> Another question, which is not the same as the above, is one between
> leaders and the rank & file (a huge problem in _any_ organization of more
> than a handful of members).
Further, it doesn't appear that sectarianism
> exists because of a particular type of organization. It can and does exist
> in non-Leninist social movements as well, as far as I can see.
I think it
> is wishful-thinking to imagine that a technological solution -- conceiving
> a proper organizational mode in abstraction from social & political
> conditions -- would solve the fundamental question of balancing
> organizational efficiency/effectiveness and democratic participation just
> like that.
> And the question is democracy, isn't it?
Or is it? Is the question not that of 'truly human relations'? I think most people would agree with me if I said the problem for Marx is more that our current society does not accord with the 'free development of each' (this 'free development' seems to me to be the basis of Marx's concept of human nature), rather than that our current society (or our organisations) are 'non-democratic'. 'Democracy' flows from the demand that our relations are 'truly human' (i.e. true to our essential humanity), but a whole pile of other things arise from this demand besides democracy.
And now a question which can be developed on M-Fem (that's why I'm cross-posting this there) - to what extent has the feminist movement allowed us to critique, and therefore develop, the notion of what it means to be 'truly human'? (I mean here questions like the relation of emotion to reason, the 'reasonableness' of reason, the way our embodiedment informs the relation of thinking to being (maybe this covers the first 2 questions), etc)
Peter P.S. sorry for posting so much today. I'll shut up now (at least on this list). -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available 'The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions.' - Karl Marx