Forms of Decision making and Organisation

[The Feral Underclass]

Introduction

For Anarchists, the means and methods that are used for achieving a goal must be consistent with the goal itself. If we are out to achieve the goal of a free society we cannot do so by authoritarian, top-down means. Anarchists reason that if our collective goal is a free society, then we must organize and make decisions in the same manner that we would if we were actually living in a free society right now -- you won't know how to live free unless you learn to live free now.

This section is devoted to showing the common forms of decision making and and the common units of organization that Anarchists employ and which most closely reflect Anarchist ideals. The information is presented in a way that will be useful for both making decisions for protests and direct actions but also for making decisions in the context of long term projects and social arrangements.

Introduction (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/descisionmaking.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Direct Democracy

What is Direct Democracy?

Direct democracy is different from parliamentary democracy in a number of important ways:

1. Direct democracy is about 'originating' ideas as much as it is about 'approving' them. In parliamentary democracy, people are never asked for their own ideas - they are only asked to 'approve' or 'disapprove' of ideas already prepared for them. Direct democracy is radically different in that way. Direct democracy is based on the realistic notion that 'people know best how to look after their own situation'. We don't need specialists to tell us how to run our places of work or our communities. Anarchists argue that we are quite capable of doing this ourselves. All we need are the resources and the right to do this. Direct democracy is the method.

2. Direct democracy is based on delegation not representation. The crucial difference between delegation and representation is that delegates are only elected to implement specific decisions. Delegates do not have the right to change a decision previously made by an assembly of people. Delegates (unlike representatives) can be immediately recalled and dismissed from their mandate if they don't carry out the specific function allotted to them.

3. Direct democracy is as much about the workplace as it is about the community. In parliamentary democracy, the workplace is 'immune' to democracy (save what rights workers have won through their unions). In direct democracy, the operation of a factory or a plant or an office will be via a general assembly of all workers. This body will decide on conditions of work, will elect re-callable managers, and will organize how work is done. It will also elect people (as delegates) who will coordinate with the other places of work and with the broader community. Regional organization will be managed through a federation of workplaces using a delegate structure.

[From Chapter 9 of "Parliament or democracy?", Workers Solidarity Movement Pamphlet http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/once/pd_chap9.html]

Literal direct democracy (as opposed to consensus, which is sometimes also referred to as direct democracy) is a bottom up method of decision making that uses voting as the means to arrive at decisions. Direct democracy on a small scale can be as simple as a group of people voting by a raise of hands or the marking of ballots to arrive at a decision. Large scale decision making by direct democracy is usually in the form of "councils" of elected delegates whose role is to represent the will of their group at the council. These delegates are recallable, they can usually be recalled for any reason that the group the delegate represents thinks is sufficient grounds for recalling them.

The voting results in direct democracy decisions which determine whether a vote "wins" or "looses" is typically majority vote wins (especially when used on a small scale). But other methods, like forms of proportional representation or using voting to get the majority opinion and then using consensus to incorporate disagreements into the final decision, can be used to modify the voting process. In direct democracy, anyone can call a vote on an issue and anyone can technically call an assembly, however, a group or council can draft and approve guidelines for calling votes and calling assemblies.

Why is it important? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_directdemocracy.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Consensus

What is Consensus?

NOTE: The following article is about formal consensus decision making, which is not an ideal method for anarchists and some of the steps in the process described below can be removed, modified, or merged as a group sees fit. Additional tips for anarchist consensus decision making can be found at the end of this essay.

From "On decisionmaking"

http://www.consensus.net/ocac2.html

Consensus ... is a process which requires an environment in which all contributions are valued and participation is encouraged. There are, however, few organizations which use a model of consensus which is specific, consistent, and efficient. Often, the consensus process is informal, vague, and very inconsistent. This happens when the consensus process is not based upon a solid foundation and the structure is unknown or nonexistent. To develop a more formal type of consensus process, any organization must define the commonly held principles which form the foundation of the group's work and intentionally choose the type of structure within which the process is built.

How does it work? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_consensus.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Meetings and Facilitation

General Tips for Organizing Meetings and Facilitation

- Make sure everyone knows the time and place.

- Have a collectively developed agenda.

- Try to start on time.

- Make sure someone is taking notes.

- Facilitators should do their best to get all points of view.

- Facilitators should not use their position to impose their personal ideas and opinions on the group.

- Facilitators should be attentive to people who are speaking -- look at them, lean forward, smile, nod. Make eye contact with people who may need encouragement to speak.

- Try to end on time. Nothing makes people dread and avoid meetings more than knowing they're likely to go on and on and consume far more of their time than they want to give.

- Make sure the minutes are written up and, if necessary, posted or distributed.

- Start getting ready for the next meeting!

Things to remember? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_meeting.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Affinity Groups

What is an affinity group?

An affinity group is a small group of 5 to 20 people who work together autonomously on direct actions or other projects. You can form an affinity group with your friends, people from your community, workplace, or organization.

Affinity groups challenge top-down decision-making and organizing, and empower those involved to take creative direct action. Affinity groups allow people to "be" the action they want to see by giving complete freedom and decision-making power to the affinity group. Affinity groups by nature are decentralized and non-hierarchical, two important principles of anarchist organizing and action. The affinity group model was first used by anarchists in Spain in the late 19th and early 20th century, and was re-introduced to radical direct action by anti-nuclear activists during the 1970s, who used decentralized non-violent direct action to blockade roads, occupy spaces and disrupt "business as usual" for the nuclear and war makers of the US. Affinity groups have a long and interesting past, owing much to the anarchists and workers of Spain and the anarchists and radicals today who use affinity groups, non-hierarchical structures, and consensus decision making in direct action and organizing.

The role of affinity groups...? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_affinity.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Collectives

What is a collective?

A collective is a permanent organizational grouping that exists to accomplish a range of tasks or achieve a goal or maintain a permanent project. Collective members usually share the same political views, in fact, they are often united as a collective by their political views specifically. Most collectives are also local in focus since most collective projects are based in local communities, most collective projects are local in scope, and the collectives themselves are made up of people who live relatively close to each other.

Collectives, on a small scale, are often not very different from affinity groups, however, small groups that refer to themselves as collectives usually work on long term projects like publishing a magazine, or running an infoshop, or operating a business. Affinity groups can theoretically do anything, but typically affinity groups often focus on varying short term goals and tasks. A collective, on the other hand, focuses on long term goals and permanent projects.

For example, an affinity group may decide to post political flyers all over a city either as part of a larger action or as an individual action that the affinity group takes upon itself. Whereas a collective that ran an infoshop would post flyers all over a city to promote an event happening at the infoshop. The action performed by the affinity group would be an end in itself, but the action performed by an infoshop collective would just be one task among a variety of tasks that are required to maintain a permanent project like an infoshop.

Also, unlike an affinity group, a collective technically has no size limitations. A collective can number anywhere from 3 to 200. However, when a collective reaches a certain size, it may be wise to either break up a collective into one or more smaller collectives or divide the collective internally into permanent affinity groups. Decision making in a collective can range from direct democracy, to consensus, to combinations of both.

How to form a collective? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_collective.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Federations and Networks

What is a Federation?

Federations are essentially unions of autonomous organizations and/or affinity groups. An anarchist federation can be viewed as the regional, or national, or international decision making body of the union (depending on the federation's self-imposed geographical limitations) and the collectives or affinity groups that belong to the federation can be viewed as autonomous union locals. Federations are formal organizations with constitutions, bylaws, and specific membership guidelines. There are three general types of federations that have been formed in recent memory, I will refer to them as "Specialist", "General Revolutionary", and "Synthesist" Federations. This terminology is in no way standard, but it is useful for purposes of description.

Building Federations and Networks...? (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/dec_fednet.html)

[apathy maybe]

This is very good TAT.

Did you write this? And more to the point, do you implement what you say :).

In cases where there are not many Anarchists, I would say join with your local socialist or communist group. They will generally support the same short-term (if not long-term) goals. The only trouble is (at least that I've found) is that generally these groups already have a leadership structure. This can slow down or prevent the implementation of some of these ideas.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 27 2004, 12:37 AM
Did you write this?

No


And more to the point, do you implement what you say :).

We try.


In cases where there are not many Anarchists, I would say join with your local socialist or communist group.

No! If you are an anarchist contact your national anarchist organisation and they should help you stat a group.


They will generally support the same short-term (if not long-term) goals. The only trouble is (at least that I've found) is that generally these groups already have a leadership structure. This can slow down or prevent the implementation of some of these ideas.

If you're an anarchist in an authotarian organisation, then no doubt you will soon get frustrated. There is no point in joining an organisation you principly or even fundamentally disagree with. get in touch with a group near to you or start your own.

[Arnau]

Yea. i hate to be pessimistic. i try to avoid it.
Anarchism: libertarian Communism. Is the ideal path to reaching a Communist society...
but look at anarchism today. Even just the state of the leftist parties and movements today. They are perhaps at an all time low!
To have any political effect we must have popular support, popular support doesn't seem to be leaning to the left very much. Capitalism is at an all time high. The right-wing is literally kicking our ass. Physically destroying the earth's landscape and environment, and mentally massacring the earths human population.
From where I see it.Following a completely failed attempt at Authoritarian Communism (USSR). Following the realisation of Left-revolutionary movements that authoritarianism simply won't do the trick. Following the stunning reelection of George W. Bush, and the seeming triumph of capitalism over the world population.
Todays Communists, Socialists and Anarchist movements worldwide, those that are "left-revolutionary". Have only one path left to destroy the Capitalist system.
To Unify. A divided left simply won't take us anywhere. Any of us.

[encephalon]

I'd have to agree with Arnau.. those in the red and black field most definitely have a huge factionalization problem. What's worse is that nearly every faction recognizes the need to unite, but each one is expecting all the others to unite with them, under their respective principles, rather than going out and uniting pro-actively.

I think, maybe, that the only way to solve this would be some kind of democratic union.. the problem is that there has to be *some* standard value shared.. and I'm guessing it needs to be more than just the need for a revolution, because even if it lasted long enough for that to happen, it would quickly factionalize, and oppression of the other groups would follow by the strongest.. just as it's happened before. The different factions know this quite well (frankly, they should have back then, too), and this prevents uniting even further.

I'm really not sure how to reconcile all of the groups. Something needs to be done, though :S

AT: Who wrote this?

[Arnau]

I agree and it is very true that the unification of the leftist movements is a very complex plan to actually put into action, there is the possibility of negative consequences and the oppression and antagonism between ideologies in the long run and the short.

Lets admit that all of the movements of the left seek to, in the long run create a Classless Stateless society. For a person to wish to revolutionize the system and create a classless stateless society. Signifies a person that in terms of politics and plans of action is willing to do almost anything to achieve that point.

Some may personally prefer to make a quick, violent revolution and install a socialist system that they would use to achieve a Classless Stateless society. Others may wish to convince a majority "democratically" and put a socialist system in place without any gunshots. Others just think all they need is workers support and with that the government dissapears and a Classless Stateless society is immediately acheived.
Fact is, all of them wish to create a Classless Statless society. That is how they want to live ideally.

The way they're going to get there isn't using one or the other of their plans of action. It is going to have to mean the acceptance of all by all.

Nor one way nor the other. All ways. Some might say, ah no but that goes against my principles. But others might say the same about accepting some of your principles and if everybody accepts that. Everybody will in the end Unite and create a Classless stateless society. Using and accepting all methods that lead to freedom as we leftists understand it.

[CommoditiesAretheOpiumofPeople]

Hey Arnau, guess who man! Did anyone ever hear about the Haymarket martyrs in 1887? Basically, some protests led to violence and some anarchists were hanged for the murder of some policemen by one anarchist who made the decision to throw a bomb into a column of them. Pacifism's great, and fine by me, but revolution is never going to be fully pacifist. I agree that you should try and keep violence to a minimum, but the very nature of the right wing means that they are willing to use violence, many of us aren't, so what do we do? If we want a revolution, we need to close the cracks that people see in the socialist libertarian ideals, so educate people make them free.

P.S. Arnau, GAME OVER! :)

[encephalon]

violent conflict is the reaction of the ruling establishment, not the masses. Most often, the ruling class uses violence to supress a revolution, not revolutionaries using violence first (provided it is a revolution backed by the people). The people have no need to use violence until violence is used against them. It's the fault--and very predictable reaction--of the right, not the left.

[DEPAVER]

Nice post!

I've always maintained the way to build an improved society was in this manner, from the grass roots outward, using concensus and a network of federations. I add, however, that the federations should be bioregionally organized, because of the importance of living in harmony with our natural environment. This becomes even more important as we approach peak oil and are forced to relearn how to "live in place."

There's no reason why we can't make use of already existing social institutions that
have the potential to provide avenues for the people to engage in democratic decision-making on subjects of vital interest to individuals living in neighborhoods and communities served by these institutions. Neighborhood associations, road maintenance cooperatives, volunteer fire departments, food cooperatives, thrift stores, etc., can all become centers of focus of democratic relationships among local citizens.

As local citizens grapple with and solve local issues without resort to appeal to the central government, they will be practiced and confident in the democratic process and the utility of mutual aid. From these local groups, confederations of local groups will form to deal with problems at a larger scale. From the federations, delegates will carry the message of the people to the current central government and work toward gradually replacing centralized city council government with a federation of delegates from the local associations. In this way, true democracy will replace representative government by voting.

The idea expands outward to the bioregion and finally the nation state.

[dannie]

a pamphlet on decision making from the Dutch anarchist collective eurodusnie, focusses in consensus

Basisdemocratie (http://squat.net/eurodusnie/bd/index.htm)

basic democracy - English version (http://squat.net/eurodusnie/bd/indexeng.htm)

[Janus]

The Anarchist Tension, I am unable to access the bolded links that you posted. Clicking on them takes me to a radio4all.org search engine.

[apathy maybe]

Umm... I remember my earlier post in this topic.

I stand by 'working' with your local socialist group. But don't join them. Look for enviroment groups or other similar groups as they are likely to have decentralised 'leadership' structures. Start your own group, hang out at the local uni.

[Antpower]

Here's another system to add to your list:
Individual Decision Power (http://conceivia.com/about-us/individual-decision-power/)

Tony