LIVESTREAM: Richard Wolff on acTVism Munich

@joe21 Do you feel your voice doesn't matter? Why, because they won't embrace
Muxive?

Nothing to do with fear but practicality. I have friends who have organized community resettlements using a consensus model, one of whom lectures on the subject as someone who lives and has organized such a community. HE (Jack Reed) has said that consensus organization breaks down at about 300 people and that is with folks who already have much in common beyond simply an employer and enterprise. An enterprise is closer to that of a community than a sterile academic structure. Human factors complicate decisions no matter how well intentioned.

Without first looking into those complexities and then forming a group who are in consensus, I simply find that there are no working models where that exists. Tribal living is usually subdivided into neighborhoods.

Taking an existing enterprise where all those involved currently are open minded and compatible as partners on choices is simply a tad naive to expect. I say that as someone who has started 10 businesses, 2 failed and worked for another half dozen or so well known national/international corporate employers.

Until we learn each others background I can't be certain my words are heard by ears that can relate, not due to any missing intellectual ability, but simply lacking common and/or topical life experience and organizational experience.

You can look up my LinkedIN profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/senvi/) , to see what mine is and then perhaps you will see where my thinking is coming from. I don't know you and or do not know what experience you have to relate my discussion to. That is a common issue for open democratic governance.

This is a road I have been down and simply chosen from experience to go a different direction.

MUTUAL capitalism is my term that simply means mutual ownership and equitably shared economics similar to RBE (Resource-based economics but not exactly). I believe in access vs. ownership, collaboration vs. competition, need vs. greed and have bannered the idea for a moneyless society for almost 10 years now along with the founder of FreeWorld Charter (Colin Turner) and the hundreds of Freeworlders.

I have examined and follow http://www.ic.org (intentional communities) and transition towns (like Guelph ON) who are the first community in Canada to officially declare itself as a transition town. If you go into this to simply implement your idea or a fixed concept vs. seek a dynamic solution, toward a general goal of mutual stakeholder ownership and shared benefits, and an equitable quality of life, then I think you will meet with resistance.

When structure and method become the focus vs. ideal and intention, vs what cooperatively works, within a practical set of ideas, then conformity and individual adaptation become essential whether those who participate in it are suited for such adaptive behaviors or not.

I prefer to work with a prescreened/filtered small group of under 300 and then duplicate and network.

John, It's unclear to me your intention of your reply. So I will not directly reply.

Muxive is a gift, free to embrace or ignore. It does not matter to me whether a specific individual or group explores it deeper or ignores it. It's only offered as an alternative approach consideration.

One of the greatest problems with democratic approaches/solutions today is the "majority vote wins" solution being employed. Muxive is a better solution that can make 'everyone' - on all sides - happy with any outcome. Imagine a compromise solution being adopted in our world today - crazy right?

But like anything radically different and new - it has a huge initial hurdle to get over to establish full understanding with initial adopters. I have my work cut out for me - I know. But I will continue the fight :smiley:

"those who do not have necessary expertise/skills, but seek to be part of the decision process are enterprises that do not work." Let us be clear that those affected by a decision should partake in that decision. All those affected will be included. If our water is polluted and it has been shown that some chlorine treatment can be beneficial, we that do not know how much chlorine to put into the water will come to a consensus as to delegating someone who does. Just because some of us are not chemical engineers doesn't mean we don't have the ability to understand the chlorine issue. People are not stupid and usually understand common sense very well. I feel the same holds true with any issue you can throw at them.