Building Organization | <B>Editor's Choice</B> |Axisoflogic.com

The interim International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS) was launched in 2012 with the aim of winning a better world.

Three years ago - an insignificant blink in political time - a project called International Organization for a Participatory Society, or IOPS, was initiated.

The effort started with a poll on ZNet that I happened to organize. The poll, vetted by many writers and activists, was taken by about 4,000 ZNet users. It had results that were so strikingly positive that it led to a set of commitments regarding goals, methods, and structure for a possible new organization. Efforts to attract members more widely led to 3,650 people so far signing up, mostly, but not entirely online.

Additionally, a group of prominent activists and writers signed on as a temporary consultative body. The consultants addressed on average fewer than one issue every couple of months. They received a description of the issues with two or three options, registered their preferences, and in that way, only when the tally was virtually unanimous, made a few uncontroversial decisions.

The plan was to make a minimum of decisions and only ones that were critically needed but also uncontroversial. This was to avoid a premature small group having any lasting dominance or even just making all sorts of determinations prematurely.

The initial agenda was to sign up about 5,000 members, or even twice that, we hoped, with considerable geographic and experiential diversity and scope, including having a few dozen chapters. Then the membership, and particularly the chapters in light of their collective experiences and deliberations, would hold a convention and settle on a lasting structure and immediate program. Everything would be done consistent with the defining commitments. Then, at a convention, to become operational the organization would formalize and take up specific campaigns.

There was agreement that a handful of early energetic souls, no matter how wise, shouldn't take command, but nor should a larger though still quite small bunch, make believe they constituted an international organization before there was a real basis for doing so. Before IOPS could act with dignity and credibility, it needed more members and fuller structure established at a founding convention.

IOPS has yet to get that far. Instead, after a quick start, the project stumbled along, with most members mainly going about other pre existing endeavors, perhaps remembering but indeed sometimes not even remembering that they are members of IOPS, and, in any event, with nary an eye for what was becoming of the project.

The site can be seen here: IOPS Site. If you take a look, I think there is a very good chance you will like the defining vision, structure and program.

IOPS was conceived as a framework to inform what would hopefully become a steadily more encompassing and richer organization, once members had shared some history and established an operating structure and means to develop mutual trust sufficient to proceed. Everyone who joined IOPS signed on to the commitments and that broad scenario.

How do we read the events? And where might IOPS now go?

It depends on one's expectations. I tend to see a glass that is objectively nearly empty as two thirds full, and I thought with thousands taking the poll and literally 95% of its takers being very positive, we had not only a worthy organizational definition, but one that would appeal quite widely.

So I thought things would be hard, mainly because skepticism is a tricky beast to battle, but also ultimately very positive.

My envisioned scenario was this. Left media would take notice. It would raise healthy concerns, maybe also some outlandish criticisms. It would offer useful advisories, and most important to the outcome, it would make known the endeavor and acknowledge its importance to consider.

Diverse people who write often and who have audiences would write about IOPS in various venues, and speak about it in talks, again advising, revealing, criticizing or promoting, even if they were not members, much less if they were members, much less if they were on the Interim Committee.

People who joined early, much less who were on the consultative committee, would talk about their reasons and experiences with others, and would write about it for others.

All this would create a context where people on the left would know of IOPS and feel a need to have an opinion of it. And I thought the opinion of many, in that case, if that context was established, and if they actually looked and considered what IOPS was saying, would be positive.

Then, when there were ten or twenty folks in a city (the web site made it simple for each new member to find nearby members), I thought there would be fledgling meetings. Of course these might be somewhat uncomfortable at first, but given the aims and the levels of shared desire and views, with some deviations it seemed reasonable to think people would be mutually supportive and relate constructively, including finding ways of easing each other's time burdens and raising each other’s confidence to do needed tasks of reaching out and attracting still more members. With a bit more growth, chapters would form and when they grew large enough they would decide their own approach to organizing, making local decisions, and working with others outside IOPS as well as federating with other chapters nearby.

Some of this happened, but, honestly, not a whole lot. For example, somewhat remarkably, almost no left media other than Z gave IOPS even minuscule attention. When you consider that IOPS had many notable people involved, including people who write in the various media, and that IOPS was clearly carefully thought out, serious, and certainly not fly by night, the left media silence was rather strange. It was not critique and rejection. It was not support. It was not even acknowledgement. It was just silence. The implicit if not explicit message that members heard - diminishing momentum and morale - was it would be better if this wasn't here so we will just ignore it and hope it disappears. Similarly, just a very few writers who were not in IOPS, or even who were in it, or even who were on its consultative committee, wrote about IOPS even once, much less more than once.

And while a small subset of those who joined IOPS worked very hard locally to enlist others, the overall silence in public venues made that endeavor very difficult indeed. Instead of working in a context in which people were already wondering what they thought about IOPS, you had reach out in a context in which IOPS was invisible. Come join IOPS, you would say. People would reasonably reply, if at all, why should I? I read nothing about it. I see nothing about it. Obviously no one - but Z, if they had noticed that - cares. It won't go anywhere, so why should I waste my time on it. Sadly, that was not a dumb assessment, I think - given the left media silence.

Yet now, despite and against the uphill context, IOPS exists and has 3650 members, at least on paper. It has some chapters. It has a very nice and functional web site. And it has what I think is an excellent set of commitments. But it is also in a kind of holding pattern, without a clear path to pursue.

Should some few people take control of IOPS, pretty much guaranteeing that it will never be more than a small organization of typical insular character probably devolving into being a sect or collapsing? I don't think so. It is a familiar but not a good plan.

Should the original agenda persist, hoping that in time new conditions or the emergence of incredible organizers or a change in approach of left media will lead to a spurt in growth and interest? I don't see another option, however much one might doubt this one.

Indeed, should there be hope that alternativve media will give IOPS visibility, a fair chance, or that notable writers will do so? I still wonder, why not? And I also wonder, why the IOPS users of alternative media don't request attention from the venues they frequent. If it doesn't happen, is there some other path?

One kind of question that arises in trying to get new things accomplished depends primarily on understanding institution or even of material entities. Issues that might arise seeking a job say require institutional understanding, or issues that arise building a house, require material understanding.

In contrast, another kind of question depends not on some fixed things but on how people are likely to act in a changing context. The key focus is not unchanging circumstances but peoples choices in changing circumstances. Will people relate to this or that approach seeking their involvement? If some do relate, then how will others relate to that? And so on.

A good number of people initially related to the call for IOPS. Then a goodly number of prominent folks signed on, as well. I think that foundation was potentially ample. Then, however, came the time for outreach and construction. Progress slowed.

It seems to me that among people who hate injustice there is a whole lot of energy for some kinds of activity, and much less energy, and, in fact, often almost none, for other kinds of activity. In the former category, type 1, we have writing about injustice as well as organizing and demonstrating about particular crimes or to win very specific aims. In the latter category, type 2, we have writing about vision and strategy as well as organizing about injustice per se and for vision, and particularly building lasting similarly motivated organization. I think it is no accident we see more type 1 activity, and less type 2. The problem is, type 1 without type 2 has very limited potential.

Some will say, IOPS was misconceived because it started too big or too fast. Others will say it started too small or too slow. In fact, it didn't overreach into deciding too much too quick, though it did aim large and hope for speed.

Some will say IOPS was too global. Others will say there was too much emphasis locally. In fact, it was global - international - in its aims, but it was also based on local relations.

Some will say those who worked hard didn't work hard enough, or got it wrong. Others will say those who worked hard worked too hard and crowded others out. Both of these criticisms could be true, who knows? I don't think it is a sufficient explanation, however, for not moving futher by now.

Some will say too few members, much less those who did not join, gave a damn. Others will say too few who gave a damn were welcomed. A lot of the former is true, I think, and highly relevant, and probably some of the latter too. Or so it seems to me.

I actually hope that IOPS hasn't succeeded yet due to poor choices and even outright mistakes that can be righted. That would be good news. WE could then solve problems, and do better.

But I admit that I sadly doubt that that is the case. My tendency, instead, is to think the mindset of most folks who could possibly even hear about this endeavor, at least so far, was simply not open to pursuing it at all or was at best not open to pursuing it with sufficient vigor to make more progress, and that nothing the few who did want more progress and who were ready to work for it could have done would have overcome that hesitancy. Speaking for myself, after the earliest days, nothing I did made much of a dent. And again, while hopefully that was due to my incompetence, I suspect that at least without alternative media coverage, instead there was just too big a hurdle to jump, for now.

And why did most people either not sign on or sign on but then do little or nothing?

I don't know for sure, but my guess is that if asked they would not say they doubted having an international organization would be good. They would not say they didn't like the IOPS commitments. The would say, instead, that they didn’t have the time, or perhaps, didn't know what to do. But, if we are honest with ourselves, I think we have to admit that when someone says they don't have time for something it means they are not willing to alter their time allotments to make time for it - which in turn means they do not feel anything they are doing can be set aside or reduced to make room for doing what is dismissed.

But think about that. How could creating an international organization with really worthy vision, structure, and program commitments - assuming one agrees about the commitments, and virtually no one has said otherwise - not be worth taking some time from even just one thing people are now doing?

I think for a person to decide that working for IOPS is not worth any time juggling is pretty much only possible if the person takes for granted that such an organization would not be built, that is, that the effort would fail. With that assumption, of course, it makes sense to wish it well, lend a click, or maybe a few minutes here and there, and move on. Rather than say, "hey, I think it is doomed"- one says, "hey, good luck, wish you well, but I don't have time." Such feelings, whenever they are predominant, are self fulfilling, of course.

There is an old Chinese saying, from their revolutionary times, "Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win." When I first heard that slogan I thought, okay, dare to struggle means dare to risk the dangers of repression or the loss of former friends, or whatever. But what does dare to win mean? Why should one have to dare - to win? I suspect the meaning is, don't be afraid of victory. It will be hard to do good if you win, but it is not impossible, so you must try. And I suspect it also means, set aside skepticism, winning is worth trying. I think regarding building a new organization, we need to dare to win.

Probably the greatest professional hockey player in history, Wayne Gretzky, said, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." It is cute, of course - and strikingly obvious - yet I think it bears some thinking. On one side we have the barbarism of continued capitalist, racist, sexist, authoritarian, ecological nightmare. On the other side, we have the hard work of building movements and organizations to seek change. Don't we have to take the shot, and if we miss, take it again, and again, until we succeed. Fear of failure turns out to be an incredibly effective deterrent to even trying, much less actually succeeding.

Here is another saying that is a bit more subtle, albeit less eloquent. If you always predict bad outcomes while living in a shitty society, your predictions will have a high accuracy average. You will seem prescient. But you will also miss every opportunity that could have been.

I hope those who are actually in chapters in IOPS will chart a path for the project that keeps the site working, that grows existing and new chapters, however slowly, and that in time gives people confidence to publicly make a compelling case for joining, in turn eventually leading to a convention and a viable organization. I think the puck is on their hockey sticks. I write, I do media, and I hope that once they collectively decide, they will tell me and others like me, repeatedly and forcefully, what they want people like us to do.

I hope those who have joined but have not yet taken steps beyond joining, or who have heard about IOPS but ignored or rejected the call, or who are hearing about it now for the first time, will alter their assumptions about inevitable failure and give IOPS a chance.

Why not go to the site? Why not read the commitments? Why not decide if you would like to hear news there has been a convention representing 10,000 members and the organization is off and running? If you would like to hear that, then why not join, and do at least a little to make it happen? Why not dare to win?

Source URL