[pp.int.general] Is PPI dead, or was it ever really born? (Andrew Norton)

[erik ernst]

Removing some of the strongest emotional eruptions from Andrews email, I
think we will find a number of good points, I, in other words, basically
agree with Andrews points, I have however reached a different conclusion.

It must be said that I have found the direction PPI has moved in the last
years unfortunate for several reasons, partly because I simply do not
understand the need to build a hierarchical structure up in an attempt to
combat older and much stronger hierarchies. One of our greatest strengths, a
force that no hierarchy can stand against, is neural networking in lack of a
beter term, ie. the ability to get work done with out being punished into
submission. Do we really believe that we gain people's respect and
recognition, by dressing and behaving like the old parties? - Hopefully not.
Last but not least, I found the timing of the creation of a new PPI quite
miserable, ALL forces should have been used to help various parties locally
in their election campaigns.

I merely say this so you know a bit of the background for the following
views.

Actually I do not want to interfere in the debate on the management and
structure of PPI, in turn, I would just like to note that we have not given
the Board the best working condition, in the sense that the organization
most of all seems like a fragile compromise between different not always
definable directions, even if we send out official letters every day, it
would not change the fact (in my opinion) that PPI is placed between two
chairs leaving the board with few options to appear strong or what ever.

I would suggest three things we could to implement with relative ease,
without having to stir up too much personal pettiness and whatever else is
hiding in the closet:

1. The PPI continues its present course, preferably in the current
constellation as they should have the chance to finish what they have
started.

Arguments are among others that we ourselves have created the basis for an
organization with no real power and influence, and therefore we can not
complain about the lack of just that. Secondly, I believe that we have
wasted far too much time already on"bureaucratic nonsense", let the current
core build a foundation so that we get something we can actually relate to
and which we can jointly improve later on, rather than drowning in abstract
discussions.

This does not resolve many of the problems Andrew points out in his mail,
which leads me to point two:

2. That we create a non-parliamentary activist group.

Many people miss taking part in something greater than themselves, but often
lack the time, skills and perhaps experience, and I do not think we have
been good enough to enable/empower people, if one can say it that way.
However, we see a strong influx of groups like Anonymous (which I strongly
support), The Zeitgeist Movement and other similar groups that seem to be
much better at drawing in new activist, to maintain those they have and to
educate those who seek more than to glue the doors to banks or what ever.

Well, I am schooled in a red tradition where one would look with contempt at
people who stand for election, but the hope, the will and the joy I've met
around taking part in various actions around the net in the last week,
reminds me of good old times gone hehe.

Non-parliamentary groups have many benefits, they can offer people simple
options and opportunities to participate in events they support, without
having to "buy a whole package", many activists eventually become more and
more political / philosophical interested and in time often seep quietly
into groups like pirate party where they become politicians or take up other
positions,
Non-parliamentary groups will also open up for cooperation with far more
colorful groups, across both political and national borders.

We could, in other words, appear in many more places under many different
flags, as vanguard on the barricades, we could start right now by throwing
everything we have got behind the defense of TPB, in fact that particular
case is the perfect starting point.

Last but not least, a group such as I just mentioned,  could with a
philosophy inspired by Gandhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
help to ensure a lot of exciting events do not become violent and retarded.

Last point I promise:)

3. That we focus more of our work (PPI) on scientific and historical
research, and creative solutions that can provide for the creation of an
entirely new policy. Perhaps there is too much time spend translating and
relating to all the new bills constantly pouring out of various
institutions, leaving us in a constant defensive, which obviously makes it
even more difficult to put a political agenda. I could also be, that we need
more people to take part in such groups, hence the idea of creating activist
groups.

I believe such groups as the one that fought ACTA was/is super cool, but it
needs to be backed up by new visions and ideas for how to organize a
"modern" society.

Well, Im just chatting away really without too much thought. take it as a
series of aphorisms from a random personage, ie. with a grain of salt:)

Respectfully yours

Erik Ernst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20100927/1a80772b/attachment.htm>