Yes, it's encouraging how international it is even as an interim organization, it's better to have a global footing first, then solidify locally. I think parecon was just something Michael Albert made to make a name for himself and differentiate himself from the rest, something not uncommon among intellectuals. I'd even go so far as to say most members aren't pareconists, and hopefully if that's the case we can push out the parecon stuff at the founding convention. I don't know how the he'll the ICC thinks were gonna get 10,000 members in 6 months, and I think too many people have put too much work into the organization to just dissolve it prematurely.
Hello and sorry for the delay in response, I must admit I'm not very interested in parecon its seems a little artificial. Like you I'm in it just because of its potential to bring together diverse moral freedom seekers. The structure is interesting, layers of increasingly locally focused chapters.. each member has local as well as global influence, it is potentially efficient kind of horizontalism even when scaled to the global level with billions of participants. It is a funny way to grow an organisation though. Hitherto almost any kind of global organisation starts locally focused and then expands into new areas when a certain level of local intensity is reached, building on each new locality until such time as it becomes a global organisation. IOPS is starting diffusely on a global scale and then trying to fill in local intensity as it goes, which is odd to say the least, but then maybe it is an appropriate way for the internet age.
Hey, I noticed you were a member of IOPS. I haven't really seen anyone else outside of the website affiliated with the organization. What do you think of the over all program and structure? I personally am not a pareconist but I think IOPS has the potential to do some good, we just need more people.
