From perusing the literature there appears to be a tendency to assess the impact of information technology’s adoption to an organization according to either structural alterations that are engendered by the new resources or by the elevation in the organization’ performance, resulting from the transition to computer based information management. Although the former of these two considerations seems to be a proper mode of inquiry, the latter lacks clarity and definitive sense, since the criteria, which one would assume to consist of the quantifiable dimensions of the organization’s output are left undefined and, indeed, somewhat detached from the ethos that have developed in the organization, which might instantiate reflexive awareness among the members of the entity that does not coincide with the imperatives that an alien sociologist might impose as the teleological properties, which can be used to define the metrics associated with organizational performance.

Case in point, in my younger years I would often work in warehouses, typically as a Teamster, during the summer or periods where money was in short supply. From my experiences, the productivity of the organization, which can be delineated as the warehouse, itself, was not a concern of mine or any of the other employees. We only contributed to a level of output that would prevent punitive actions, taken against the union workers. We certainly did not pay notice to improving the efficiency and performance of warehouse to any extent that exceeded the bare necessities, which we calculated as the minimum level of output that would prevent interdiction by management.

Consequently, there were competing interests embedded in the differing practices of the wage-earners as opposed to the management. Therefore, which organization is a sociologist to render in his or her descriptions resulting from his or her observations; the organization as it is understood and interpreted by management, or the organization as it was conceived within the ethos of the laborers? Further, was the warehouse a single organization or was it a network that instantiated relationships between and among its nodes that calls for a far greater level of analytical sophistication than what is conventionally applied within the context of the practice of organizational theory.

Of course, one could contend that the organization is certainly to be perceived according to the managerial interpretive pattern, since their interests often coincide with the interests of the capitalists who have legal claim to the property and materials. This angle of analysis might lead someone to the adoption of a neo-Marxist organizational theory.

However, what are we to make of social events, such as the Homestead riots, where the workers most definitely considered the steel plant to be a resource belonging to something akin to the commons. Carnegie’s claim to proprietorship was in conflict with the laborers understanding of the plant, who did not see themselves as alienated from the commodities being manufactured nor the modes of production used to produce the commodities. The plant was theirs. It was a extension of the community, and the zeal demonstrated by the Homestead residents who successfully outshot the Pinkerton assassins, who were hired too by Carnegies to seize the plant from the union members.

As a result of these considerations, we must reevaluate the core of organizational theory, and the accuracy of the concepts and patterns of interpretation that are typically deployed by organizational theorists when endeavoring to come to terms with social interactions that are thought to constitute social organizations.

Tags: economics, government, information technology, organizations, power, Russell Coles Blog, society, sociology
Categories: Economics, Society, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Power, Sociology
No Comments »

It is Friday, and, of course, time for all of the scandles to be released to the press, since it is the end of the newscycle.  I have yet to see anything from Snow, or, in this case, probably one of his propaganda minions.  However, the Chicago Diacese just settled with something along the lines of 80 former sex crime victims.  How did this go on so long?  What types of cultural institutions existed that could serve as mechanisms allowing this activity to continue without creating any publicity for so long?  What institutional knowledge had the Church developed in order to possibly thwart any major legal objections to this conduct?  What type of cultural conventions existed among its members which served as an ideological device that compelled the families of victims not to pursue any course with respect to the matter?

All good questions that an anthropologist or cultural sociologist would ask, but I have yet to see any take it on as of yet,

R Cole

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

This letter, which was originally a Green Party correspondence, is of interest because I would contend that the depiction of the qualities missing in the Green Party are, in fact, embodied by Populist America:
Thanks Again for an Insightful Response,

I agree with you that there is a lot of consensus among the Greens, and I am wrong to necessarily interpret that as a negative indication of things to come. I just fear that the Greens, who still symbolize a beacon of hope to college kids, for instance, do not transform into a replication of typical American Leftist organizations, which entail hierarchical structures and unegalitarian methods of decision-making. These are the kind of attributes that repel the kinds of people the Greens should be trying to court.

I had envisioned the Greens as more of a gathering ground for people to meet and discuss things with one another and discover their similarities and differences; both are equally as important. I say this because it is the proliferation of social difference that provides the multiplication of possibilities for stylizing one’s own distinct existence and political persona, because without diversity with which to juxtapose one’s self with various other social elements, there is no possibility to provide definition to one’s own persona.

For example, the identity of male is inextricably tied to the identity of female; the negation of male; because without the term female the term male would void of meaning. The lexicon, male, would be identical in sense to the lexicon, humanity, for example. In turn, without the term, animal, then the referring expression, male, would be depleted of any symbolic significance. Consequently, it is the proliferation of difference that allows for unique identities to form.

On the other hand, I agree that there needs to be a large degree of solidarity or the various elements of the social groups would simply disperse, and the result would be anomie. Further, I do think that there is an association between trust and social solidarity. Therefore, the position you advocate is certainly valid, but only valid under the parameters of a limited scope, since without difference, which involves a degree of enigma, according to the somewhat alien interpretations of an alternative identity, there would be no cultural space for individuality in society.

The trick, therefore, is finding some sort of balance between these two dynamics that we have identified: difference versus solidarity and trust. I think that the incorporation of another guiding-principle is in order, so to provide some insight into the process involved in assessing the most advantageous ledger between difference and trust. I propose that we have to consider the dynamic of power, as well as, the other two elements previously delineated.

Power is associated with control. Both power and control are opposed to the maximization of agential possibilities on the part of the object of power and control. So, we already know that the identity of male is connected to the identity of female; without one, you cannot have the other. Unfortunately these binaries seem to always possess an asymmetrical power dynamic in that the positive attributes of male, to use an exemplar, are defined by the negative attributes of female: Males are rational. females are emotional. The identity of female is not determined by the voluntary decision-making of the female; rather, it is imposed upon the female by the oppressive social identity of male. This is why it is important to maintain a degree of enigma or something that conflates to a lack of trust in society. On the other hand, there needs to remain a degree of the conflicting dynamic of solidarity or trust.

The only resolution that I can see for this problematic is creation of a social space where identities are maintained, but only under the auspices of friendship; a relation which seems to evade the power dynamic included in relationships between other identities in society. This is getting far too complex, but if the differences and similarities possessed by the male-female binary are subsumed under the institution of friendship, then, perchance, there is the possibility of an egalitarian society. I do not even want to attempt to sort out the network of relations among the elements comprised by the hypothetical mergers of friendship along with all the other binaries in society, so I will simply suggest the possibility, and go no further.

That is about as good of a response that I can reasonably come up with. However, I thank you for this exchange, because you have certainly stimulated a great deal of considerations on my part, and if you care to, we can attempt to tie all the loose strings together; or, even, ponder the possible connections between or among any more strings that you suggest for contemplation. Either way, you have directed down what I think will prove to be a fruitful path.

Regards,
Russell Cole

Tags: decentralization, direct democracy, green party lack of democracy, politics, populist party, Populist Party organizational structure, Russell Coles Blog, Social Change, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Populist Party, Russell Cole's Blog, Decentralization, Politics, Third Parties, Direct Democracy, Social Change
No Comments »

Extreme Democracy (ED) is a set of technology- and sociology-bound political concepts being developed in hopes of changing the nature of representation. ED advocates want citizen activists to have a greater role in governance, mostly through digital technologies that can bring together dynamic, ever-changing, issue-driven majorities (as opposed to traditional, rigid, party-line, ideology-driven majorities). They want the representative govt — the repocracy, rule by representatives, new word to take away their false claims to democracy — to become more responsive to citizen consensus.

Unfortunately, the ED advocates don’t want this to be direct democracy (DD), which is rule by the people through constitutionally-defined governance components decided by binding referendums. In various US states, there are eight constitutionally-defined DD governance components. (See this blog’s sidebar essay, “Executive Summary of Direct Democracy”.)

The eight DD governance components are the greatest corruption-fighting package ever devised by ordinary people in the history of humankind. It was secured into the many state constitutions by the greatest democracy movement that has ever occurred: the Reform Era, circa 1898-1918. Many tens of millions of politically sophisticated Americans were directly involved. Their collective level of political sophistication so far exceeded that of today’s national civil society as to be a face-flushing embarrassment for any ethically normal person with sufficient historical information.

The predators’ Reform Era corruption machines promptly ran in unconstitutional controls of citizen-proposed law, taking away much of the corruption-fighting power that the citizens had won. We’ll come back to that.

The eight DD governance components include the election of representatives. There’s nothing mystical about elections that set them apart from referendums. Elections are nothing more than binding referendums, voted by all eligible citizens in a given jurisdiction, as all referendums are. This lack of distinction between elections and referendums becomes very important in breaking down the wall of sophistries and vacuous arguments that predator elitism uses so deftly to help them keep down the sovereign people’s DD.

In fact, in the genesis of DD, in the early 1900s, there was one primary purpose that came through in the DD literature. DD, most often referred to then as Direct Legislation. It was to achieve the genuine representative govt that the sovereign people had been promised in the Constitution — and that political corruption had robbed away.

Strangely enough, that is exactly the intent of the Extreme Democracy political philosophy.

Contrary to predator elitism’s propaganda, sophistries, and vacuous arguments, the purpose of DD was not to set up a “pure democracy” to weaken representative govt, but rather to set up citizen checks and balances on govt to strengthen it against the treasonous corruptors within and without. (See especially, The National Economic League, The Initiative And Referendum: Arguments Pro And Con By A Special Committee Of The National Economic League. � 1912, J.W. Beatson. Published at Cambridge, MA: Caustic-Claflin Co., Printers.)

One of the ED movement’s leaders, Lebkowsky, misstates DD — in distinguishing it from ED — to require that “all people must be involved in every decision in order for the process to be just and democratic.” He then turns this specious falsehood into a straw man, which he handily knocks down to show that the ED political philosophy is vastly superior.

Lebowsky has not done his homework on the legal realities of either American DD or Swiss DD. (He seems not to know that DD is a legal reality in the US, or that it exists as an intrinsic part of the Constitution’s guaranteed “republican form of govt” in 23 active I&R states.) In both nations, DD’s citizen lawmaking — formulation of new law with the initiative, or veto of legislature-made law with the referendum — is not involved with every “decision”.

In the US, thousands of unchallenged, legislature-made laws go quietly into the books every year in the 23 states in which the citizens possess DD’s veto-referendum. In Switzerland, there is a informal 90-day rule. If the sovereign people have not brought a veto-referendum within 90 days of a measure becoming law, it’s understood that they have given tacit approval to the law.

Of course, the sovereign Swiss possess the constitutional amendment initiative (CAI — the most powerful governance component in the nation), which has the power to write law directly into the constitution, indirectly wiping out any law that has become harmful by making a correcting law. There are 17 active CAI states in the US, and here as there, the CAI is the most powerful governance component in the nation..

Most DD advocates, excluding the “half-DD” elitism-fascism shills, but including especially myself, would love to see the Extreme Democracy concepts active in the civil societies of the I&R states. The ED concepts amplify participation in the democratic processes, which would include the DD processes. They also would help activate each I&R state’s civil society to organize the national citizen action groups (CAGs) that we desperately need now to combat the Bush-Cheney Usurpation with our sovereign people’s power. Additionally, the ED concepts would be invaluable aids to future Online Citizen Institutions (OCIs), much more below.

Unfortunately, ED is not a good fit for DD civil societies. It could be beneficial, if its advocates could temporarily limit its leadership analysis, but it’s not clear that the ED political philosophy can function without its full-blown leadership principles.

ED’s leadership analysis is attractive and commonsensical. It accounts for the rise of individual leaders in any horizontal, nonhierarchical organization (NHO), which, of course, ED sees itself generating. ED’s leadership analysis says that individuals who are naturally talented, effectively active, lucid, and cogent will be identified as issue-related leaders in the NHO, and will be followed by others. It says that such leaders will acquire more power than others to affect decision-making in the NHO.

Such NHO, of course, were also the products of any local or state-level DD campaign before the advent of — arrggg — money as free speech. The DD NHOs grew out of the processing needs of individual I&R and recall petitions. People who supported the issue got together and campaigned the petition into the next election/referendum.

Naturally, advocates of a future national DD system want to see DD NHOs become permanent fixtures in and around the needed OCIs, which will protect citizen business against govt intrusions, vote in agendas for their state or regional jurisdictions, develop and process I&R and recall petitions in wikis and other modules, create a deliberative and amendment “floor” for discussion of the petitions, vote amendments up or down, vote finished petitions into the formal state or national govt’s lawmaking process, coordinate most of the petition campaign’s activities, and ensure that state or national govt actively complies with any law passed by the people.

Strangely enough, all of that is on a par with, but a step up from, ED political philosophy. It’s a step up because it carries with it the sovereign people’s power that precludes govt from using its arbitrary rulings and corruption machines to block legal citizen action.

However, the deep-pockets corporate funding now possible in I&R petition campaigns — since the 1988 SCOTUS decision deemed money as free speech — has made DD organizations very different from what they were previously. The presence of big money, to buy petition signatures and to run expensive PR campaigns, automatically requires and brings managers, giving the organization an hierarchical structure.

Obviously, the ED leadership analysis cannot apply to individuals within hierarchical political organizations (HPOs). The hierarchy provides the leaders, not the grassroots group. So DD loses the ED leadership analysis that was once its reality. It loses that reality to elitist-fascist encroachment — for now. It’s about when grassroots are not grassroots. ED would also suffer in such supposedly grassroots HPOs. ED’s natural leaders could easily become disheartened. In the end, ED leaders will probably eliminate HPOs from any ED operations.

Many of us who advocate an optimum, fully independent, DD system melded to the national repocracy believe that money is not legal free speech. (Bribery is done with money, and bribery is illegal. If money were actually free speech, then bribery would have to be legal.) We insist that the misuse of money as free speech in political affairs is nothing more than the legalization of bribery for the benefit of the elites. We generally agree that the 1988 SCOTUS ruling should be reversed with a Constitutional amendment and that the political uses of money should be heavily regulated, along with all other corporate and political party intrusions into politics.

If we can make those things happen, the Extreme Democracy leadership analysis for NHOs will be applicable. Well — as long as the NHOs are truly and fully independent of govt controls.

And here we both, DD and ED, run into the teeth of repocracy’s corruption machines.

Clearly, a DD system that is underhandedly controlled by govt cannot be a nonhierarchical organization. Govt, in its intrusive controls, makes itself a hierarchy for the DD system. Citizen leaders may think that they are leaders, and they may be seen as leaders by their followers initially, but govt control denies them independent leader status and diminishes any related powers considerably.

You cannot effect decision-making within the NHO if the decision-making is severely limited or taken away from you by govt. If the Secretary of State says that your initiative petition’s ballot language is unacceptable and that he has (unconstitutionally) re-written it in accord with some (unconstitutional) statute, you, as the leader who carefully crafted the original ballot language, have been cut off at the knees. The Secretary of State’s (unconstitutional) action may have adverse effects on your continuing leadership among the NHO’s individuals, and your status reduction might disorient and adversely effect the entire NHO and its objectives.

Fact is, such unconstitutional actions are open to every I&R state govt. The rabble are kept down and the profits and power of the elites remain unlimited. So it has always been. So it must always be, according to the predator elites. Constitutions and statutes have always been, and will always be, subordinate to the natural law of wealth and power. Well — as long as the sovereign people let them have it their way.

Beginning immediately after the passage of constitutional DD provisions, most of which happened in the early 1900s, the constitutional criminals in the legislatures began writing and passing statutes directing many different types of unconstitutional and arbitrary controls for citizen-proposed law. Constitutional criminals in the executive branch, especially Secretaries of State and Attornies General, have unconstitutionally acted in accord with those unconstitutional statutes. Constitutional criminals in the judicial branch have joined in with their own, uniquely judicial unconstitutionalities, in accord with the state’s unconstitutional statutes.

It’s a gauntlet of unconstitutional and arbitrary contols that applies to every citizen-proposed law in every I&R state. However it is only selectively applied so that civil society doesn’t connect the dots.

Citizen-proposed law that is offensive to money-power is stopped — or worse, passed and turned into a nightmare of anti-DD, anti-people, and anti-public-education machinations, as was the case with California’s Prop 13, limiting property taxes, in 1978.

Citizen-proposed law that is NOT offensive to money-power sails right on through, demonstrating that the system works.

It’s been a successful strategy, helping to keep the people from noticing the unconstitutionalities, for over a hundred years.

There are many variations on the theme, but the two most common groups of unconstitutional acts against citizen-proposed law are separation of powers violations and binding judicial review of proposed law.

The separation of powers violations occur when executive branch officials perform legislative or judicial branch functions that are NOT specified in the state constitution. The Secretary of State may be directed to write or re-write the ballot language provided for the proposal by the citizens submitting the petition. Writing the ballot language is a legislative function, not an executive function. What the ballot language says is important legislatively. It may very well be a factor in any subsequent court action that must interpret the citizen-proposed law’s meaning — and subtle, misleading language written by an executive branch official could easily result in an unfavorable court ruling.

Another popular trick in the separation of powers variation is to empower the Attorney General to deem that a particular citizen-proposed law is not clearly written or conflicts with the standing laws of the state, and must therefore be rejected. The rejection action is unconstitutional on two counts. First, no executive branch official is permitted to reject a bill of law proposed in accord with constitutional provisions, regardless of whether that proposed law comes from the legislature or from civil society. Second, such an executive branch official’s binding judicial review of a proposed law would be unconstitutional even if done by a judge. No constitution, state or federal, defines the judicial power to include binding judicial review of proposed law. Binding judicial review can only be applied after the measure has been signed into finished law.

The only way for such cross-branch acts to be constitutional is for them to be specifically ordered in the state constitution, as exceptions to the separation of powers provisions. The Nebraska constitution’s separation of powers provision is typical –

The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons being one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.

With regard to citizen-proposed law, there are no cross-branch acts specifically permitted in any of the I&R state constitutions — with the sole exception of Massachusetts. I&R constitutional provisions there so heavily contradict other constitutional provisions — in their creation of arbitrary elite controls of citizen proposed law — that all Massachusetts I&R, since its inception in 1918, has been, and will continue to be, unconstitutional. Only a statewide constitutional convention will have the comprehensive power needed to sort it all out and eliminate the contradictions.

The most common unconstitutional stunt outside of the separation of powers violations is the binding judicial review of proposed law — done by judges who absolutely, positively know exactly how unconstitutional their binding review is. Nonetheless, this unconstitutional stunt accounts for most of the delays and rejections of citizen-proposed law.

If state officials or judges pulled either of those stunts — separation of powers violations or binding judicial review — on legislature-proposed law, they would be impeached and removed before dinner. But the unconstitutional stunts are SOP for citizen-proposed law. It’s how the people are kept down and the corruption machines kept well-lubricated.

And, please, no more specious arguments, claiming that there is some sort of viable distinction between legislature-proposed law and the citizen I&R petition. Both are proposed law, pure and simple.

The I&R petition proposes that a law be passed, not that an executive agency policy or judicial ruling be passed. The I&R petition, once approved by the sovereign people, becomes law, not anything else. The law that the approved I&R petition becomes is open to binding judicial review as law, just as is any law passed by the legislature. The I&R petition is a legislative function within the legislative power of govt and, purely, proposed law.

When the constitutional criminals reach outside the state’s constitution to delay, alter, and/or reject citizen-proposed law, the dollar and human costs are incalculable. The harm that the constitutional criminals do is far beyond the delays, alterations, and/or rejections of a potential better governance for their sovereign civil society. They also further the people-abusive and costly corruptions that the citizen-proposed law would have ended. They give those corruptions more time to run before the corruptions can possibly be ended. They cripple I&R rights by deterring citizens who have good ideas from coming forward in the future. They betray, defile, and violate the rule of law, which is probably the single most important founding principle of our nation.

Additionally in violating the state and national constitutions to do their political evil, they both violate citizen rights and their oaths to protect the rights of citizens. The two together are an act of treason, as defined for the secessionist state legislators in the 1860s.

As things stand now, the unconstitutional and arbitrary controls of DD in the I&R states are the predator elites’ first line of defense against any state or national limiting of their corruption machines or their illicitly-gained profits and power.

Predator blocking of state-level good governance policies that are offensive to money-power turns out to be an excellent way to prevent those same policies from gaining national traction. Citizens in many I&R states have tried to pass initiatives ending regressive personal income taxes, and replacing them with progressive sales taxes. Of course, sales taxes to support state services would cost the luxury-item-buying elites a lot more money. State govts have unconstitutionally and arbitrarily thrown out all such attempts, one way or another, over decades of time.

It is very important for this simple fact to register in your brain. Compute this. The hundred years of lawlessness in violation of their sovereign’s fundamental-law constitutions by officials and judges in roughly half of our state repocracies have been knowingly participated in by the leadership of both major political parties. Both majors have been increasingly involved in creating the new unconstitutional statutes that provide variation on the theme of controlling citizen-proposed law, keeping the unsuspecting people down and the predators’ profits and power unlimited.

No rebuilding of either political party will save us from the predators. Both political parties are front-rank predators.

To make things worse, to grab we the sovereign people with another come-along that drags us past dealing with the unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous state govt interference, we now have Extreme Democracy advocates painting this pretty picture of how leadership develops in a nonhierarchical civil society. All we have to do is to put that leadership notion to work at the grassroots, they say, and we’ll have civil society’s best and brightest showing us how to overcome the bad guys.

Intentional or not, ED is a string-’em-along, jerk-’em-around. It glosses over, covers up, and looks past the unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous actions by state govts in their control of citizen-proposed law.

We need to see the truth and reality of the current unconstitutional, felonious, and treasonous state govt system first. We need to understand the progression of constitutional amendments that will be required to clean up I&R law in each state. (For an in-depth discussion of this topic, see the SOTR, Chapter 4, “Violating Constitutions” — all of it. It’s on the DDL site at http://ddleague-usa.net/SOTR4.html ) We need to find ways to criminally prosecute and bring civil lawsuits against any public official or judge who uses the old unconstitutional statutes to block our clean-up.

The national Constitution guarantees a republican form of govt in the states. In the I&R states, the republican form of govt is constitutionally defined as the combination of DD’s citizen lawmaking and representative govt. That definition is completely legal and constitutional, per a 1912 SCOTUS ruling.

When state officials or judges unconstitutionally interfere with citizen-proposed law, they violate their citizens’ rights to the federally-guaranteed republican form of govt. Such acts violate the federal statute, 18 USC 241 — felony conspiracy against rights. Felony forfeits all immunities. Co-conspirators can be criminally prosecuted in federal court, regardless of being incumbents or sitting judges.

The unconstitutional acts that control citizen-lawmaking also violate the federal statute, 42 USC 1983 — civil deprivation of federal rights by state officials or judges. Co-conspirators can be sued in federal court.

Each constitutional violation by I&R state officials and judges to control citizen-proposed law also violates various state laws.

In the upramp to every general election, state officials and judges somewhere use the gauntlet of unconstitutionalites to keep down the civil society’s attempts at good governance. Election 2006 is no exception. This has been going on since the early 1900s. We the sovereign people are still collectively ignorant of what has been done to our constitutionally defined lawmaking. We need to collectively understand. We need to correct the situation.

However, if the 1-party, 3-branch, fascist despotism in Washington DC has its way, we are already too late. Their tentative locks on our privatized and easily hacked electoral system, the US District Attorneys and many of the US District Courts, and the Department of Justice and its central role in the obstruction of justice for all of the despotism’s players may mean that the state govt constitutional criminals in all three branches are as untouchable as are the national govt’s constitutional criminals in all three branches. It’s all tentative now, but it will become permanent if we allow it to continue much longer.

This is the repocratic system that ED wants its toothless political philosophy to alter into a governance of cooperation between representatives and civil society.

“The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.” Frederick Douglass said that about his people regaining their freedom in the 1860s.

Citizens in the 23 active I&R states won their political equality and freedom with the passage of their constitutional DD provisions in the early 1900s. They promptly lost that equality and freedom as quickly as their state legislatures could pass statutes that instructed officials and judges to unconstitutionally and arbitrarily control citizen-proposed law.

It’s way past time to regain our equality and freedom. The DD toolkit of eight governance components can be used in many ways to force the issue. It can’t be done in the present climate of political unsophistication, but if small groups get started working with the toolkit, the civics lessons will flow like water. (See especially, “Open Letter To Susan–Making Bush-Cheney Null & Void”, 12 September 2006, on DD Revival — The Blog. )

When we’ve got the DD systems fully independent of reprocratic interference, then the Extreme Democracy political philosophy and analysis of NHO leadership will be useful.

© by Stephen Neitzke, 2006

Stephen Neitzke [send him email] is the founder of the Direct Democracy League. He is the author of “The State of the Republic, 1776-2004″ as well as a number of other works, which can be found at www.ddleague-usa.net and on his blog, DD Revival, at http://ddrevival.blogspot.com/

Tags: citizen legislation, democracy, direct democracy, extreme democracy, politics, populist party, referendum, repocracy, representation
Categories: Commentary, Populist Party, Democracy, liberty, constitution, government, Decentralization, self-governance, Politics, Legislation, Direct Democracy, Extreme Democracy, Referendum
No Comments »

An impregnated, but hopefully not inflated, Call for Papers from the Populist Party of America and its affiliate, the Midwest Alliance of Populist America:

The Midwest Alliance of Populist America - a regional affiliate of the Populist Party of America - is now accepting submissions for consideration for inclusion in a new publication dedicated toward exploring Populist issues concerning the Midwest of the United States. The publication will be an electronic journal published on a monthly basis and disseminated through two modalities of distribution: posting on the Populist America Web domain; and direct electronic mailing to subscribers of the Populist America Newsletter.

One should note, this does not qualify as an academic journal, due its failure to conform with the ritualized processes of peer review. However, the absence of the homogenizing effects of peer review - which essentially amounts to the reinforcement of the lowest common denominator belonging to the respective discipline, allows the contributor the existential freedom to innovate himself or herself though the stylization of both the submission’s contents and the rhetorical devices deployed to make the argument convincing.

The Populist Party of America eschews any form of discipline. Therefore, the prescriptions offered for those interested in contributing to the publication encompass the bare rudiments necessary for us to contend with the onslaught of submissions with which we are typically burdened: Although any document format will be accepted - other than texts that are formatted into images - we encourage you to either use XHTML with CSS or Rich Text Format. Additionally, please include a brief biographical description as well as an E-mail address that can be used to contact you. If published, you can typically expect 50 to 150 letters in reaction from those who were exposed to your work.

Please send your submission to russellcole@populistamerica.com (for Midwest Submissions), or mboldin@populistamerica.com (for PopulistAmerica.com submissions). If your work is published, it will be licensed under a Creative Commons, and you will be free to use your work for purposes of publicizing it in different venues as long as you give reference to its original membership in one of the publications under the control of the Populist Party of America.

*****************************************************************************************

Background on the Midwest Alliance and the Populist Party of America:

The Populist Party of America is a third party political establishment - Federally registered - that advocates direct democratic reform in the United States. Direct democracy is a theory of governance that finds its inspiration in the form of polity practiced by the Ancient Athenians, who established a robust, egalitarian form of decision-making - in the context of the narrowly defined extension of citizenship - determining the adoption and implementation of public policy. Citizens of the Polis would collect in order to form an assemblage, where deliberations, involving public dialogue, could take place; a modality of political discourse that would culminate in a majority rules vote - referendum - which determined whether a policy proposal would be adopted or discarded. Interestingly, the Assembly afforded any member the opportunity to address his counterparts. The only determining factor for whom could acquire the pulpit was the extent of the rhetorical skills possessed by the individual, who desired to orate his position regarding the affairs of the state.

Although this model of political organization was far from perfect according to our own contemporary standards, which we might anachronistically apply to the Athenians when rendering an assessment of the social justice instantiated by their political system; an evaluative process that would no doubt result in criticisms regarding the limited scope of citizenship in Athenian society; a condition that precluded women and slaves from engaging in the affairs of state, or, for that matter, social intercourse outside the sphere of domesticity, altogether.

Nevertheless, a rehabilitation of the concept, democracy - an exercise that would direct our attention to the etymology of democracy, which is situated in the Ancient Athenian Polis - continues to provide a heuristic benefit. We would subsequently be armed with an alternative conceptualization of democracy to juxtapose with the form of Liberal Representative Democracy - which many contend to be a contradiction in terms - that we so often, as Americans, enthocentrically espouse as the only appropriate sociopolitical configuration for a society that desires to assume a developed, advanced status; a condition actualized through processes of social maturation.

This American discourse, which pronounces a universalistic conception of freedom and democracy in terms reflecting its own provincial embodiment can be interpreted according to a discursive pattern that runs in contradistinction to the prototypical expressions emanating from the American sociopolitical establishment: America’s insistence of Liberal Democracy as the manifestation of the positive normative qualities of humanity is merely a metropolitan discourse that defines the subjugated nations of neo-Liberal Empire according to their conformity or lack of conformity with the mandates imposed by the provincial economic interests of Empire.

By and large, the current understanding of democracy pervasive in America when juxtaposed to a properly rehabilitated conception of democracy has little in common with the Athenian form democratic political praxis. Furthermore, since political discourse within America tends to neglect to consider - even remotely - methods and recommendations by which to enhance democracy in America, since it is generally presumed that America has already achieved a state that embodies democracy in its highest possible development, a comparison with an alternative archetype of democracy will, perhaps, engender critical reflection that holds the neo-Liberal democratic nation-state to standards other than the ones it has defined for itself.

With all of this said, the Midwest Alliance of the Populist Party of America invites you to submit articles that address the subject of democracy - and the form it should properly assume - in the context of the American sociopolitical configuration both in the present and throughout its history.

Regards,
Russell Cole
Coordinator of the Midwest Alliance of the Populist Party of America

Tags: constitution, democracy, direct democracy, government, Midwest, midwest alliance, midwest populist party, National, politics, populist party, Russell Coles Blog, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Midwest, National, Populist Party, Democracy, constitution, government, Russell Cole's Blog, self-governance, Politics, Direct Democracy
No Comments »

I regret the delay in updating the content of this site, and I promise that this condition will change immediately.  Furthermore, for those who have been kind enough to submit papers, please be patient for a little while longer and you will see your work posted.  I might make slight alterations in order to improve qualities not related to the spirit or intent of the argument.  The modifications will simply consist of adjustments make in order to enhance the aesthetics of the work.

Thanks for your Patience and Support for this Project,

Russell Cole 

Categories: Commentary
1 Comment »