s why this has to be a leap.. all of us at once.. otherwise we can’t/won’t let go of existing structures.. and we’ll just be re iterating part\ial ness.. and so then.. we’ll just keep on perpetuating tragedy of the non common (which has at it’s core.. we have to have consensus/dm/et-al)
22 min – nika: so would it be possible to say that diem25 was not only formed based on certain principles of how to make decisions or (abstract of direct democracy) but also for certain purposes that then effect how the org is run..
23 min – well.. extinction rebellion and diem are very diff.. in extinction when you have the first meeting.. you people explain where you are.. out task is this and this.. we might plan to have actions that will take you in jail.. and you are free to decide if you want or not to go in jail.. the way to reach is already settled.. er groups are about political activism.. so decisions are just about how..
24 min – a broader org ( i think referring to diem now?) that deals at same time with ie: climate, health, etc and try to make coherent discourse about it.. we need political initiatives about what do we think about this/that.. ie: now feminism .. so our effort is to have policies that are not defined from the start like er.. i ended my position to write our policies w white paper structure.. so if group has a policy on fem.. writes first draft.. discuss for long time thru working group .. all members can make suggestions/amendments.. then 2nd draft.. and another round of discussions.. then an all member vote.. this is how we do our tech sovereignty policy
27 min – so most important thing we need is for dm process that is unique for the movement is we actually set policies in the making.. our goals are not defined forever.. central vision is settled.. but how to implement it is..
28 min – anca: can anyone join diem.. how does it work practically in all diff countries
29 min – until last year membership was free.. fee of 60 euros a yr.. but if deemed it too much .. could be 20 or even nothing.. so vast majority of members didn’t pay anything.. so we had a decision and all member vote on making the fee compulsory.. so i don’t know how many members are left now that it is paying.. before this we were about 140 000 members
31 min – really active members.. about 10 000 people.. and real active members that volunteer to do stuff.. are some 100.. stronger in greece/germany.. italy a strange situation.. it’s mainly for people on the elections
32 min – one reason to have electoral wings.. is because banks think have to have wings
33 min – nika: how does this .. make policy as you go.. work in diff countries.. could be so many disagreements..
forums w sometimes very heated.. works mainly in english.. that’s why i was obliged to learn this awful language i hate.. i want everybody to speak french.. besides forum.. we have national forums.. but always open to everybody.. no distinction when you subscribe.. where you live/nationality et al
begs idiosyncratic jargon ness
35 min – vast majority of members i met are people born in one country and lives in another.. quite normal for a movement like ours
so the forum .. the most interesting discussions are in english.. but can have them in own language.. encouraged to write posts in your language and provide a translation..
36 min – another part of structure.. thematics diesis (dsc?) (local groups of activists) and task forces..
37 min – task force is diff.. dsc is totally free .. dsc like museum rooms.. they do everything they want provided they don’t pretend to rep diem .. can’t take decision on own.. use diem policy (as overall)
38 min – task forces are established w an all member vote and some member of coord collective must be there.. they can make policies.. but still same process i described before.. proposal.. ie: now proposing for changes in the manifesto.. passes thru decision s of coord collective then put to an all member vote
fuller too much law et al
39 min – the thing i didn’t talk about till now is the most important.. the coord collective.. a partly elected board.. 12 members via an all member vote.. made yearly.. but only half of collective goes under election every year.. stay for 2 yrs..
41 min – coord collective also includes the founding fathers of the movement.. 8 members now.. there not because elected but exofficial.. they rep the continuity of the org.. so actually the board is 20 people..
42 min – when someone is hired for important position ie: green new deal coordinator.. or policy coordinator.. these positions are from the coord collective.. ie: when exofficial leaves..
44 min – nika: so paid staff, those elected, and volunteers..
12 elected.. 8 hired.. 2 elected are also members of hired staff
nika: who decides who will do it for free and who will get paid
45 min – 2 processes.. can be just an elected member like me or one that is hired.. or can be both.. this engenders a bit of confusion in my opinion.. lack of equilibrium..
47 min – ones that spend more time have more knowledge of movement.. so when comes time for decisions.. he has a right
48 min – (q: rules that inspired you from philosophical rules from diem) difficult.. i don’t consider it so much philosophical but quite obvious.. spinoza core philosophy is idea of desire.. difficult to translate.. strive in latin.. s says the essence of any being it its strive to be.. a nature.. the difficulty is that the strive is not toward something.. some end.. many s’s (ie: deleuzed) were interested in s because it reversed the idea of finalism
50 min – finalism is that there is an idea of men.. a man is accomplished when fulfills all its important legalities.. means there is a direction you should go..
and you can or cannot fulfill what you should be .. there is a model that is the rational male adult
51 min – s talks instead of potentiality.. his idea of the being is every being even a stone
yeah.. let’s org around that.. (decision making is unmooring that/us)
no clear distinction between humans or any kind of .. hidden s quotation: ‘all beings are animated.. even a stone’.. all beings are an expression of the creative force of the universe.. of god.. god in s is everything that exists.. and infinite creative being.. everything that exists is just one of the infinite modes/ways expresses self.. so no real borders between beings.. everyone is an expression of this creativity
53 min – so go back to men and politics.. s says creativity is it.. potential.. is power/strength/ability
54 min – in this creativity no distinction of the body and (?) so no command of mind over body.. the more things a body is able to do the more things the mind is able to know
let’s org for that.. ie: cure ios city
55 min – on political pov.. this makes s understand people as power.. in his political treatise he creates a physics of power ie: monarchy as an imbalance of power.. one king will never be able to stand the power of the multitude.. so monarchy is never true.. can’t exist.. king will ever need somebody to help him..
56 min – so only political form that exists are aristocracy or oligarchy.. and rest if missing.. s died before writing ch on democracy .. so we don’t know what he’d say..
57 min – the interest of the book is the physics of politics.. he understands idea of power/sovereignty/natural-rights
58 min – i’ll cut it short: everybody is a power.. and our natural rights is our power.. and the whole problem w politics is how do you manage to unite this strength.. collective power is stronger than individual.. and s focuses on how to get collective power w/o having domination..t
how: you don’t manage it/us.. you trust it/us.. you just listen (to all the voices everyday) and use that data to facil/connect us.. you let go.. (w a uni/deep infra in place) imagine if we
59 min – he says you are more free when you are in a state w collective power than alone.. this is my objection to anarchism.. in some ways i am an anarchist.. but in some ways i want collective action.. i don’t believe i can be free when i’m alone..
60 min – and to have a collective action.. you need org.. you need rules about dm or at the end of the day it will be the lasting people who decide
on rules at all.. i don’t buy that.. unless we go with just 2 rules/convos org’d via 2 essences/basics of human being ness
only reason we think we need rules/org beyond that.. is because we keep showing ourselves tragedy of the non common
on dm.. today is diff.. today we have the means to let go of dm.. because we have the means to undo that hierarchical listening.. and flip how we live to curiosity over decision making (gets to 8b fittingness/potential .. everyday)
when it comes to numerous/widespread group that need to decide what to do in a place.. you need some form of dm.. that involves some form of rep
i think the best form of rep is random selection because of the biases.. we can’t spend all of our time deciding.. even if we did .. we couldn’t make some decision on a wide level.. this moment we need decisions that involve the whole humanity.. you can’t take them alone or w/o structure
1:02 – nika: compare this about dm to m of care.. er activist who must have consensus because aim is very specific like militant orgs.. pushing power very quickly.. have to be open to anybody.. horizontal.. consensus.. so lot’s of problems
1:03 – nika: so diem.. similar.. but have to have diff tools.. because want to pass policies.. have to create paper work.. clear that if you adopted er.. you would achieve nothing.. wouldn’t be a discussion about how we change laws.. it would be a push for major change
1:04 – nika: so m of care is none of those.. doesn’t want politicians to change laws (diem).. not in that position.. not set up to change any political activist action (er).. it’s individual gestures.. m of care is born more like framework you describe w spinoza.. creativity unleashed w/o any political implications
1:05 – nika: so ideally m of care should be radical enough ..
not radical enough is not everyone in sync
(radical enough).. to provide space for people from diff political pov’s from organizers.. until these people try to take over.. and impose political views on us.. because outside laws(d)/actions(er)
1:06 – nika: was thinking if we could join this spontaneous diem
you could join..
nika: what is your opinion of m of care in all these conexts
1:07 – thematic dieses (dsc’s) much like m of care.. i love m of care.. but not sure i understand what it is.. as far as i understand.. it’s non related projects.. the related project is the museum assembly.. it’s just rooms where you can start a project of your own.. so i still don’t understand
1:08 – of course you are heartily invited to join.. there is much conflict inside.. very interesting structure.. mediation group.. which is most advance project we have.. what we don’t have is a way to make the movement a work in progress.. to change decisions quickly..t
dm is the thing that is keeping us from being works in progress.. we gotta let go of that.. org in a legit diff way.. via legit diff data
1:09 – fail .. do again.. failure/conflict is very important.. it tells you there is another possibility.. you need change
1:11 – nika: we already have plenty of big orgs w particular goals.. to change policies et al.. and we have the art world and whole universe of creativity.. so this is an attempt to show you can be free play w/o a targeted agenda
1:12 – nika: in soviet union in beginning didn’t assign.. just gave people space.. and we still have the structure.. so that’s the core
1:13 – anca: you commented about dm and informed dm
1:14 – i would recommend the ethics.. but that’s not an easy reading.. but people can try
1:15 – nika wrote.. creativity w/o finality.. i’d say creativity is the finality.. no goal.. really open.. but allow everybody to be creative is the philosophical/ethical/political goal for me at least.. so for me.. idea of good.. is to allow as many people as possible to be as creative as they can..t
ie: cure ios city
(has to be all of us)
s say ‘it is part of my personal happiness that everybody around me is happy/creative.. you can know/be god.. an expression of god’s creativity’ and this is heresy for all monotheistic religions
nika: so we should definitely do a reading group on s