Ad Hoc Groups Vs Confederations

[apathy maybe]

In discussions about the political nature of an anarchist society, many people talk about federations or confederations. (The distinction between the two is simple, in a federation, the central body is more powerful then in a confederation, and the members cede power to the central body. In a confederation, while there is some ceding of power, the members remain basically independent for most purposes.)

In it my opinion that a better system for an anarchist society would be ad hoc groupings depending on the issue. These groups could be based on bioregions, or trading areas or whatever else. For issues that cover a large number of communities (such as certain environmental issues) there would obviously be a bigger grouping.

Having ad hoc groupings would enforce a "lowest common denominator", if an issue doesn't apply to a community, they have no say over that issue. It would also keep hierarchical organisations to a minimum, essential to anarchism.


What do people think of this idea of ad hoc groups rather then formalised federations or confederations?


(Interestingly, while looking at the Wikipedia article for "ad hoc" I found this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhocracy which talks about a similar idea to what I outlined above. Never heard of it before just now. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do-ocracy this article, which is how my formally local Environment Collective was run. Goto love the way people want to name everything.)

[YSR]

I am more in favor of confederations, personally. But I recognize that there are those who support ad hoc societies, and I wish them well.

The weaknesses of both systems are clear pretty quickly (confederation: overformalization. ad hoc: chaos). What's more important, in my mind, is clearing space for both (and a multitude of other systems) to coexist and support each other. Anarchist society requires cooperation from people who don't necessarily agree on everything. This is the fundamental failure of anarchist praxis today (although we deal with difference better than our Marxist comrades, I would argue.)

[apathy maybe]

I basically agree with your post. Two points.
Yes many anarchists today don't agree with each other, and thus don't work with each other. Personally, I advocate anarchism, that is where those who don't agree, can still work together.

Secondly, why does a ad hoc system promote chaos? That seems like the argument against "democracy", so many voices and so on. Well in this case, I think that the advantages out weigh the disadvantages.

[Raúl Duke]

Can you point out in detail, apathy maybe, of the pros and cons of ad hoc and federation styles of anarchist orgainization?

Could you also point out the cases when you think federation is needed over the other and the cases when ad hoc is needed over the other.

Another thing, the site mentioned something (in Do ocracy) about mixing ad hoc with beuracracy. Lets replace the buerocracy with federation system and tell me what you think if such a mix would be a good idea or not and of which traits of one another would you choose to mix. (the ad hoc-federation mix, not the other original one mentioned in wiki)

[apathy maybe]

JohnnyDarko: I can't really talk about those two Wikipedia links, I just put them there for the hell of it (they don't really have much to do with what I'm talking about I don't think).

As to that other stuff, well frankly I prefer ad hoc groups because it seems more anarchistic. It is less formal, it is harder to create a bureaucracy and communities that don't need to have a say in an issue (such as trade between two communities or how to deal with pollution in a particular river), don't get a say.

As YSR points out, these does tend to be a bit 'chaotic' which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you like.

The thing about a federal (or confederal) system is that it does formalise relationships, does create a potential hierarchy (as a bureaucracy is formed to deal with shit) and potentially creates a government at the highest level to coordinate things. I'm not saying that this won't happen in an anarchistic society, simply that it is not in my opinion desirable.

If you want good things about a federal system, ask someone else.

[De Smidse]

Firstly, adhocracies or ad hoc organisations are currently growing in numbers, because of the rapid changing markets.
This sadly has little to do with society-based forms. Ad hoc organisations are actually quite hostile and rely on often realy on other organisations. They just need to respond very quickly to their environment.

As to anarchism, the only reliable construct in my opinion is an ad hoc form.
The only way to keep the amount of capital, bureaucracy and industrialisation on a low level is to be self reliant.

An example of this model is the societies where the germanic tribes lived in. They lived in small communities and cooperated when duty called (mainly during war time).
Notice that this is not only anarchistic, but also stimulates conservatism and nationalism. The best solution for all :)

[apathy maybe]

This is just a quick post to say, your probably going to get restricted. Around here we don't like nationalism or conservatism.

In fact, I promote extensive use of telecommunications so as to help prevent such things from occurring. Just because there are ad hoc groups rather then formalised structures, doesn't mean there won't be massive amounts of communication, trade, culture sharing and so on. I would hope there would be.

Also, just because there are ad hoc groupings of communities, it doesn't mean that industrialisation will be kept small. How big individual communities is not mentioned. I would say that there would probably continue to be large cities such as we have now, though divided into small areas. In such cities, we can continue to have large scale manufacturing and industrialisation.

[De Smidse]

I don't want to get restricted and I'm not going to plan to discuss any right-wing or conservative ideologies on these forums.

I didn't know that you had that in mind, my bad.

[Black Dagger]

A nationalist with a fetish for &#39;germanic tribes&#39;... hmmm <_<


Originally posted by De Smidse
Notice that this is not only anarchistic, but also stimulates conservatism and nationalism. The best solution for all

Why is conservatism and nationalism desireable?