Formal or informal organisation..

[ls]

A big part of insurrectionary anarchism seems to be this emphasis on small, informal organisations that arise at times of intense struggle, what makes them so much better than mass organisations?

[bcbm]

the self-management of struggle means that those that struggle are autonomous in their decisions and actions; this is the opposite of an organization of synthesis which always attempts to take control of struggle. Struggles that are synthesized within a single controlling organization are easily integrated into the power structure of present society. Self-organized struggles are by nature uncontrollable when they are spread across the social terrain.
Organization is for concrete tasks: thus we are against the party, syndicate and permanent organization, all of which act to synthesize struggle and become elements of integration for capital and the state. Their purpose comes to be their own existence, in the worst case they first build the organization then find or create the struggle. Our task is to act; organization is a means. Thus we are against the delegation of action or practice to an organization: we need generalized action that leads to insurrection, not managed struggles. Organization should not be for the defense of certain interests, but of attack on certain interests.
Informal organization is based on a number of comrades linked by a common affinity; its propulsive element is always action. The wider the range of problems these comrades face as a whole, the greater their affinity will be. It follows that the real organization, the effective capacity to act together, i.e. knowing where to find each other, the study and analysis of problems together, and the passing to action, all takes place in relation to the affinity reached and has nothing to do with programs, platforms, flags or more or less camouflaged parties. The informal anarchist organization is therefore a specific organization which gathers around a common affinity. or something

[Jimmie Higgins]

A big part of insurrectionary anarchism seems to be this emphasis on small, informal organisations that arise at times of intense struggle, what makes them so much better than mass organisations?Really I think it's a reaction to the CPs during the cold war which were top-down, undemocratic, and stiffing for local struggles because the needs of Moscow often trumped the needs of the local worker's struggle (for example in the US CP, the movement to organize unions in the south was scrapped in favor of cozening up to the Democratic Party).

Autonomous struggles, in my opinion go too far in the other way. They too are undemocratic and stiffing in political debate and development and are often just cliques. I think many groups are coming to this conclusion and often debate creating "national networks" which I think is a step in the right direction.

Of course I favor democratic-centralism as the best way to have full debate, experimentation locally, but also unified action and accountability. If you are in an affinity group and everyone agrees but you keep making the same mistakes, there's not way to test that or draw general conclusions: so often an affinity group latches onto one tactic and keeps doing it all the time because they can't see a bigger picture and there's no way to assess the action or debate if other tactics may work better.

[ls]

the study and analysis of problems together, and the passing to action, all takes place in relation to the affinity reached and has nothing to do with programs, platforms

And don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think that has led to problematic circumstances in the past?


the self-management of struggle means that those that struggle are autonomous in their decisions and actions

Do you advocate any kind of democratic structures or not, you don't is the answer. Why not?


this is the opposite of an organization of synthesis which always attempts to take control of struggle.

In what way is an organisation that is a collective democracy something that "takes control of struggle", also if you believe this concretely, aren't you actually an anti-organisational anarchist yourself?


Struggles that are synthesized within a single controlling organization are easily integrated into the power structure of present society. Self-organized struggles are by nature uncontrollable when they are spread across the social terrain.

And I simply disagree with this, this is just unfounded crap, these autonomous affinity groups are controlled by power structures of present society to an extent too. Perhaps the best examples of this are infiltrators who work within them to get them doing overlyy incriminating things to get comrades imprisoned.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the comrade was just answering your question with quotes, not making an argument.

[bcbm]

And don't you think that is problematic? Don't you think that has led to problematic circumstances in the past? not really.
Do you advocate any kind of democratic structures or not, you don't is the answer. Why not? why ask a question if you're going to tell me the answer? it should be noted i didn't write any of the quoted parts.
In what way is an organisation that is a collective democracy something that "takes control of struggle" i believe the argument is that organizations exist outside of the class and primarily function to sustain themselves- raise more money, get more members, shit out more propaganda, repeat. when in an actual struggle they therefore have interests outside of purely class interests which leads to attempts to control the struggle, moderate it, prevent excesses and so on.
also if you believe this concretely, aren't you actually an anti-organisational anarchist yourself? no.
And I simply disagree with this, this is just unfounded crap, these autonomous affinity groups are controlled by power structures of present society to an extent too. Perhaps the best examples of this are infiltrators who work within them to get them doing overlyy incriminating things to get comrades imprisoned. i think its safe to say there are far more police spies in formal, above-ground organizations.

[nuisance]

OK, so to clear something up, insurrectionists are not anti-organisational, they are however not formalists. Nor do they desire to remain in small groups- despite what the OP asserts.

OK, now for some notes on organisation and what its role is.
Organisation is primarily for greater insemination ideas and the coordination of bodies, in a fashion that is most beneficial and far reaching as possible. This necessarily leads the accumulation of capital- funds, meeting places/HQs, printers and so on. This also necessarily means that social capital- networking, design etc, needs to be accumulated also. This enables the organisation to address changes in society to remain fresh, vibrant and accessible. Meaning that the organisation is 'alive' in the times and ever relevant. Hence the dispute between informalists and formalists is how best to accumlate said capital.

For formal organisations, it is possible for capital to be raised from membership payments, property etc, thus being able to create the necessary conditions and atomsphere for a permanent organisation to cement itself in the movement and project the organisations collective ideas to the class. The capital owned by the organisation instantly gives it something to secure and maintain access of, meaning that the organisation has a reason in and of itself to continue its existence- almost becoming an enitity in its own right. The formal structure is much more suited to creating capital, opposed to social capital.

Social capital is what informal organisations strive to accumulate, and does so at the sake of not having the structures to hold onto capital due to potenially illegal means of accessing them. This leads to un-permanent projects and structures arising- meaning that there is a almost constant creation and destruction, allowing the acculumation of social capital due to the continous changes the group takes in their struggle.

I know this doesn't answer, or really even attempt to, but I thought it had to be said. The article linked in my signature does lay out many of my ideas on anarchist organisation- that if both formal and informal structures exist, then they should atleast try and be compilmentary- not meaning that critiques shouldn't be made.

[mikelepore]

A big part of insurrectionary anarchism seems to be this emphasis on small, informal organisations that arise at times of intense struggle, what makes them so much better than mass organisations?

The workers need to take over many industries that need to coordinate their plans. One industry makes bridges and another industry makes the steel cables for it. One industry makes clothing and another industry makes the textile for it. What kind of organization could ever step and coordinate production, except for a very large workplace organization of workers?

[nuisance]

The workers need to take over many industries that need to coordinate their plans. One industry makes bridges and another industry makes the steel cables for it. One industry makes clothing and another industry makes the textile for it. What kind of organization could ever step and coordinate production, except for a very large workplace organization of workers?
Yeah, the coordination of struggle and production is understood by informalists. This discussion is about struggle though, not the revolutionised society- though this would presumebly take the same formation of self-organised workers federating. No permanent structure, big or small is necessary- which risks potenial bureaucratisation and recuperating the situation by proposing demands and claiming to represent the class. But, to answer your question with more clarity you'll have to define what exactly you mean- pre or post revolution.

[syndicat]

In my experience informal organizations inevitably develop informal hierarchies. Certain people fall into doing a lot of the work, or they're the only ones with certain skills, and then if they don't want to do something, it doesn't get done. There is no accountability where people are taking on tasks.

Another term i've seen used for informal organization is ad hoc organization. As when people come together in a spokescouncil to decide on how a demo or protest is going to go.

But the milieu that works this way tends to be a highly politicized, very tiny minority. I don't see any attempt at rootedness in, or developing influence in, particular natural oppressed or working class communities. There is a failure to consider why there is a need for mass organization...to involved larger numbers of people in struggle.

Often large organizations in past half century have been highly bureaucratic. They have paid staff who have there own interests, as people who have skills and run things. But ad hoc or informal organizaton isn't the only alternative. There can be formal, ongoing organization that is structured to be controlled by its members/participants. Even in California where I am i've seen some rank and file run tenant and worker organizations, altho they are also often not large, but they are more rooted and open than the informal networks of insurrectionist anarchists around here.

There is the fundamental question of how consciousness develops in larger numbers of people, how people become empowered, learn leadership skills, gain the confidence to take action and so on. And I think a mass organization is a better framework for this, but I also think there needs to be popular education efforts of various kinds....another thing insurrectionists don't seem to think about...because it presupposes an ongoing organization.

[Niccolò Rossi]

In my experience informal organizations inevitably develop informal hierarchies. Certain people fall into doing a lot of the work, or they're the only ones with certain skills, and then if they don't want to do something, it doesn't get done. There is no accountability where people are taking on tasks.

This is a very good observation, especially coming from an anarchist (?).

One of the problems I have found with the local anarchists groups is precisely the lack of formal organisational structures. Whilst many anarchists defend this anti-organisational and localist logic seeing it as a defense of principles against hierarchy, the irony is in the fact that it is precisely this which breeds such hierarchies. More importantly, these power relationships are obscured, with those who are in positions of power completely unaccountable due to the lack of formal organisational structures.

Of course, this shouldn't be interpretted as an alibi for the various leftist groups who do have such structures. Similar bureacratic and undemocratic functioning is just as common, if not more so in the various Trotskyist and Stalinist parties. Anarchists however are major culprits and need to front up to these real, existing problems and not continue to deny their existance.

[syndicat]

Well, I call myself a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist partly to distinguish myself from a lot of what passes for anarchism at least here in USA. There is, however, a significant section of social anarchists in the USA who are pro-organizational and for mass organizing and work in mass organizations. We just two weeks ago had 100 activists to a Class Struggle Anarchist Conference in Detroit. The organizations represented there tend to think in terms of a horizontally well-organized formal political organization, and we've been having discussions towards possible regroupment into a single large national organization in USA.

[bricolage]

Anarchists however are major culprits and need to front up to these real, existing problems and not continue to deny their existance.

I agree. It may be old but I think the tyranny of structurelessness still addressees this very well, as well as proposing good ways to combat it. Of course it should be built on but it is a good starting point.

http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/structurelessness.htm

EDIT; Also what bcbm says below.

[bcbm]

Whilst many anarchists defend this anti-organisational and localist logic seeing it as a defense of principles against hierarchy, the irony is in the fact that it is precisely this which breeds such hierarchies. More importantly, these power relationships are obscured, with those who are in positions of power completely unaccountable due to the lack of formal organisational structures.

most informal groups i've been a part of have been far more self-critical in examining these roles as they develop than formal organizations. obviously this isn't always the case and its important to mention it, but i don't think its fair to say its a problem that will always develop or fail to be dealt with.