Characteristically brought about by necessity not intenton) two or three individuals will find the group confronted with certain problems (sometimes opportunities) and will struggle with solving the problem or responding to the opportunity. The limit is this. Scuh a gathering will focus exclusively on the terms of the 'problem' or 'opportunity' presented. They will probably arrive at a satisfactory or even the best response of the group to that problem or opportunity. This on the whole works well; it is not antagonistic to democracy or to full participation by members of the groups but simply responds to an externally imposed need that, for various reasons, the group's membership is not prepared to face collectively (obvious reason: the severe shortage of free time for working-class individuals; the fatigue endemic in capitalis).
What those two or three individuals will almost NEVER arrive at is a recognition that they are focused on the wrong problem; that 'peeking' around the corners as it were of the 'problem' they face they will discover problems or possibilities of far greater importance than the 'problem' on which they focus. For that purpose (or that seeing of other purposes than the 'problem' defines) one needs, at an absolute minimum a grop of 5-7 coming from 'different' directions. This is as I say minimal; someplace between 15-30 (and perhaps up) active participants will work much better. It is remarkable how often in actual practice this happens. And individual, or a few individuals, propose a campaign or outline a difficulty to such a group (15 or more), and at the end of a discussion the results are such as the originators of the proposal could never have arrived at on their own. The scope of the groups practice has made a qualitative leap.
I think this holds generally, that the decisions arrived at through a formal (or informal) leadership structure will always be cramped, less responsive to actual conditions, than the democratic process achieves. Had the leadership structure been dominant, it is highly probable that the cry of "Thalassa! Thallassa!" (sp?) would not ring down the ages: the silent bones of the 10,000 would have remained scattered over the landscape of Asia Minor.
Carrol
P.S. So much for "New Paradigms"