The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 1, No.3 (May 2005)
Editorial
Closing the ‘trilogy’ that we began in the first issue with the publication of the Inclusive Democracy (ID) Dossier, and that we continued in the second issue with the publication of the first part of the debate on the ID project, we conclude in this issue with the publication of the second part of the debate. This part consists of four new significant contributions to this debate and a rejoinder.
David Freeman, Michael Levin and Arran Gare are three of the most important reviewers of the ID project and their contributions offer significant food for thought. Their reviews have been chosen not only because of their importance but also because they could initiate a rich discussion on the ID project, particularly since they express very different political viewpoints, from the social democratic to the libertarian ones. The topics they deal with include the feasibility of Inclusive Democracy, the nature of the present crisis, the ID transitional strategy and the issue of compatibility of the ID and autonomy projects to social democracy.
Jean-Claude Richard in the first part of the debate and Serge Latouche in this part offer two equally significant contributions on the French edition of the book, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, which examine the desirability of the ID project, as well as the relationship of radical democracy to inclusive democracy.
Finally, Takis Fotopoulos in his rejoinder attempts to give some alternative explanations, from the ID perspective, to the reservations, or even criticisms, raised against it. Also, in a late addendum he axamines in detail the philosophical, political and economic differences between the ID and the Social Ecology projects.
We hope that the bona fide spirit within which this debate took place will be recognized by everybody and the fruitful dialogue developed here will function as a catalyst towards its further expansion in the future. We would therefore welcome any new contributions to this very interesting debate.
The Editorial Committee