Anarchist Organisation

[The Grey Blur]

If Leninists use the clear idea of Democratic Centralism what do Libertarian Communists rely on to make decisions?

Sorry, if this is answered in one of the many earlier threads on Anarchism but I'm just a bit curious. If you could supply me with some real-life examples as well as the abstract theory I would be most grateful.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Direct democracy. Anarchist syndicalist unions use a federated model with many conventions on regional and national levels to make decisions. Delegates are assigned by the group to vote how the group wants, etc.

[rebelworker]

Nefac uses a directly democratic federalist structure.

Collectives or individuals are elected for executive tasks or positions by a yearly congress of the membership(editorial collective for each publication, treasury, war chest, international secretariate ect...).

All campaigns are run locally, projects and proposals can be decided apon through a more imidiate structure, the Federal council> A collective or local union (city wide body in areas with larger membership) may put forward a proposal which is then voted apon, one body, one vote and tallied by collectives either by internet or phone lists in case of emergency.

Position papers(political direction of the federation) are proposed by individuals or collectives, debated regionally and then voted on through a serries of debates at a federal congress.

Some regional unions also exist (one example is the province of quebec including all cities in the region). We have our own campaigns and publications, decided apon in a similar maner but through the regional assemblies(every three months) as oposed to the federal congress (annually).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 8 2006, 10:43 PM
If Leninists use the clear idea of Democratic Centralism what do Libertarian Communists rely on to make decisions?

Meetings, discussions and votes -- what else could there be?

The strict rigidity usually associated with democratic centralism is, of course, lacking. And, in its place, you have a more fluid approach to decision making....one which emphasises member participation and personal preference. Granted, this has it's problems; as any form of organisation would.

And, if you're looking for some "real-life examples", then I suggest you read the critique of anarchist forms of organisation which was posted in the Politics forum. The article itself, discusses the problems in an insightful and honest manner....and, because of this, valuable lessons can be drawn from it.

But, fundamentally, the question we should ask is: Should the failings of "Libertarian Communist" forms of organisation be corrected by introducing hierarchical discipline? Or is there another way to address these problems?

I think most people who would be classed as "Libertarian Communists" would argue that revolutionary organisations treating adults like petulant children is a fundamentally counter-productive approach. Rather, the failings must be identified, discussed and then, hopefully, corrected -- in other words, the way to solve them needs to be in accordance with the organisational principles we promote.

If you'd like a personal example, then I'll proceed to embark upon a little tale. About a month or so ago, a group I'm involved with discussed and voted on its early priorities. We had a long open discussion on this and, obviously, certain doubts were raised and criticisms made.

Now, a democratic centralist organisation -- in its textbook format and not in the format of some of its more bonkers manifestations -- would have discussed the priorities, then voted on them and then....the end! Maybe some point in the distance future would have been identified as the point at which re-evaluation could take place; but until then, it's "unity in action" baby.

By contrast, an organisation that emphasises "Libertarian Communist" principles, would promote constant re-evaluation. That is, at no point would the individual actors that compromise the organisation be required to carry anything out obediently. Instead, if someone has a problem with the decisions made, then they'd be encouraged to bring up their problems, however trivial they may seem.

So, going back to my example, at the very next meeting, someone raised a problem and it was discussed and a solution was found -- I don&#39;t need to bore you with the details. <_<

Now, could that have happened in democratic centralist organisations? In theory, possibly. In practice, I dunno. After all, "unity of action" is a core principle....and that has certain consequences. One of those consequences is to view any kind of criticism as "anti-Party" and to then invoke the proverbial steam roller that is bureaucratic discipline.

That, of course, helps to turn any kind of discussion into one big factional fight....and they never end prettily. Indeed, one major problem is that lots of democratic centralist organisations simply don&#39;t allow "factions". The most lenient Party policies I&#39;ve heard about with regards "factions", are the policies of the SWP (UK) -- and they only allow temporary "factions", as far as I&#39;m aware. And even then, the bureaucratic management of discussion in this way, simply doesn&#39;t help....and people still get booted out for "anti-Party" activity.

So, that&#39;s what you have. Essentially, the avenues through which sensible discussion between revolutionaries can happen, is shut off -- and when that happens, a certain "siege mentality" sets in and then all kinds of ugly things happen. Members get purged, groups split and so on. None of which really helps.

Which is, of course, why "Libertarian Communists" would stress the fundamental importance of the promotion of a democratic culture and the airing of criticisms -- at any point in time. Because, realistically, if you clamp down on that kind of culture and, instead, try to micro-manage discussion between adults in a way that resembles a typical classroom, you get, well, the history of Trotskyism.

Which is, as I think most honest Trotskyists would admit, a Black Comedy of sorts. I mean you have numerous groups with very similar politics who just aren&#39;t capable of co-operating with each other under one proverbial roof. That, to me anyway, hardly suggests a "unity of action" of any worth.

Where as, by contrast, a group that is up front and able to discuss everything openly, yet still manage to line up together on the barricades, is a unified unit -- in my opinion, anyway. But, just so you know, I&#39;d never say "Libertarian Communist" methods of organisation ensure that....and anyone who did say that, would be lying to you.

What I would say, is that they&#39;re a pretty good starting point. Not perfect; not even brilliant; but a foundation on which to build. What&#39;s still being worked out, of course, is quite how to make sure what we build on top of those foundations is of note and worthwhile. But you can&#39;t lay a single brick before you set down those foundations.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:04 AM
Direct democracy. Anarchist syndicalist unions use a federated model with many conventions on regional and national levels to make decisions. Delegates are assigned by the group to vote how the group wants, etc.
A.) that&#39;s hiarchy

B.) that&#39;s sort of implied in DC

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 8 2006, 08:08 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 8 2006, 08:08 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 12:04 AM
Direct democracy. Anarchist syndicalist unions use a federated model with many conventions on regional and national levels to make decisions. Delegates are assigned by the group to vote how the group wants, etc.
A.) that&#39;s hiarchy

B.) that&#39;s sort of implied in DC [/b]
No it isn&#39;t. Hierarchy involves an unfair distribution of power. Delegates are sent as representatives responsible to uphold the will of the group. They can be removed at any time and are expected to follow the will of the populace. They cannot enact decisions that go against the will of the populace. It is entirely different.

DoP is a position of power. Anarchist representation is a responsibility that shifts amongst the populace according to circumstance.

[The Grey Blur]

Right. I understand/agree with most of this.

What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

I hope you can keep informing me maturely and I&#39;ll keep responding maturely

Off-topic but I found this hilarious


Internal

Affinity groups tend to be loosely organized, however there are some formal roles or positions that commonly occur. A given affinity group may have all, some or none of these positions. They may be permanent or temporary and the group may opt to take turns in these roles, or assign one role to one person.

* Spoke: The individual charged with representing the affinity group at a spokescouncil or cluster meeting; roughly the same as a spokesman but without gender assumptions. Occasionally, the spoke will be granted a more general ambassadorial role by the affinity group.

* Facilitator: A person or people who perform facilitation duties in consensus process of the group and also, to varying degrees, act as arbiter of internal conflicts.

* Media contact: An individual who represents the group to the mass media. Often this individual is the same person as the Spoke.

* Vibe watch: A person or people charged with monitoring the mood and feeling of the group. The reference is to vibrations in the colloquial emotional sense. In some affinity groups, the vibe watch is also charged with keeping the facilitator from using his or her role to favor any position or proposal.

* Snap-decision facilitator: Also called "quick decision facilitator", this is a person charged with making decisions for the group in time-constrained or high-pressure situations. The position is rare and is almost always temporary.
:lol: The funnier things highlighted

[violencia.Proletariat]

What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

Well I don&#39;t see how its any different than if they were to infiltrait a leninist organization. Once uncovered they would be banned from the organization and theoretically in a revolutionary situation &#39;taken care of.&#39;

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:41 PM

What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

Well I don&#39;t see how its any different than if they were to infiltrait a leninist organization. Once uncovered they would be banned from the organization and theoretically in a revolutionary situation &#39;taken care of.&#39;
Well how about the example of the BPP? They lacked a Democratic Centralist structure and the FBI used this against them, by playing them off one another and creating factions within the movement.

So I think I&#39;m beginning to see a failing in Anarchist &#39;fluid&#39; structure...

But I would like to hear some critiscism of DC as well, I mean obviously it didn&#39;t work too well for the Bolsheviks in the end.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+Oct 9 2006, 05:07 PM--> (Permanent Revolution @ Oct 9 2006, 05:07 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 07:41 PM

What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

Well I don&#39;t see how its any different than if they were to infiltrait a leninist organization. Once uncovered they would be banned from the organization and theoretically in a revolutionary situation &#39;taken care of.&#39;
Well how about the example of the BPP? They lacked a Democratic Centralist structure and the FBI used this against them, by playing them off one another and creating factions within the movement.

So I think I&#39;m beginning to see a failing in Anarchist &#39;fluid&#39; structure...

But I would like to hear some critiscism of DC as well, I mean obviously it didn&#39;t work too well for the Bolsheviks in the end. [/b]
If your referring to the black panther party, I&#39;m pretty positive they were a marxist leninist organization. I know anarchist collectives like NEFAC you have to be familiar with the local members before you become one.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Oct 9 2006, 09:14 PM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Oct 9 2006, 09:14 PM)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 9 2006, 05:07 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 07:41 PM

What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

Well I don&#39;t see how its any different than if they were to infiltrait a leninist organization. Once uncovered they would be banned from the organization and theoretically in a revolutionary situation &#39;taken care of.&#39;
Well how about the example of the BPP? They lacked a Democratic Centralist structure and the FBI used this against them, by playing them off one another and creating factions within the movement.

So I think I&#39;m beginning to see a failing in Anarchist &#39;fluid&#39; structure...

But I would like to hear some critiscism of DC as well, I mean obviously it didn&#39;t work too well for the Bolsheviks in the end.
If your referring to the black panther party, I&#39;m pretty positive they were a marxist leninist organization. I know anarchist collectives like NEFAC you have to be familiar with the local members before you become one. [/b]
Yes they were loose Marxist-Leninists but my point is they were so loosely structured and lacked the freedom of discussion/ unity of action that DC provides that they were easy picking for the Feds

[SPK]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+Oct 9 2006, 04:07 PM--> (Permanent Revolution &#064; Oct 9 2006, 04:07 PM)Well how about the example of the BPP? They lacked a Democratic Centralist structure and the FBI used this against them, by playing them off one another and creating factions within the movement... So I think I&#39;m beginning to see a failing in Anarchist &#39;fluid&#39; structure...[/b]

[email protected] 9 2006, 04:14 PM
I know anarchist collectives like NEFAC you have to be familiar with the local members before you become one.
How are large, dynamic, and creative mass organizations supposed to built, when people are so reflexively suspicious of one another and so concerned about police or government infiltration? This problem -- specifically, an incorrect approach to dealing with such infiltration -- seems to me very damaging and one of the primary reasons why the radical movements are not stronger currently. Radicals seem to be very unwilling right now to reach outside of their "safe spaces", which are pretty narrow and confining, and bring in people who are not already a part of the movements.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by SPK+Oct 9 2006, 06:09 PM--> (SPK @ Oct 9 2006, 06:09 PM)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 9 2006, 04:07 PM
Well how about the example of the BPP? They lacked a Democratic Centralist structure and the FBI used this against them, by playing them off one another and creating factions within the movement... So I think I&#39;m beginning to see a failing in Anarchist &#39;fluid&#39; structure...

[email protected] 9 2006, 04:14 PM
I know anarchist collectives like NEFAC you have to be familiar with the local members before you become one.
How are large, dynamic, and creative mass organizations supposed to built, when people are so reflexively suspicious of one another and so concerned about police or government infiltration? This problem -- specifically, an incorrect approach to dealing with such infiltration -- seems to me very damaging and one of the primary reasons why the radical movements are not stronger currently. Radicals seem to be very unwilling right now to reach outside of their "safe spaces", which are pretty narrow and confining, and bring in people who are not already a part of the movements. [/b]
Where did I ever say people were suspicious of eachother. I&#39;m not in NEFAC so I should have left it to Rebel Worker to explain. I think the reason they might want to know you first is because many anarchist orgs have problems with people joinin and not doing shit. They aren&#39;t worried about pigs, nor should they be.

[Enragé]

how would anarchist organisational methods lead to greater danger from infiltrations?

if anything, its less, since there are no positions of power that infiltrator can put himself in and go boss people around

[rebelworker]

For the record nefac was breifly "infultrated" by a pig in the past.

Because of the strong culture of full membership involvement and open debate he was quickly identified and outed.

The BPP had a strong central comitee. This was the problem, one the central comitee was infultraited they began a war against other leading members of the organisation.

Because they were the leaders people were forced to turn their backs on other solid members and in some cases even ordered to assasinate solid comrades, this lead to a splinteri ng of the organisation and the split of the NYC chapter.

In an organisation without centralised leadership thiswould nt have been possible.

This is part of the reaon why many former panthers have turned to anarchism.

I also have a friend who was a former guerilla in Iran. He said that the centralised leadership was often out of touch with the reality on the ground and unable to quickly adapt.

He is also now an anarchist.

:ph34r:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)A.) that&#39;s hiarchy[/b]

In the loose sense, as in something that goes upwards instead of sideways, yes. But the term hierarchy, at least in the manner in which people here use it, means a lot more than just shit that goes upwards. Fundamentally, the term defines a set of power relations....relations which stem from the top instead of the bottom.

So, the difference between "syndicalist hierarchy" and, say, the hierarchy of the RCP, is that the bottom of the "syndicalist hierarchy", the rank and file members of the Union, dictate what the top does; with the RCP however, the top of the hierarchy, Bob and his College buddies, dictates what the bottom does. And that is a pretty big difference.


Permanent Revolution
What about in a revolutionary situation and the secret police start attempting to infiltrate Libertarian organisations - how is that dealt with?

I&#39;ve never been in a "revolutionary situation", nor have I ever knowingly been involved in anything that has been infiltrated by the Police....so I can&#39;t really comment on that.

However, it should be noted that despite adhering to democratic centralist models of organisation, Parties like the old CPGB and the British SWP have, at times, had quite a few infiltrators.

From the Weekly Worker: “Virtually every branch of the SWP had an agent in it when I joined the section,” Annie told her rather outraged audience at Marxism on July 9; The Communist Party was quite thoroughly penetrated because its members were not, on the whole, particularly aware of security measures. It was also quite easy to ‘turn’ people in the CPGB. Rank and file members would be recruited and then encouraged to work their way up through the party. (David Shayler.) [The article itself....it has more stuff about the infiltrations in it (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/589/shayler.htm).]

I read this article a while back, and I just had another quick browse over it, and, to be honest, it&#39;s a pretty good article....as are most of the ones on the Weekly Worker site. And, the writer asks the following question: What sort of organisational and political culture needs to be nurtured on the left to help frustrate the attempts of the security services to disrupt our work as revolutionaries when they start to take us more seriously as a threat once again?

And the answer is pretty good, in my opinion: David’s comment in my brief interview with him below about the thorough penetration of the Communist Party is instructive in this context.

As he puts it, “The Communist Party was very easy; MI5 knew more about the Communist Party than the Communist Party knew about itself.”

Exactly. I recall with a shudder the ‘official’ CPGB under the opportunists - the lack of transparency, the culture of clandestine factional warfare, the development of cliques and petty personal fiefdoms around various individuals, the absence of democratic accountability and control, the atmosphere of intrigue, poisonous character assassination and gossip. It must have been like an adventure theme park for the spooks and, yes, given the bureaucratic centralism that ruled in our party, it was no doubt true that the state’s secret service knew more - far more - about the politics of the organisation than the vast majority of ordinary members.

That&#39;s not very different from what I said in my first post, that a democratic culture is massively important to any revolutionary organisation. And here, the writer, a former CPGB member, confirms that -- and given his political preferences, you can hardly accuse him of putting an "anarchist" or "libertarian" tint on all this.

Instead, he just states the freaking obvious. Yes, the States Security Apparatus is going to try and infiltrate us, but a democratic culture and clear transparency are the best tools we have to counter this. Basically, we&#39;re going to get Vampires, but our best defence is to open the curtains&#33;

Otherwise we&#39;ll just end up with more Ed Heisler&#39;s -- an FBI plant who rose to a position of power within the American SWP. He also gained Barnes&#39; trust and managed to influence the "line" of the SWP.

In addition to all this, another method practised by some anarchists and libertarian communists, the loose Network, can go some way to undermining Police harassment. That is, someone who is involved in a "Network" is not a member of anything....and, therefore, it is much harder for the Police to bring conspiracy charges against them and any other members of the "Network".

In other words, if a SWP, RCP or even NEFAC member is arrested, they are automatically linked with other members of the organisation and that, in some scenarios, could lead to further arrests and prosecutions. For instance, if you&#39;re arrested under Section 132 as an individual, the charge is far less severe than if that piece of legislation is used against you as a group acting together. I think that&#39;s the case, anyway.

Of course, that doesn&#39;t mean "Networks" don&#39;t have their problems, it&#39;s just on this subject, they have definite benefits to radicals; limiting Government repression to the individual and not the collective. Which, despite not being nice for the individual, serves to allow the collective to continue operating.

Basically, as I&#39;ve hopefully outlined in this post, the idea that democratic centralist organisations are more effective with regards dealing with Police persecution, is something of an Urban Legend. An Urban Legend that doesn&#39;t really have its roots in reality.

[bolshevik butcher]

In democratic centralism those with power are made accounatble and are democratically elected. An organisation cannot be run without &#39;positions of power&#39; as someone has suggested above. Who organises the meetings? Who writes the articles? Who collects the money? Who keeps the accounts?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 10 2006, 12:46 PM
In democratic centralism those with power are made accounatble and are democratically elected. An organisation cannot be run without &#39;positions of power&#39; as someone has suggested above. Who organises the meetings? Who writes the articles? Who collects the money? Who keeps the accounts?
Recallable delegates. Take the IWW for example (while not "anarchist" we use libertarian forms of organization), anyone can submit things for the newspaper as long as they are appropriate for the newspaper and not ment to go in the bulliten. The only regulation to this would of course be irrelevant or reactionary things and you have to pay a fee if you overrun the provided space.

The meeting times, etc, are decided by the membership at the local branch. The general assembly time and date is decided at the previous GA. Where is hierarchy needed in this?

A general secretary treasurer is delegated by the membership to run the books. All their work is open to the entire membership and they can be recalled by referendum.

[bolshevik butcher]

In democratic centralism descisions are made by deligates, high level ones usually to an all organisation congress.....Meeting times maybe made decided by a GA but individual tasks surley must be deligated? Deligates are effectivley a hiechracy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 10 2006, 05:05 PM
In democratic centralism descisions are made by deligates, high level ones usually to an all organisation congress.....Meeting times maybe made decided by a GA but individual tasks surley must be deligated? Deligates are effectivley a hiechracy.
Delegates are not hierarchy. They do not make decisions, they ensure/enforce the decisions already made by the group. They have no power over the decisions made and voted on by the workers.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 10 2006, 04:16 PM
In the loose sense, as in something that goes upwards instead of sideways, yes. But the term hierarchy, at least in the manner in which people here use it, means a lot more than just shit that goes upwards. Fundamentally, the term defines a set of power relations....relations which stem from the top instead of the bottom.
That’s bullshit thrown out by anarchists who want to differentiate their hierarchy from other hierarchies. They have found that it is impossible to organise without some sort of hierarchy and so must redefine the term to be more acceptable. “Yes we advocate smashing hierarchy. Yes we have a hierarchy. But ours is a good hierarchy. Nods”

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree, actually it showd if you look at anarchist organisations throughout history. Generally those who assumed the top positions weren&#39;t elected. Who elected marcos? Who elected Machno?

[apathy maybe]

Who elected Lenin? Who elected Mao? Who elected our Dear Leader?

Anarchist organisations are sometimes hierarchical yes, but not in the same way. You are not forced to ever follow the orders of some leader or another.

Depending on the organisation, elections do happen, the positions are not powerful positions though. The people can be recalled. The actual decisions are usually made by the everyday members with the "hierarchy" in place more for outside purposes. Etc.

[kaaos_af]

The same people who rejected Lenin as their unelected leader.

I have some experience working within Leninoid groups. The suppression of individual opinion is notable and the emergence of leadership cliques is typical.

I love the example of the Sorbonne(?) University during Paris &#39;68, in which the students elected a committee of several individuals to head up the business of the university- daily. Every day new representatives were elected- this way, star leaders were avoided and no clique could seize control. All were instantly recallable. That is one example of anarchist democracy- there are thousands of different examples- we &#39;drive to suit conditions&#39;, that is, we on&#39;t apply an alien formula to a situation- we take a collective decision as to how things would best be best run in the given situation, and it shall differ from country to country, workplace to workplace, conditions etc.

Anarchist groups consciously avoid heirarchies of power or information. They run on the basis of participatory democracy where everyone&#39;s opinions carry weight in the decision making. They aim to break down power structures in society, replacing them not with a Party but by the free collective democracy of all the peoples.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm
That’s bullshit thrown out by anarchists who want to differentiate their hierarchy from other hierarchies. They have found that it is impossible to organise without some sort of hierarchy and so must redefine the term to be more acceptable. “Yes we advocate smashing hierarchy. Yes we have a hierarchy. But ours is a good hierarchy. Nods”

Perhaps it is a case of "good hierarchy" and "bad hierarchy". But then, maybe it&#39;s not. If we use this definition: [hierarchy] is a system of ranking and organizing things or people, where each element of the system (except for the top element) is subordinate to a single other element. [Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy).] Then even you will need to admit that, say, the structure of the IWW is not hierarchical in any meaningful sense.

Why? Well, it&#39;s quite simple isn&#39;t it, the power relations present don&#39;t make the bottom, the rank and file membership, subordinate to the "top element" -- the bureaucrats and so on. Instead, the power base is found at the bottom, something which is not present in other forms of social hierarchy. The labourer is always subordinate to the foreman.

So it&#39;s not a social hierarchy, in any meaningful sense anyway. But, if you like, we can call it a hierarchy....I&#39;ve got no particular aversion to this or that phrase being used, so we can call it whatever you like. However, now we have two distinct and different forms of social hierarchy; one where power rests at the top and one where power rests at the bottom.

Now, surely, that is what is important here? Not the packaging, but the content. So, if you wouldn&#39;t mind, I think that we should move past these terminological quibbles and discuss the subject at hand. Namely, the structure of organisations, the power relations they use and the type of culture they embrace.

You do perhaps have a point in there though, concerning the general theoretical approach of many anarchists. That is, anarchist theory is often very intricate and because anarchist types of organisation do not come with a pre-packaged set of political positions -- as is the case with most major Marxist-Leninist Parties where the membership has virtually identical politics handed down from the Party bureaucrats -- many anarchists probably lack the theoretical crispness of Package Deal Communists.

And that, perhaps, is a certain fault that could be found with this type of organisation. I mean, one of the few pieces by Bakunin I&#39;ve read, is his position "On Authority"....and it&#39;s pretty good. Certainly, I think it gives a basic outline of what the anarchist position is. But it&#39;s not going to be given as recommended reading to new members, nor is it going to appear in the Party Paper, so many people will miss out -- which is a shame.

But, then again, long-winded philosophical debates about "Authority" are, if we&#39;re honest here, limited in their use. More important is the actual practical application of our politics....and, to give credit where credit is due, anarchists are pretty good at that.

In the West, at least, it&#39;s certainly the anarchist contingents that are willing to go tot-to-toe with the forces of the State, whilst most of the Party Communists are content to sell their Paper. Indeed, one of my favourite comments is from a Mother from Canada, I think. Commenting on the Black Bloc, she said something like, "I thought they were hooligans, but then I realised they were just some very brave kids." I like that comment, but I do wonder what she would make of those who flog the Socialist Worker&#33;

And, the differences between practical approaches are important to note. Because whilst Party Communists will try desperately to shoehorn they Packaged politics into real world struggles; anarchist theory tends to arise more organically, directly from struggle. And that kind of theory, like the theory of the Iranian communists, which has been tested and developed in the heat of struggle, is very important.

So, once again, and bringing us back to the topic of the thread, not having Packaged politics -- which isn&#39;t always the case, the Anarchist Federation has a certain theoretical strictness, which isn&#39;t necessarily a bad thing -- can balance itself out. Because instead of trying to shoehorn your worldview into real world struggle, your worldview will arise from real world struggle.

And this, of course, is something worth considering. I&#39;m not so dull as to say this scenario is perfect, but I would say it&#39;s important to note. And, really, for those of us interested, like I hope the thread starter, finding the balance between the forces of theory and practice is something that is particularly important....and something the movement itself, and not just its self-appointed leaders, must try to do.

[ComradeOm]

So its an "upside down" hierarchy? I have absolutely no problem with that. But then again I am not an anarchist and I do not view the very notion of hierarchy as inherently "evil". Instead I like the idea of "good hierarchy" in which power rests squarely at the "bottom". However regardless of where power lies you are still dividing people into ranks – hierarchy.

Now pinning down just what the average anarchist thinks is not an easy task. As you mention the sheer breath of anarchist ideals makes the very term "average anarchist" redundant. Personally I&#39;d put this down to the lack of theoretical knowledge required to "officially" call yourself an anarchist but I digress. However spend more than five minutes talking politics with an anarchist and you can be fairly sure that the notion of "abolishing hierarchy", which is essentially what the word anarchy means, will crop up at some point.

Anarchists, certainly in my experience, view hierarchy as a "bad thing". Of course it also happens to be a necessity in organising at any meaningful level. Hence the insistence that packing delegates off or forming federal structures does not constitute a hierarchy… not in the normal sense of the word anyway. It’s the same semantics lark we see when discussing the state.


But, then again, long-winded philosophical debates about "Authority" are, if we&#39;re honest here, limited in their use. More important is the actual practical application of our politics....and, to give credit where credit is due, anarchists are pretty good at that.
Philosophers and changing the world and whatnot. The problem with anarchists is that their scattergun approach to theory inevitably impacts their activities. Anti-fur, eco-causes, animal welfare, anti-globalisation… what percentage of anarchist activity is actually devoted to building class conscious? Indeed some RAAN members we used to have here took more pride in defacing "Leninist" bookshops than any meaningful activity.

This is not particularly an organisational issue, unless of course you assume that the structure dictates theory rather than vice versa. A structure that focuses activity on a given goal is welcome but even that would no doubt disgust many anarchists. Of course such an organisational structure assumes at least some theoretical common ground amongst its members.

And 735 words? Who are you trying to kid? <_<

[LuXe]

Can attac be in this category for europe?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2006, 11:37 AM
Who elected Lenin? Who elected Mao? Who elected our Dear Leader?

Anarchist organisations are sometimes hierarchical yes, but not in the same way. You are not forced to ever follow the orders of some leader or another.


Lenin had an elected position inside the Bolshevik. I&#39;m no fan of Mao or any other &#39;great leader&#39; so please don&#39;t ask me to justify them as I doubt they used any form of recognisable democratic centralism.

In my expirience in socialist organistions using democratic centramislm descisions are voted on after debate then these descisions are accepted and acted upon. Of course those that oppose the action taken have the oppertunity to bring about fruther debate on anything, but they will not act against what was taken; ie the will of the majoraty. I don&#39;t see anything about taking orders from leaders in this.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:49 PM
Indeed some RAAN members we used to have here took more pride in defacing "Leninist" bookshops than any meaningful activity.
bah&#33; you imply there is some sort of difference between the two?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 11 2006, 07:14 AM
I agree, actually it showd if you look at anarchist organisations throughout history. Generally those who assumed the top positions weren&#39;t elected. Who elected marcos? Who elected Machno?
Marcos is not an anarchist, nor is the EZLN an anarchist organization or a form of libertarian organization. It&#39;s a hierarchacal army that doesn&#39;t do shit, they are irrelevant to this disucssion.

I&#39;m not one to look up to or support Mahkno. I only support democratic militias, not armies. I&#39;m also not very educated on the Mahknovist movement or how it implemented it&#39;s idealogy, so I&#39;m not going to say they were libertarian.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)However spend more than five minutes talking politics with an anarchist and you can be fairly sure that the notion of "abolishing hierarchy", which is essentially what the word anarchy means, will crop up at some point.[/b]

Maybe; but, personally, I&#39;d say that&#39;s an inaccurate simplification of what class struggle anarchists aim to achieve. If you want to reduce the full philosophy down to a nice and neat slogan, then the mantras a world without rulers or no more bosses seem to be a more fair summary of what anarchist philosophy hopes to achieve. Of course, hierarchy is linked to that -- the demand to remove bosses translates almost exactly to a demand to remove workplace hierarchy -- but that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean that the slogan "abolishing hierarchy" is the best.

Not least because some people, like you, will endlessly quibble about the about the accuracy of such a statement....despite having a fair idea of what it actually means. It&#39;s your choice, I suppose; but I should note that your quibble, in this case, is meaningless.

That is, we can talk all day about "an &#39;upside down&#39; hierarchy", but that ignores that, under the definition of a hierarchy that I provided, it isn&#39;t a hierarchy at all. Because, of course, the "top element" is subordinate to the "bottom element" -- instead of the other way around.

Now, you may wish to use another definition, one where there are two forms of social hierarchy; but if you start doing that, then you really can&#39;t say that it&#39;s theoretical incompetence on the part of the anarchists that serves to cloud the issue. Rather, it&#39;s your desire to rewrite the dictionary that serves to cloud the issue. But this kind of tripe, really has little purpose outside of Academia....and there it&#39;s only purpose is to try and make Academics look more intelligent than the general population.

So really, unless our aim is to be pointlessly pompous, I don&#39;t see much point in this kind of debate. I mean, we&#39;ve completely strayed off the original topic of the thread, which was a topic of use to revolutionaries. And, instead, we&#39;ve entered into a pointless debate about semantics -- which is about as useful as shit on your shoe.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)However regardless of where power lies you are still dividing people into ranks – hierarchy.[/b]

Uh, no. You&#39;re "dividing people" into roles; which is very different to "dividing people" into ranks. To wit:

Ranks

1. a number of persons forming a separate class in a social hierarchy or in any graded body.

Roles

3. A function or position.

That&#39;s different. Namely because "dividing people into ranks" requires the formation of a command hierarchy -- a system where those below are subordinate and obedient to those on top. Where as when roles are assigned, there is no fundamental law that says X will be subordinate to Y.

Certainly, if someone is assigned the role of keeping the books, for instance, then there is no golden rule that they will have power over anyone -- indeed, if it is done on a democratic basis then the assigners will have power over the assigned.

By contrast, if someone is given the rank of bookkeeper, an official position that lies within a definite set of hierarchical power relations, then they will have a certain amount of power over others. For example, if the role of bookkeeper is one which enables them to sit on the Central Committee, then they will have the power to discipline the membership and direct Party policy.

Two things that the general membership cannot do. Well, they may be able to exert a certain influence over policy, namely voting on pre-determined options, but rarely will they be able to draft policy. Not least because the rules on the formation of factions make such activities "anti-Party" and a breach of the "unity in action" principle....and, therefore, something you can be expelled for.

Quite a difference, ay? And it&#39;s more than a semantical difference, like the one we were discussing earlier. Rather, it directly relates to the systems of power, the social hierarchies they employ and the democratic structure of an organisation.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It’s the same semantics lark we see when discussing the state.

It&#39;s only semantics if you concentrate on the packaging and not the content -- the words instead of the ideas. Adults should be able to transcend that kind of silliness; but I&#39;m not holding my breath. <_<


[email protected]
....what percentage of anarchist activity is actually devoted to building class conscious?

Roughly about the same percentage as the percentage of the anarchist movement which is devoted to class struggle politics. I&#39;ve no idea what the actual percentage is, but most anarchist organisations compromise it. The Anarchist Federation, NEFAC, Class War and so on. Which probably makes the percentage upwards of 70%.

Additionally, and this is something worth noting, non-class struggle anarchists aren&#39;t a danger to the working class movement -- in any meaningful sense that is. Where as plenty of groups that claim to represent the Bolshevik tradition have undermined the struggle of the working class; sometimes in serious ways.

But, I&#39;m digressing now....


ComradeOm
A structure that focuses activity on a given goal is welcome but even that would no doubt disgust many anarchists.

I doubt it. Pretty much all anarchist groups, which presumably compromise individual anarchists, are able to "focus activity on a given goal" -- even the fucking loopy ones. Anarchists, as a social group, don&#39;t have a particular problem with ADHD, you know. <_<

[rebelworker]

Ive been a member of a demcratic centralist organisation for several years before. I think it is fair to say that I was a part of "the leadership" of the organistion, although not the central commitee itself.

There is a huge difference between my experience there, and Im speaking specifically of the British SWP tendancy, and my Many happy years with nefac.

In nefac there is a genuine culture of leadership from the grassroots. Older moe experienced members have more personal influence, that is for certain, but its based on a leadership of mutual respect from newer and sometimes younger members.

Elected delegates often come to the membership as a whole for imput on decisions they could very easily argue falls into their mandate, but they respect the will of the majority.

Faction fighting is almost a complete non issue, because of the constant changing of delegates and the massive amount of debate and comromise on all important issues.

There is nothing like that in a democratic centralist organisation in my personal experience. In fact the majority of the membership are often largely unaware of the functioning of decisionmaking and almost never know who makes up the entire cenral comittee.

Politics are handed sown from on high, in the case of most groups not even from the same country. And debate on politics and direction are generally discouraged by leadership. In particual when dealing with other tendancies and ideologies.

I can hardly count on my fingers and toes the ammount of times I was shunned for asking questions or encourgaing debate on my way up the ladder, good thing I was young and driven and just kept my head down when it mattered and did what was expected of me, for a couple of years anyway.

Im sure many of you in centraloist organisations dont even fully understand what we are getting at because you have never experienced genuine grass roots leadership n a disiplined revolutionary organisation. For this I am sorry and hope you will get to be part of it some day.

[The Grey Blur]

The suppression of individual opinion is notable and the emergence of leadership cliques is typical.
Cliques crop up in any social situation, that&#39;s human. In Anarchist groups the exact same thing would happen, an informal clique who dicatate policy, so I don&#39;t buy this argument.


There is a huge difference between my experience there, and Im speaking specifically of the British SWP tendancy, and my Many happy years with nefac.
:lol: You managed to join the single most muddled and top-down &#39;Socialist&#39; party in existence. Please do not tar us all with a brush that would cover the SWP.


I&#39;m sure many of you in centralist organisations dont even fully understand what we are getting at because you have never experienced genuine grass roots leadership in a disiplined revolutionary organisation.
Because of course that&#39;s not what the very idea of a vanguard party is based on... :wacko:


Who elected Lenin?
The Central Commitee which was elected from the rank-and-file and were recallable on a yearly basis

Anyway I&#39;m still looking for some rational arguments (from both sides) but AS&#39; semantics are getting a tad annoying.

[SPK]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Oct 10 2006, 03:23 PM--> (violencia.Proletariat &#064; Oct 10 2006, 03:23 PM)
bolshevik [email protected] 10 2006, 12:46 PM
In democratic centralism those with power are made accounatble and are democratically elected. An organisation cannot be run without &#39;positions of power&#39; as someone has suggested above. Who organises the meetings? Who writes the articles? Who collects the money? Who keeps the accounts?
Recallable delegates. Take the IWW for example (while not "anarchist" we use libertarian forms of organization), anyone can submit things for the newspaper as long as they are appropriate for the newspaper and not ment to go in the bulliten. The only regulation to this would of course be irrelevant or reactionary things and you have to pay a fee if you overrun the provided space.

The meeting times, etc, are decided by the membership at the local branch. The general assembly time and date is decided at the previous GA. Where is hierarchy needed in this?

A general secretary treasurer is delegated by the membership to run the books. All their work is open to the entire membership and they can be recalled by referendum.[/b]
I&#39;ll describe my experiences with a direct-action group called ACT UP -- the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. It was prevalent years ago, when I was involved, and still exists in a few cities today like New York and Philadelphia. It had an organizational model and decision-making process that was anarchist-influenced -- similar to what VP is describing.

The kinds of responsibilities that BB is discussing -- opening a bank account, facilitating the meetings, creating an agenda for those meetings, etc. -- were not done by permanent office-holders. The group had no permanent positions of those kinds, elected, appointed, or otherwise. Facilitators changed every week and were chosen from volunteers among the general body of the group (a man and a woman) -- there were always efforts made to ensure that the same people didn&#39;t end up specializing in this task, so many folks got the experience and were able to hone their skills. (The group was not consensus-based, so the facilitation process was not too elaborate, and it was easier for people to pick it up fairly quickly.) Those facilitators were responsible for getting agenda items from anyone who wanted to speak to something or present a proposal at the upcoming meeting. As for the treasurer, there was one person who had the account, but the group as a whole decided on how money was to be allocated: the treasurer simply reported, at every meeting, on how much had been spent the week prior and how much remained.

Other responsibilities, like talking to the media, doing press releases, designing placards and posters, planning direct actions and civil disobedience, organizing demonstrations, and so on, were similarly not limited to specific people or office-holders. Different folks could become involved in those tasks. In practice, little power centers would periodically form around the assorted committees, and certain people would gain inordinate influence. However, members generally cycled in and out of those committees every six months or so – this was not a formal rule, it was just the way things worked out in practice – and that neutralized the concentration of power. Also, the ACT-UP chapter in my city was large enough – we had hundreds of members and about 80 people or so at every weekly meeting – so that there was a lot going on: if you couldn’t get involved in one area (because of a power-tripping personality, etc.), you could usually find another area to plug into, and then make the rounds of the organization. Plus, there were affinity groups, which – as long as they agreed to the general principles of the organization – did not answer to the broader group and were essentially independent and autonomous: you could always join one of those or start your own.

This particular structure – a general assembly where the organization as a whole would democratically debate issues and proposals and vote on them, and smaller, independent, autonomous affinity groups that circulated around the broader group -- worked very well. Specifically, it activated people and got them involved at a much more significant level than other organizational models that I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot: I was a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for a few years and have done recent work with new-school anarchists. (And, yes, I saw bullshit similar to that which Rebelworker describes in his post.)

My experience in ACT-UP made me a fan of working in mass, democratic, grassroots organizations. Not just working in closed, ideologically-homogeneous cadre groups, whether Marxist or anarchist or otherwise. Mass groupings, when structured the right way, can be very fertile grounds for radicalizing people.

[rebelworker]

Ive always respected act up and very interested to see the model it used.

I would agree that it is perferable to work in mass based less ideologically driven organisations, as only these groups will empower the mass of people and enable real social change.

This is not to say that smaller, idological and disciplined revolutionary groups are not nesseary. I think they are.

Mass organisations on their own are not capable of wining a succesful revolution.
Minority revolutionary organisations, MADE UP of militants FROM mass based campaign or defense tyoe organisations are able to put forward revolutionary ideas and act as a collective memory for struggles of the past.

Mass organisations do not do much analysis of larger political treands or make the like between different struggles as well as they could. Revolutionary organisations bring togeather visionary memebrs of the different struggles to help unite the struggles and learn the lessons of the past.

During times of radical and swift social change revolutionary organisations must be there to help carry the movement past the initial upsurge of popular action.

Revolution is a fairly long and complictaed process and working class people need organisations that are capable of working through these situations, which mass single issue organisations tend not to be well suited for.

Up the mass movements, and the revolutionary organisations.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:32 PM
This is not to say that smaller, idological and disciplined revolutionary groups are not nesseary. I think they are.
I agree that cadre organizations are required, in conjunction with genuine mass movements and mass organizations. I noted my experiences in ACT UP, because I think that what the struggles I&#39;ve been involved with recently (antiwar) are missing is precisely that mass component. That, to my mind, is currently the most delibilitating characteristic of the movement.

Of course, there is currently no shortage of cadre groups... :lol:

(edited for spelling)