Čtyři úrovně k Unii

[Tymoty]

@Pierrette@mastodon.uno Thank you 🙂

@bobojp@theblower.au @Linkshaender@bildung.social Me too 🙂 I’m still trying to wrap my head around the 4 levels too 🙂 Let me try another 4-level wrap:

(1) society

Desription: The Union. Territory and population. Community. Polity. Government. Citizens. Inhabitants. The Union, the Union population, the Union people, the Union citizens, all of us - and I include the "demagogic populist right" / Orbán / Fico... Just everybody. When the Union is taken over by the demagogic populist right, or I don't know who, it's still my / our Union, it's still us, the Union population. Union. A particular, contingent, dirty work with IDs and papers. They're all Unionians. Even Orban. Civic? The Union exists, we're all in it together, let's see what we can do about it. AfD voters in Thuringia are invited to the party.

Relation: I respect all citizens as my equals. Anybody's wishes with respect to the Union are as important as my. We, conscious and caring citizens who share some values, are supposed to agree that we treat everyone as equal and that we are supposed to care for everyone. We treat equal and care for even the Unionians who don't feel they are Unionians, and who may be actively in favour of abolishing the Union or who are against its interests. We give them the freedom to say what they want, even though they may not want us to have the same freedom to say what we want. Reciprocity not required.

(2) coalition

What kind of Union we (bobojp + Linkshaender + Pierrette + me + others) want. In a very broad sense. Basically, just exclude fashists. But I want a positive descriptions. That is not available yet. My proposal: Let's find or create one. United in Diversity. Multi-vector. Multicoloured polyphonic coalition. Our direction for the Union. All of us who cherish some basic values and follow some basic practices. The negative definition is quite easy: no to fascism, no to sado-politics, no to brown uniforms, no to Orban. Positive delineation and appropriate naming is more difficult. This level / the coalition contains deep disputes over fundamental issues. Exluded is the denial / abolition of the self-correcting process and its replacement by a leader, brownness and concentration camps. Our direction for the Union. A very broad colourful polyphonic consensus. We, conscious and caring citizens who share some values, should try to embody, proclaim, celebrate, apply these. Within this consensus, deep disagreements on fundamental issues can happily coexist. The negative definition is easier: no to fascism, no to brown uniforms, no to totalitarianism. Positive demarcation still doesn't work well. I invite cooperation. Coalition? (Describing this level seems most important to me.) What kind of Union we want. As general definition as possible. We, who want the Union and who don't want fashism. I try to invite as many Unionians as possible to this party, even though there may be fundamental differences between us on important issues. But we share some even more fundamental beliefs about values and practices.

(3) party

Party. Which political party of the coalition is my choice. Political parties. Of memer states. Of the Union. Specific policy directions / preferences that cheerfully compete and coexist at level 2. Sort of like the Union and member states political parties. My choice. My preferences. Partisan? About on a par with current political parties.

(4) person

Whims. Individual whims. I wouldn't waste time on that. Times are serious. It's no time for whims. My personal political whims, fancies that I might like to pursue or support, but now is not the time for them. Personal? Things I might want, but for now I don't put them in (3), let alone in (2).

---

For me it is very important to distinguish the four levels of relating / belonging / wanting.

I consider the challenge of the time to be a clear representation of level (2). What are the perhaps obvious but really essential things that we want to unite on. I still can't say it satisfactorily. I invite your cooperation.

I need level (1), among other things, to make it clear what I want level (2) to be about. Also to emphasize freedom to do anything. Other Unionians may want anything other than what I want.

The times, in my opinion, are not conducive to nymphing in levels (3) and (4).

I think we need two levels (1&2), and there are two more to clarify the explanation (3&4).

For me, the time requires the formulation and work at level 2. I need level 1 to know what I'm saying, what I want it to be, and what alternative futures it might also have that I might not like. What belongs at what level is for thinking about and agreeing on. Levels 3 and 4 lend themselves to listing things I like, but I think they don't / may not belong to a broader consensus.

And it is also very clear to me that the division of things into levels is not some truth existing outside of me. Where to put what is a decision, it can be argued, it is to be debated. Dividing and categorizing into levels is supposed to help discussion, it's supposed to help finding and creating consensus.

At the first level, I need a very basic and as abstract as possible agreement that there is a Union, that there is a Union territory, that there is a Union population and that there are Union institutions. And also some agreement, at the level of secondary school civics, on what the Union is, what the territory of the Union is, what is meant by the population and what is meant by the institutions of the Union.

And while it might seem that this should be no problem, it is often a surprisingly big problem. For many, the struggle over how to understand or talk about the Union is super important. For many, the Union is something outside of their world and life, pressing in on them from the outside, and it would be possible or desirable to just turn it off.

And when I reach, with someone, this seemingly simple but in reality often difficult agreement I can express my relationship with the Union and Unionists at level one. I respect all Unionians as equal citizens / co-inhabitants / co-Unionians and take their views, attitudes and values as seriously as my own. That is some basic acceptance, inclusion, embrace, which includes AfD voters and politicians in Thuringia and Saxony. You too are my fellow-Unionists and I respect your opinions and voices as much as I respect my own.

Times have changed. It's no more so, if it ever somewhere for someone had been so, that everything works and I may enjoy selecting in the supermarket what exactly I want. It's no longer the case that I can set my phone tariff to suit my exact needs and tastes. Disasters are happening and more are looming. I don't have to give up my personal believes (level 4, personal), but above all, I should put my efforts in a cooperation of everyone who wants to go against disasters and create a good, proper and beautiful world (level 2, coalition). At level 2 we must be able to work together, even if we disagree deeply at level 3 (party) or level 4 (personal). What is at stake is the preservation and blooming of a world in which we can have levels 3 and 4 at all.

#tg434928726

[Tymoty]

Linkshaender writes:

This is interesting and I totally relate to „United in Diversity. Multi-vector. Multicoloured polyphonic coalition“, which is the reason that IMHO nation states actually doesn‘t quite fit into a (for lack of better word) „real union“. Personally I think more in regions (Lazio, Wallonia, Bretagne, Bavaria…) based on cultural and/or geographic history and heritage. Which in turn results in the need for a change in basic organisational principles of the EU.

( https://bildung.social/@Linkshaender/113130925547088925 )

[Tymoty]

@Linkshaender@bildung.social Great 🙂

Let me illustrate the 4-level thinking using your interest in internal structure of the Union.

For me, there may be, among others, these three vectors, colours, melodies:

federalists

etatists

regionalists

The three can be represented by political parties at level 3. And they can happily coexist and compete within a consensus at level 2 that allows for their continued coexistence and competition.

@bobojp@theblower.au @Pierrette@mastodon.uno

#tg434928726

[Tymoty]

bobojp reacts to https://trojkatretiho.cz/viewtopic.php?p=1855#p1855 :

I feel I’m starting to understand where you’re going with that one. I agree and I like it.
Did you try to ask ChatGPT for the name of the Coalition? 😉

( https://theblower.au/@bobojp/113131248705216041 )

[Tymoty]

@bobojp@theblower.au Great 🙂

I'd ask the devil himself for a good name if it were possible 😉

@Linkshaender@bildung.social @Pierrette@mastodon.uno

#tg434928726

[Tymoty]

@bobojp@theblower.au Union civic concord? UniCivCord?

@Linkshaender@bildung.social @Pierrette@mastodon.uno

#tg434928726