Talk:Sociocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Consent vs. Consensus

Just a note to explain why I've reverted to the former. I don't have time to dig up the references right now, but based on my familiarity with sociocracy, I can assure you that "consent" is in fact correct. "Consent" differs from "consensus" in one important way: not all participants need to be in agreement. To ratify a motion by consensus, you ask: "are we all in agreement?", and if everyone assents, then the motion passes. To ratify a motion by consent, you ask: "does anybody wish to block this motion?", and if nobody does, then the motion passes. In many versions of sociocracy, you are also required to make a cogent argument for why you do not consent to a motion; merely saying "I don't like it" is not sufficient to block consent. The inventors of sociocracy felt that having a relatively high bar to block a process -- at least relative to true consensus -- was an important part of making sociocracy a viable system.

Ah, that sounds like a good reply to the criticism of political paralysis. I'll add that. See if I got it right. A problem is, though, that the consent article is mostly about law with just a short reference to the political meaning at the end. That should be expanded a bit (more than a bit). And maybe it should be turned into a disambiguation page, because the term is too general to focus so much on law. I kept hte link to 'consent' (but moved it), but this needs to be addressed then.
By the way, does this not also apply to Wikipedia? That should then also be mentioned. DirkvdM 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting semantics. I've never participated in a group that claimed to operate by "consent." I have participated multiple times in groups that operated by "consensus." The typical process in the consensus decision making groups, after a proposal is made, is to ask, "Is anyone opposed to that?" To be more formal, sometimes the question is phrased, "Does anyone block consensus?" If no one is opposed to the proposal, then it is adopted. Sometimes, to make it easier for the group to adopt a proposal, consensus decision making even allows for one, two, or more people to express opposition without allowing that opposition to block consensus. Jkintree 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem paragraph

The problem paragraph is: "To apply sociocracy in larger groups a system of delegation is needed in which a group (also named sociocratic circle) chooses representatives who take the decisions for them on a higher level. This higher level is named the 'nexthigher' ('naasthoger') level because the policymaking organ within the sociocratic organisation is not allowed to impose its policies on 'nextlower' ('naastlager') policymaking circles."

  • "(also named sociocratic circle)" in English or Dutch? says who? why is this name rather than another name relevant to anything? says who?
  • "named the 'nexthigher' ('naasthoger')" same critisism
  • "'nextlower' ('naastlager')" same critisism
  • "because the policymaking organ within the sociocratic organisation is not allowed to impose its policies" this makes no sense at all for why this name is used instead of another name. WAS 4.250 19:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is originally a translation from the Dutch article. Which explains the last sentence. I'm interrested in the subject but lack sufficient knowledge to interpret what was written. If you know the theory and know something to be wrong, then feel free to alter it. The reason to use (translations of) Dutch terms is that the theory is a Dutch one. DirkvdM 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
POORLY translated. My changes to this paragraph are a better rendition of the meaning intended. I don't lack the knowledge you say you lack. Please don't revert me based on your lack of knowledge. The article this was taken from is Dutch. The theory described is in no way original to the Dutch. Naming something doesn't mean the thing named did not have a prior existence. WAS 4.250 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Why would I revert based on lack of knowledge? That would be stupid. Are you suggesting I am stupid? :) Anyway, do you understand Dutch? You must if you claim the translation was poor. That last bit is interresting. Was there a similar theory before the Dutch theory and name came about? That's how I understand what you say (maybe you're referring to the Amish?). But then that theory can not claim the name Sociocracy and alter its meaning. If it is different it should come up with its own name. DirkvdM 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand from your edit that you cannot conceive of a 'higher' level (hierarchically) that is not really 'higher' (authoritatively) (at least that's how I understand it). However, this seems important to the theory, so it certainly should be kept. Unaltered, except by someone who really knows about this. DirkvdM 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You understand WRONG. To apply sociocracy in larger groups a system of delegation is needed in which a group chooses representatives who take the decisions for them on a higher level. This higher level is not allowed to impose its policies on "lower" policymaking circles. explains that the "higher" group is higher in a limited sense. What you wanted kept WAS kept. Read it again. And don't tell me what I "really know". WAS 4.250 14:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
That last remark wasn't aimed at you. It was a general remark. We seem be have got off at a bad start through misunderstandings. Basically, you just removed the terminology. And I suppose that has to do with the (wrong) idea that it is originally a Dutch theory, so the Dutch terms should go. Or do I get this wrong? But then why didn't you remove the bits about that the term itself is a translation from Dutch and even that the theory (in this sense) is is developed by Dutch people? Also, you removed the bit about possible paralysis (unless applied to small, homogenous groups). Why did you do that? DirkvdM 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't pretend to know what ANY other editor "really knows". Yes, basically I just removed pointless Dutch terms that in a proper translation would not be on the English version. And yes you "got it wrong" again concerning what I think about the origin of the concept and the term "Sociocracy" and how that affects the article. Just let it go OK? The article says "A requirement of consensus makes political paralysis possible. One person can block any decision with a firm reasoned objection." How is that removing "the bit about possible paralysis"? "(unless applied to small, homogenous groups)" was removed because it is false. Even a group with only two people has "paralysis" under this system if one says "no" to everything. Let it go, OK? WAS 4.250 22:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you tell me to "just let it go, OK" (twice) that's one sure way to make me persist like a pitbull :) . However, it just happens that I have too many other things to do right now. I want to dig deeper into the subject, so I'll get back to this. DirkvdM 08:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph is confusing to me. Could a global sociocracy impose gasoline rationing on citizens of the United States if citizens of the United States did not want to limit their consumption? Jkintree 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sociocracy is a management tool to help workers be more productive. It could never be a form of sovereign government anymore than anarchy, but dreamers build their castles in the sky anyway. They dream their dreams with this management technique plus their imagination. If it confuses you to try to imagine actual real world behavior while also imagining a "global sociocracy", then congratulate yousdelf on seeing the castle in the sky for being the unrealistic fantasy that it is. Sociocracy can not even impose a rule of DO NOT MURDER if one person insists he has the right to kill. WAS 4.250 22:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, all I know about sociocracy is from the article. My understanding of the article is that if one person insists on having the right to kill, but can not express an acceptable argument to support that, then the group can impose the rule DO NOT MURDER. The implication is that the group can restrain the individual if necessary. To be consistent with that, I would think that a global level might agree to allow regional differences, or that the global level might impose a rule on all regions, for example, NO SLAVERY. This is great. We're doing it. We're arguing.  :-) Jkintree 23:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"Consent" refers to the state of mind of the person consenting. If everyone ELSE rejects my argument, that doesn't turn my nonconcent into consent. The right of a majority to dismiss my nonconsent is called democracy. WAS 4.250 02:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, WAS 4.250, I always thought that democracy was people power (demos-kratos). Seems like words are often subjective: consent, consensus. It's a problem of language I guess... I recently read Boeke's essay Sociocracy: democracy as it might be (added the link to english version btw). Boeke mentions his being influenced by Quaker meetings & talks about his school. Hope this is helpful for you Jkintree -- I assume that you (like me) couldn't read the Dutch version. I'm always a little shy about altering the body of an article, but this subject interests me. According to my trusty copy of Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, Boeke was a christian anarchist. So perhaps the anarchic side of sociocracy could be mentioned... Btw, WAS 4.250, murder happens even tho' it is illegal -- i feel you are being OTT. The anarchy (as envisioned by anarchists) does not allow imposed on people, that is the golden rule -- no imposition; like sociocracy, it builds a consensus & allows for dissent & secession through the principle of free association. A majority of people may oppose murder (or anything else) & try to prevent it happening, if that is what they believe, provided that they do not impose their belief on others -- see the non-aggression principle or zero-aggression principle. They can argue their case, use pacifistic means to protest against murder & may use self-defence against attempted murder. So, what i'm trying to say is that you misundertand the point of anarchy/sociocracy. While such a method of decision making may have problems, when people have equal power they can more easily work through things (given time) than when a 'solution' is imposed. If there is no agreement, a cooling-off period, like separation. And if you can't agree, then divorce is the solution -- complete separation, secession. So, while it may be used as a management tool by the bosses, i would argue that sociocracy is like anarchy, as percieved by anarchists (and others). -- james, a dreamer

[edit] Rainbow Gathering's extreme democracy

I'm removing this sentence from the end of the paragraph about Rainbow Gatherings: "Thus, no one needs to be principally excluded, not even children (they normally wouldn't be able to sit through it) and thus this is a very extreme form of democracy." Saying it's "a very extreme form of democracy" is a bit problematic and controversial, and the sentence seems to serve more of an interpretative (rather than informative) function. Chira 07:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. Rl 11:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)