Re[2]: DSM: about Sudbury model


David Rovner (rovners@netvision.net.il)
Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:05:22 +0200


Marko & others,
I quote:

THE NEW FASCISM: RULE BY CONSENSUS

They say:

"Fascism requires one party rule."
What will the notion of "Government by
Consensus"
amount to in practice?

"Fascism's goal is the conquest of the world."
What is the goal of those global-minded,
bipartisan
champions of the United Nations? And, if they
reach
it, what positions do they expect to acquire in
the
power-structure of "One World"?

"Fascism preaches racism."
Not necessarily. Hitler's Germany did;
Mussolini's
Italy did not.

"Fascism is opposed to the welfare state."
Check your premises and your history books.
The father
and originator of the welfare state, the man
who put
into practice the notion of buying the loyalty of
some
groups with money extorted from others, was
Bismark --
the political ancestor of Hitler. Let me remind
you
that the full title of the Nazi Party was: the
National
Socialist Workers Party of Germany.

There is, however, one difference between the
type of
fascism toward which we are drifting, and the
type that
ravaged European countries: ours is not a
militant kind
of fascism, not an organized movement of
shrill
demagogues, bloody thugs, hysterical
third-rate
intellectuals, and juvenile delinquents -- ours
is a tired,
worn, cynical fascism, fascism by default, not
like a
flaming disaster, but more like the quiet
collapse of a
lethargic body slowly eaten by internal
corruption.

Did it have to happen? No. Can it still be
averted? Yes.
If you doubt the power of philosophy to set the
course
and shape the destiny of human societies,
observe that
our mixed economy is the literal, faithfully
carried-out
product of Pragmatism -- and of the
generation brought
up under its influence. Pragmatism is the
philosophy
which holds that there is no objective reality or
permanent
truth, that there are no absolute principles, no
valid
abstractions, no firm concepts, that anything
may be tried
by rule of thumb, that objectivity consists of
collective
subjectivism, that whatever people wish to be
true, is true,
whatever people wish to exist, does exist --
provided a
consensus say so.

If you want to avert the final disaster, it is this
type of
thinking -- every one of this propositions and
all of them
-- that you must face, grasp, and reject. Then
you will
have grasped the connection of philosophy to
politics and
to the daily events of your life. Then you will
have
learned that no society is better than its
philosophical
foundation. And then -- to paraphrase John
Galt -- you
will be ready, not to return to capitalism, but to
discover
it.

["THE NEW FASCISM: RULE BY CONSENSUS",
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1965, p. 219, 220]

The consensus-doctrine has achieved the
exact opposite
of its alleged goal: instead of creating unity or
agreement,
it has disintegrated and atomized the country
to such an
extent that no communication. let alone
agreement, is
possible. It is not unity, but intellectual
coherence, that a
country needs. That coherence can be
achieved only by
fundamental principles, not by compromises,
among
groups of men -- by the primacy of ideas, not
of gangs. . .

["THE WRECKAGE OF THE CONSENSUS",
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1965, p. 235]

David

---------- Original Message ----------

>From: Marko Koskinen <marko@vapaus.net>
>To: discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:58:25 -0500
>Subject: Re: DSM: about Sudbury model

>Thanks Bruce, that makes sense. Thanks also to Hanna for having some
>really good and enlightening discussions with me.

>But what I'm proposing, at least as I see it, is a structure where all
>HAVE equal voice and in which individual rights ARE protected even more
>than in democratic structure. People don't seem to believe that
>consensus decision making is possible at least in larger groups, but I
>DO. I'll have to check out that discussion you are talking about.

>If, as I suppose, the consensus decision making would work, then is
>there something inherent in it that is against the democratic ideals? If
>so, could someone give me an example or something to describe a
>situation that would be against it.

>And what comes to the therapy issue, I really feel that people don't
>know what I'm talking about. I really disapprobe any kind of traditional
>psychotherapy where the therapist analyzes the patient. I guess you'll
>just have to do with my assurance that the way I would practice and have
>practiced it is totally non-coersive. If that's not enough for you, you
>can order books from www.rc.org. (I can suggest some books if requested)
>The theory is too complicated to be discussed here. I've tried to
>explain it many times but usually failed misarably.

>Third issue is about the assumption that the mediation process would
>have something to do with "psychologizing" (whatever that means). I can
>see where this assumption comes from, but I once again assure you that
>this is not what I've ment. If feelings are involved in problem solving
>(as they usually are), they don't make the process any more
>"psychologizing" than it would be without them. I interpret the word
>"psychologize" to mean that someone analyzes the situation or the
>participants and tries to make them "see what's their real problem".
>Well, as I said previously, I totally disapprove such processes. I
>really don't like anybody telling me what my problems are, but I would
>like someone to listen to me when I try to figure out myself what they
>are. And also, I wouldn't like anybody to give me any advice how to
>solve the problem, but again, I wouldn't oppose someone listening to me
>while I'm trying to solve it.

>What I'm trying to accomplish with this is to make sure that everybody
>would feel safe enough to show their feelings and not hide themselves.
>What I'm probably trying to fight is the irrational cultural "norms"
>that appear as peer pressure.

>Marko

>> It is not the implementation of the proposals, but rather their content,
>> which makes them inconsistent. I think this discussion is caught on a
>> unique, but often overlooked, aspect of democracy: that it can vote itself
>> out of existence. Voters in a democracy can vote to make it something other
>> than a democracy. Think of all the times throughout history when people
>> have voted in dictators and emperors. It is only the culture of democracy
>> that truly preserves it: the desire to maintain structures where all have
>> an equal voice, and in which individual rights are protected.
>>
>> Having said that, I suspect some would argue that we in this country have
>> already allowed it to become something less than democratic.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> >People have been saying that what I've been proposing is not consistent
>> >with Sudbury model. I'm just wondering why is that, because all that
>> >I've suggested is not ment to be implemented without the whole school
>> >community voting for it. I'm not planning to implement my own ideas "by
>> >force".
>> >
>> >If I suggested these things at SVS School Meeting and they were voted
>> >for, would SVS cease to be a Sudbury Model school?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:06 EST