2 ms·

Sounds similar to other anarchist structures such as rotating out workers councils leadership roles to minimize hierarchy ossification

082349872349872 4y ago
I can't remember what their term for it was, but someone once told me the various different "first responder" trades in the US now have a shared vocabulary for building and modifying a temporary (limited to the duration of the incident) on-site hierarchy.
- DicIfTEx 4y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in the UK there is JESIP: https://www.jesip.org.uk/ https://www.jesip.org.uk/
cuteboy19 4y ago
But then no one would be able to develop any governmental expertise right?
- maxbond 4y ago
  Everyone would be participating in governance, sometimes because they were on a council, other times because they were part of democratic processes. People wouldn't master opaque bureaucracies, but we should be eliminating those as much as possible. It's also my experience that there's never a shortage of opportunities to practice leadership and decision making when you're working with other people in a real world environment, where unforseen circumstances are constantly forcing your team to react and adapt. It's also my observation that when there is a problem, most people's instinct is to get everyone who's expertise are relevant into a room, discuss the relevant facts, and make a decision by consensus - if you leave people to their own devices, they reflectively form a direct democracy.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    I am deeply sceptical of all this but this is the genuinely the best answer you could have given
  - mikem170 4y ago
    > decision making when you're working with other people in a real world environment I've always thought this is important. So much of modern day politics is far removed, abstract, and/or impersonal. In our current system we've become used to listening to media pundits arguing about things happening on the other side of the country, our votes mixed in with hundreds of thousands of other people, across dozens of issues, for a blue or red team representative, representatives that often seem more beholden to political parties and lobbyist than to voters, the winning 51% lording it over the other 49% for a couple years. It's completely different having a few dozen or a few hundred people together in a room, people who are your friends and family and neighbors, listening to different viewpoints, coming to consensus on issues that matter to the group.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      cf Quaker techniques for consensus-based decision-making.

082349872349872 4y ago

I can't remember what their term for it was, but someone once told me the various different "first responder" trades in the US now have a shared vocabulary for building and modifying a temporary (limited to the duration of the incident) on-site hierarchy.

DicIfTEx 4y ago
I don't know about the US, but in the UK there is JESIP: https://www.jesip.org.uk/ https://www.jesip.org.uk/

cuteboy19 4y ago

But then no one would be able to develop any governmental expertise right?

maxbond 4y ago
Everyone would be participating in governance, sometimes because they were on a council, other times because they were part of democratic processes. People wouldn't master opaque bureaucracies, but we should be eliminating those as much as possible. It's also my experience that there's never a shortage of opportunities to practice leadership and decision making when you're working with other people in a real world environment, where unforseen circumstances are constantly forcing your team to react and adapt. It's also my observation that when there is a problem, most people's instinct is to get everyone who's expertise are relevant into a room, discuss the relevant facts, and make a decision by consensus - if you leave people to their own devices, they reflectively form a direct democracy.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  I am deeply sceptical of all this but this is the genuinely the best answer you could have given
- mikem170 4y ago
  > decision making when you're working with other people in a real world environment I've always thought this is important. So much of modern day politics is far removed, abstract, and/or impersonal. In our current system we've become used to listening to media pundits arguing about things happening on the other side of the country, our votes mixed in with hundreds of thousands of other people, across dozens of issues, for a blue or red team representative, representatives that often seem more beholden to political parties and lobbyist than to voters, the winning 51% lording it over the other 49% for a couple years. It's completely different having a few dozen or a few hundred people together in a room, people who are your friends and family and neighbors, listening to different viewpoints, coming to consensus on issues that matter to the group.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    cf Quaker techniques for consensus-based decision-making.