It is a difficult task to write something like a self-understanding as a political group, which meets the requirements of every group member without formulating nothing instead of commonplaces. Why should we find a minimal consensus in complex questions, if we accept and respect other positions than our own? At least we do not want people to have a consistent position. We believe that especially a break with the discourse will outline, that every position can only be apparently objective. Only when we recognize, that our positions reflect necessarily a subjective reality, we will be able to tolerate other opinions.
Instead of orchestrating unanimity, we would like to describe a self-understanding, that leaves room for discussions. Below we want to write something about the core issues of our political work. Beside our consensus we will also outline our discussions when we were divided by disagreement.
Our discussion culture
(see also Our discussion culture [translation is in progress])
Especially in discussion, we attach great importance to a non-discriminatory behaviour. This is not a simple task, since people participating in the discussion may be affected emotionally in very different degrees, may have different states of knowledge, different interests or may use different languages! This is why it is so important to use a as non-violent language as possible, to take care that everyone gets a chance to speak but not to expect of anyone that they have to participate in the discussion and to reduce the mental effort that participants have to put into a discussion to a minimum.
All this can only work when all participants of a discussion show consideration for each other, constantly reflect upon their own behaviour during discussions and respect (explicitly or implicitly) agreed-on standards. This is why we try to explicitly record our discussion standards in the form of guidelines, on the one hand to simplify getting into our discussion culture for those who are not familiar with it and on the other, to check up with each other if we understood each other correctly. Thus, we have a basis on which we can reflect our discussing behaviour as a group. The guidelines we recorded for our discussion should under co circumstances be understood as dogmatic and we will have a good look at them at any time when we detect further problems caused by them. Nonetheless we hope that with these guidelines we can contribute to an easy-going and non-discriminatory discussion culture which – inspite of everybody emphasizing its importance – is not granted at all in the radical-left movement.
More issues will follow …
We are currently rewriting our self-understanding. Therefore we have to discuss the core issues of our political work. We will publish our results piece by piece as we finished the appropriate discussion. So far we have to ask you for postponement … 😉