On leadership in affinity groups / actions

[El Rojo]

Lets imagine a hypothetical scenario.

A space is occupied by a small group of people. Upon hearing about the occupation, more people, total strangers, arrive. If these people, who all have different levels of experience, knowledge and ability take part in an action together, how do they organise?

In another hypothetical scenarion, an action was undertaken by the above group. The planning was done democratically, but when improvisation was needed during the action, leaders emerged who called the shots.

Democratic, consensus based decision making, combined with following group leaders when there isnt time to take group decisions seems like the way forward. thoughts?

[nuisance]

Well, first things first, an affinity group is comprised of individuals who have knowledge of one another, so that they can rely upon them and know roughly how they will act in a given situation. This type of affinity is built up by performing small actions as a group, this gains confidence and knowledge of one another. This is more so based on a political level rather than a relationship based on friendship.


Lets imagine a hypothetical scenario.

A space is occupied by a small group of people. Upon hearing about the occupation, more people, total strangers, arrive. If these people, who all have different levels of experience, knowledge and ability take part in an action together, how do they organise?
This is the problem of 'activism'- it can be exclusive and create a community of activists that exists outside the class, which merely recreates capitalist class relations based upon expertise, thus potenially limiting other individuals access to tools.
Anyway, this is more of a issue of whether the newcomers are planning on being familar faces in the occupied space or not, aswell as depending on what type of occupation there is- i.e. a occupation of a workplace or a squatted social centre or a housing squat? It would be much easier to answer the question regarding the occupied space if you specify the hypothetical nature of the occupation.
Also, it's important to remember that people educate themselves through participation.


In another hypothetical scenarion, an action was undertaken by the above group. The planning was done democratically, but when improvisation was needed during the action, leaders emerged who called the shots.

Democratic, consensus based decision making, combined with following group leaders when there isnt time to take group decisions seems like the way forward. thoughts?
It completely depends on whether the people performing the 'leadership' role can legitimate it. Do they have past experience that means they have more knowledge in said scenario or plays the 'cool head' character of the group who can reel people back in when a panic sets in- because if this is so then the affinity group should be made aware/be aware of this prior. Or is this just bossiness- which could easily cause discontent among the group and potenially ruin the action. Again though this completely depends on what you mean by group leaders- i.e. what would be a scenario that this idea can be applied to?