Sociocracy is both revolutionary and conservative.
Sociocracy is revolutionary in that it
brings governance decisions, policy and
leadership, down to all levels of an organization. It creates a fully
participatory organization.
It is conservative in that it works within the market economy of capitalism and
within the current social structure.
Communists and socialists, in distinction, often advocate overthrow of the
government and are opposed to capitalism.
On one
hand, sociocracy gives life to the execution structure. It could be seen
as conservative by those who are allergic to authority.
On the other hand, sociocracy makes it possible to share power without
loosing it. This is the real revolutionary part of it.
It's so hard when discussing sociocracy to remember both ends of the
spectrum -- the currently authoritarian corporation where sociocracy is
revolutionary because it shares power and invites objections and the
anti-hierarchical, anti-power world of intentional communities where
sociocracy is revolutionary not because it shares power but because it
"gives life to the execution structure" and thus doesn't loose power.
The sexy part of sociocracy is that every one can be part of the
decision-making process; the difficult part is that someone has to lead
the execution of those decisions and has to be responsible for results.
It's a particular kind of leadership when you can't appeal to authority
or physical power (control over money or employment). It requires
listening and formulating directions that fit with the aims and
abilities of all of those led.
In intentional communities there are a lot of rule-based societies. The
community forms around rules so when the community begins to make
decisions, they all have the same ideas. It doesn't involve listening to
objections because objectors are weeded out. Consensus was built in from
the start to exist within a very narrow range.