Caveat

I'm not even in a position to do that nor do I plan to be...


I am busy trying to write and organize, not all of your questions are irrelevant and some of the things you said are fine.

Yes I admit that your stance is against my convictions and that I am somewhat annoyed that is true.
As I said before I don't think there is place for anarcho-socialism and similar ideas here but it's not up to me anyway. It is just my opinion. I think you have misinterpreted my role in this.
You constantly call on democracy yet it seems to me you don't fully understand all the implications of democracy.
If you think that democracy is chaos and unmoderated debate you are wrong.
We could naturally discuss all under the sky but that happens all over the internet. That doesn't make the internet a political party.

In a political organisation there are defined rules and ways in which a proposition gets to the table. There is order.

Try getting in any political party and change their core values. They would throw you out.
The founders define the political goals and principles and than people that agree can join.
If you think democracy means anyone can meddle with everything maybe you should be involved with what you call "democratic movements" because I think you got the wrong idea.
A party sets its own policies. If you agree you join and work by them if not you don't it is that simple.
You can't join the green party and demand more oil industry just because you somehow should have the right to be opinionated.

You accused me earlier that I wan't to make this internally a very authoritarian institution. You obviously are not aware how usually political parties enforce ideology and discipline. Believe me I know and it's much more authoritarian than what this movement should be about.
In the end it is one of the things we are fighting. But that does not mean we should go to the extreme and have complete disorder and chaos as you suggest.

We can naturally discuss all we want.
But the proceedings of a political movement have order and an established structure.

I cannot speak for Vninect but if that is the impression you have gained from all that has been said here then you have not understood it in the same way I have. It is quite hard for me to see how you can have reached that conclusion, but so be it



Who has disagreed?

The fact is that NathanSanders came here with a rough draft of a manifesto and nothing else. It was natural to assume that that manifesto was to form the basis of a dicussion about core principles, and so that is what the membership here set out to do.The discussion was based on that rough draft and I do not see how it could have been otherwise, given that is all that was on the table. It was not at all clear that it was set in stone: largely because it was repeatedly emphasised that it was not. It was only after people began discussing that "rough draft" that it became clear that there was no scope for altering it. None of the substantive points made were considered for a moment: much less accepted. So it quickly became evident that this was far from a rough draft to be seriously addressed and improved: everything was "sticking point". So it appeared to be "take it or leave it" and there was nothing to talk about.

As it happened I found nothing to disagree with in the "principles". If the intention was to say that one would prefer to live in a secular, egalitarian state with a liberal policy on drugs etc, well sure. But those are not principles. They are certainly a political programme, and they can be pursued in any representative democracy by forming a party. I had not appreciated that that was the aim: I thought we were talking about something rather more radical. Now that I understand that this is just the formation of a political party I have no quarrel with it: not much interest because I don't see much value in re-inventing the wheel. But that is fine: those who wish to set up a new party are perfectly at liberty to do so and I wish you well.


This is the source of my misunderstanding, I think. I had rather thought the idea was to work out the core values which would underpin a radical international "movement" which aimed to provide an alternative to current arrangements. Since you liken it to existing parties there is, of course, no scope for that. But again, if all this is a new party there is no problem.


You could not be more wrong in your perception of what people understand. You see, once it became obvious that there was no scope for developing and chaning the existing "core principles" people tried to move on to see how you proposed to actually implement those; and there was attempted discussion about means and about proposed structures. But it is apparently "too early" to consider those questions. It is telling that one poster had the impression that NathanSanders was not seeking a party system: and indeed that is a natural assumption because he stated that he wished to "transcend" political parties. You, on the other hand, appear to be firmly in favour of establishing one. And this is your unity?

In the end there was nothing to talk about. And so I am left wondering why you came here at all.

Transcend - yes
Jump steps - no

political action without a defined statute and structure is illegal in most countries and can get you in jail.

I am not saying that we should go on and make a party just like all the other ones, but you can't work without some formal frame

I think this transcend already just by being a global movement connected with principles and not capital or private interest.

I am not sure ( I will ask him) but I think Nathan was thinking more in terms of goals and methods than in terms of making some new form of unregulated movement.

Even though I said it a million times you again envision this as a sort of a student-revolutionary-anarcho-socialist-on the streets-anonymous kinda movement and I am pretty sure Nathan didn't think of that and I am most certainly not thinking of that either.

I don't have anything against protests, and other forms of political expression it's just that I think real change can only come from genuine legit program which is elected by the people democratically and which then proceeds to fight for these changes in a parliament or what ever institution is enabled for legislature depending on the country.



All that I am trying to achieve here since I have gone through founding and creating a political movement so I have seen all the pitfalls is just hold on.

Let's get organized first, get some structure and then we can discuss all we want.
That is the source of my discomfort.
I have seen this happen before.

Debates which are not "framed" properly in some sort of a moderated way are lost.
There is no use for them except your own experience in them.
They can't be used to establish written documents or address the general public.
They can but that put's a lot of strain on people who have to sort, organize and deal with the proceedings.
it is utterly undemocratic and in most places illegal to have a political action without proper documentation and records of what, who and where decided what.
Not to speak of memberships, etc...
And you constantly call on "democracy" demanding right to debate everything completely without any order even though that is formally the complete opposite of democracy.
It is anarchy.
And I hate it.

I am sure you do, Damjan. And as I said, if you wish to form a political party there is not a thing to stop you.

I have no interest at all in joining a mainstream political party: still less in joining one which has no principles and no democratic committment at its heart. Nor am I in favour of "a sort of a student-revolutionary-anarcho-socialist-on the streets-anonymous kinda movement ". If you had had any interest in opinions other than your own, my reservations about those kinds of actions would probably have been plain to you. But of course you did not come to this board to engage. Maybe you came to recruit, I do not know. There may be people who will join with you from here: we are few and I cannot speak for the others. But your project is ostensibly the formation of a party: and underlying that there are still your statements about omitting the stuff on religion which you think of as a vote loser. Since that is said to be a core principle such a recommendation is already a betrayal of the ideals in favour of winning power. That is what political parties do, and so far, so pragmatic. But it is not something I respect. And neither of you have even attempted to address the implications of that.

There remains also your avowed committment to the "strong leader". That is your view, and it is at odds with democratic engagement. That is not about structure or procedure: it is a fundamental question of ideology. And it is totalitarian in its character. I am serious when I say that this leaves no constraint, and ends in policy on the basis of the leader's whim. You were invited to explain the checks and balances you envisage for obviating that outcome: you declined to comment. It does not really matter to me whether you are naive or dishonest. You have done nothing to dispel the idea that this is totalitarian in its nature, and that remains my view in the absence of proffered reason to change it.

You showed your colours and I do not think you intended to. Now you are back to being more reasonable: but that this latest is the true Damjan is not a gamble I would take, personally. If all that happened was you lost your temper and said what you do not mean, it still took a particular form. And there was nothing which should have led to such a reaction, either. All that was going on was discussion, and that does not warrant such a response

Gone, are they, all the young dudes? Pity, i think they might have learnt a thing or two from you, Vninect and Fiona; that the end rarely, if ever, justifies the means, for instance. And that the means are nearly always much more important than the end.

Oh, well, there is still time for some to realise that, I suppose.