Home | About | Donate

We Need Radical Imagination


#1

We Need Radical Imagination

Sarah van Gelder

There are many consequences to the near daily barrage of lies, violence, bigotry, and vulgarity produced by the Trump administration. One impact: This atmosphere crowds out space for imagining and creating new possibilities.

So it was refreshing to hear that for Poka Laenui, radical imagination is not dead. His favorite thing to imagine: What his beloved Hawai’i will be like once it regains sovereignty.


#2

Inclusion…all of our shadows are the same color. That doesn’t seem to be radical to me or imaginative either, just a fact.


#3

I dunno. More microstates doesn’t seem like a practical way forward, much as I’d like to be rid of most of Texas.

I agree we need radical imagination, but it’s not just about Hawaii, and it’s certainly not about breaking into smaller and smaller sovereignties. How is this different from a “sovereign citizen” movement other than being on islands in the Pacific, where most of us from the continent will never set foot?


#4

Toward a lexicon and method for INCLUSION and DIVERSITY:

What is Sociocracy?

Sociocracy is a method of governing organizations that produces greater commitment, higher levels of creativity, distributed leadership, deeper harmony, and dramatically increased productivity. The principles and practices, based on the values of equivalence, effectiveness, and transparency, are designed to support both unity and respect for the individual.
Why Is It Different?

Sociocracy vests power in the “socius,” the companions, the people who regularly interact with one another and have a common aim. Decisions are made in consultation with each other, in consideration of the needs of each person in the context of the aims of the organization.

By contrast, democracy vests power in the “demos,” in the population, without respect to their understanding of the issues or of each other. In a democracy, the majority of the “demos” can ignore the minority of the “demos” when they make decisions. This inevitably produces factions and conflict rather than harmony. It encourages people to build alliances, trade favors, and think politically rather than achieving the aims of the organization.

An autocracy vests power in one person or set of persons, an “auto" that can ignore the rest of the organization and make decisions without consultation. This discourages the development of leadership and creative ideas in the organization. This can also produce bad decisions because other members of the organization are afraid to share negative information. While some associations are democratic, most are autocratic with power vested in a board of directors. Employees and members alike can be ignored. Non-profits, like businesses, are almost exclusively autocratic.

In a sociocratic organization, whether it is a business, an association, or a community, power is vested in all members of the organization. Each person has the power and responsibility to make the decisions that govern their own participation in the organization.

The Three (or Four) Basic Principles


#5

Agreed, it’s not.

That’s exactly the situation favored by capitalism.

A world run by a single socialist government - the UN - is what is needed.


#6

Neither is one megastate the answer, and that’s not what the UN was created to do. It was organized mostly to hold the superpowers in check, keep them in cold war at worst.

Capitalism is not about microstates, but about autocracies with up to global reach that intertwines. Think of the webs of US auto manufacturing, for one. We may well see more EU-type cooperative structures. The problem is that the US, Russia, and China are just too damned big to get into such a group. But the US has this “federal” notion that ought to be used for our states to act more like a cooperative group and less as if we’re two battling autocracies.


#7

Why does Hawaii need to be separate from the US to do these things?
If it is to reduce war costs, then all of the states are in the same boat