Dear Reader,
This blog-entry contains the sixth part
of my serialization, elsewhere, of the E.A.g.’s [Equitist Advocacy
group's] “Way Forward” proposal,
entitled
“Alternative to the Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy”,
with my own edits added to their text, for its improvement [improvement, at least, to my way of thinking!].
I have included it here because of its second sub-section, entitled --
Democracy and ‘Dia-Logic’: Democratic Deliberation as a Dialectical Process.
-- because that sub-section offers a very interesting application of F.E.D. dialectics to the domain of <<polis>>-processes.
Here's wishing a happy <<Cinco de Mayo>> to you all!
Regards,
Miguel
Miguel
Alternative to the
Totalitarian, Humanocidal Self-Degeneration
of Capitalism -- Political-Economic Democracy.
The Emergence of a Fourth, Economic Branch of ‘Econo-Political’ Democratic Social Governance, in Sustained Quadruple Power with the Earlier Three.
This ‘meta-model’ envisions the retention and conservation
/ transformation of the three traditional branches of political
government, into a complex, conflictual, and
conflicts-conserving unity of sustained
quadruple-power with the new, ‘economic-democratic’ fourth branch.
This constitutes a yet-further generalization of the
stabilizing, conflicts-conserving, checks-and-balances-delivering complex unity of the
earlier-emerged, three, political branches -- of the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches.
It also envisions the «aufheben» subordination, but not the absolute
dissolution, of the capital-principle.
In this way, the capital-principle is expected to be
blocked, by popular power, from any longer attempting to organize, and to
subjugate, the social totality.
A higher and democratic, humanistic principle of social
ordering supersedes Capital in that role: the principle of ‘Generalized Equity’.
But the latter principle allows an ‘«aufheben»ed’ appropriation
of the capital-principle -- e.g., the social mechanisms of price-competition
and competition for customer-adherence, especially among Citizen Stewardship Equity,
democratically self-managed producers’ cooperatives -- to persist in
operation where it best orchestrates the ‘moment-ary’ hybridization -- the
prevailing dialectical
synthesis, or ‘complex unity’ -- of human-genomic
and human-‘phenomic’ human Nature, providing vitally needed economic
checks and balances that monopoly and state-monopoly economic
governance so devastatingly lack.
Through its dialectical synthesis of '''stakeholder democracy''' with workplace-based and community-based workers'-councils-like, grassroots, popular democracy, at the base of the Citizen Externality Equity Boards of Public Directors, and at the base of the 'enterprise-sovereign' Stewards' Assemblies of the mutually-competing Citizen Stewardship Equity cooperative enterprises, or 'socialized producers' cooperatives', the Equitarian Reform/Revolution is expected, by the Equitist Advocacy group, to create a new kind of non-state-capitalist 'entrepreneurial collectivism', or 'collective entrepreneurship', and a producer-/customer-service quality-rewarding, and a collective innovation rewarding, associated-producers' actual socialism, or 'Marxian Democracy'.
Through its dialectical synthesis of '''stakeholder democracy''' with workplace-based and community-based workers'-councils-like, grassroots, popular democracy, at the base of the Citizen Externality Equity Boards of Public Directors, and at the base of the 'enterprise-sovereign' Stewards' Assemblies of the mutually-competing Citizen Stewardship Equity cooperative enterprises, or 'socialized producers' cooperatives', the Equitarian Reform/Revolution is expected, by the Equitist Advocacy group, to create a new kind of non-state-capitalist 'entrepreneurial collectivism', or 'collective entrepreneurship', and a producer-/customer-service quality-rewarding, and a collective innovation rewarding, associated-producers' actual socialism, or 'Marxian Democracy'.
Democracy and ‘Dia-Logic’: Democratic Deliberation as a Dialectical Process.
The plan of governance of the Global Association of Public Directors
is designed to instantiate a principle of democratic self-governance of human
organizations which we term ‘Base-ocracy’.
Human-social self-organization structures/processes of
this kind are base-constructed,
base checked-and-balanced,
and base-controlled.
This plan, for example, requires that each voting member
of each relatively wider-jurisdiction, or more-«Genos», more-Generic,
or more-‘‘‘General’’’ Association be majority-plus-elected by the whole
base of all of the [relatively
speaking] more-«Species», more-Specific, or more-‘‘‘Special’’’
Associations, to one of which that member also belongs, and in which base that
member must also remain active.
That member must remain active “in the trenches” — a
participating member, in good standing with that member’s peers — in, with, and
of that relatively more Special constituent Association, and/or of its base — in order to continue as
an elected, voting member also of the more General
Association — that is, in order to elected, mandated, and sustained in office in that more
General Association [i.e., not recalled] by
that base.
Each member of the more General
Association must be at least majority-elected by, and, in writing,
explicitly policy-mandated by, their more Special
Association, or by the entire base.
Each such elected, mandated delegate to the more General Association is recallable, by majority-vote of the
assembly of the members of their more Special Association,
if their role in that more General Association is to represent the more Special
Association of which they are also a member, or by the entire base, e.g., if
they are elected “at large”, at any time, e.g., for violation(s) of their
mandate.
All of this aims to ensure that the more-General Association reflects the true policy-«Genos»
of the «Arithmos»
constituted by the more-Special Associations as the «Monads» of
their more-«Genos» Association — thus
reflecting the true policy-totality of the whole.
The psychohistorical model/idealization
of the ‘‘‘dialogic’’’ dialectic
of deliberation within each such relatively-Special
Association, as within its next-more-General
Association, can be represented as follows, distilling manifold psychohistorical
field observations of such human-social processes.
When a session of policy dialogue,
or policy deliberation, opens -- preparatory to a
decision, or collective ‘‘‘act’’’, of
the Association, as collective subject -- the first person to speak may
set forth a ‘‘‘thesis’’’ — or ‘‘‘hypothesis’’’ — as to the ‘‘‘sense
of the whole’’’ Association; as to what policy/action
its majority+ will support, and should therefore adopt.
That thesis, in those [rare] instances where
the initial speaker captures, in this opening statement, an expression of the full
view, ‘‘‘truth’’’, and
intent of all of the members of the Association as of
that moment in their history, that is an acceptable such expression to
them, and in their ongoing self-/mutual-development; a thesis thus acceptable to all
members of the Association, would also be the ‘uni-thesis’ —
or ‘‘‘dialectical
synthesis’’’
— of the views of that Association, on the issue
under deliberation, as of that moment in the [psycho]history of that Association.
The test
of such an expression is that it be followed by silence, or by explicit
expressions of assent -- in
the absence of further ‘contra-thesis’
expression, and thence by unanimous consent and adoption by the Association.
However, typically, the first voice is unable to know,
encompass, and express the views of the Association
in its totality.
The work of dialogue and deliberation — the work of dialectic by the Association — is needed,
required, and necessary, for the Association
to discover/forge its own explicit self-knowledge, and self-expression, of its
own truth for the psychohistorical
‘‘‘moment’’’ and issue at hand, taking into account the new information about
its own state, and about the state of the world in which it inheres, that is
continually emergent, due to the continual ontological dynamics, and ‘onto-dynamasis’, of that world, up to that ‘‘‘moment’’’
— i.e., taking into account the relevant / ‘‘‘moment-ary state of the totality’’’.
Remaining deep, class, or class-like, divisions within the
Association may, of course, prevent, the achievement of ‘uni-thesis’
unanimity, requiring resort to adjudication by the [elected] Tribunals for Externality Equity
required in the enabling legislation of ‘The Equitarian
Reform/Revolution’.
Typically, the formulation expressed by the first speaker
excludes part of that truth, at least in the minds of other members of the Association.
That statement — because of its incompleteness[es],
provokes a statement in response, by, e.g., the second to speak.
This second
policy-proposal assertion is ‘contra-thesis’ to
the initial ‘‘‘thesis’’’.
Further speakers may clarify/elaborate that ‘contra-thesis’.
Or, the third
speaker may attempt to unite the mutually-supplementary content of the first ‘‘‘thesis’’’
and of the ‘first
contra-thesis’, in a ‘first uni-thesis’.
Or, a speaker subsequent to the third voice will
typically attempt this.
That ‘first
uni-thesis’
will typically still strike many members of the Association
as insufficient, provoking their expression of yet a ‘second contra-thesis’,
and so on.
This ‘dialogue-ic’ dialectic
will continue to self-iterate
and spiral upward,
building / «bildung»
the explicit self-knowledge, and situation-knowledge, of the assembly, until a
speaker is able to achieve a final synthesis, a final
‘uni-thesis’ formulation,
even if final only for that
psychohistorical moment — an ‘nth
uni-thesis’ that
‘‘‘provokes’’’ only silence, and/or assent and adoption, instead of inciting an
‘(n+1)st contra-thesis’ — on
the part of the rest of the Association.
The person who is able to formulate the ‘‘‘moment-ary
absolute’’’, or temporarily ‘silencing
uni-thesis’,
during deliberations on the updated mandate for a given more-Special Association’s delegate to the next-more-General Association, may be one of the natural candidates
to stand for election, by the whole base of that more-Special Association, for serving in the role of that
delegate.
The person, the Association-member,
able to conceive, know, express, and thus achieve the ‘‘‘synthesis’’’ of a given ‘‘‘momenta-ary’’’,
more-Special Association mandate, tends to vary from
moment to moment, and from crisis to crisis.
To the extent that private-capitalist Boards of Directors
actually embody the “one share of capital equity stock, one vote” capital
equity principle of “shareholder democracy”,
of “stockholder democracy”, of
‘‘‘capital-owner/-contributor democracy/voting’’’, of ‘‘‘voting power in
proportion to the capital-value contributed’’’, or of ‘internality
equity’ — rather
than honoring that principle only “in the breach” — then the structure/process
of Board Committee and Sub-Committee <<praxis>> will approximate such a dialectic/dialogic process/structure, given a certain
degree of class-homogeneity within the capital-owning class.
That approximation will be biased and distorted by the
inequalities of influence and voting-power — reflecting their differential
capital-equity capital-value contributions and ownership shares — among the
various stockholder directors, some of whom may represent the interests of the
core plutocracy, “lording over” their middle and lower capitalist, fellow-class
underlings, plus by the influence of the “insider-director” cronies, “appointed”
from internal senior management.
SOLUTION –
‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY’;
BOOK:
MARX’s MISSING BLUEPRINTS
Free of Charge Download
of Book PDF --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html
Hardcover Book Order --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html
No comments:
Post a Comment