What is the way of function of an anarchist organization?

[nvm]

Some anarchist organizations like NEFAC work with democratic centralism.
But they are platformists.
In Greece I remember the organizations (most of them)
used concensus .

What is the way of function of a typical anarchist-communist oranization?
Are there people elected to posts ? Or there is no elections?
How do they take a decision?

[nvm]

I guess no one here is in an organization as I see no responses:rolleyes:

[Dros]

Anarchist organization?

What is this thing of which you speak?!
:lol::lol::lol:

[Q]

Some anarchist organizations like NEFAC work with democratic centralism.
But they are platformists.
In Greece I remember the organizations (most of them)
used concensus .

What is the way of function of a typical anarchist-communist oranization?
Are there people elected to posts ? Or there is no elections?
How do they take a decision?

This brings up an interesting question: On what principles do anarchists organise?

The most conscious anarchists will indeed do so according to (or close to) the principle of Democratic-Centralism (freedom of discussion, unity in action). Other organisations say they work with "consensus", but a closer look at this reveals that this is rather blurry. Most of the time consensus is indeed reached (as is the case with organisations working with Democratic-Centralism), but the question is not when everyone agrees with eachother, but rather when they don't, what happens then? Democratic-Centralism, often shouted at by anarchists as "authoritarian", in fact gives a framework to the minority for full rights to formulate their stance(s) and to discuss them on the condition that this minority will follow the decisions of the majority until they can convince the majority, be convinced by the majority or - in the worst case scenario - split.

The lack of this democratic framework leads to the situation that in anarchist organisations, there is the "survival of the fittest" or "the right of the strongest debater" that, for the sake of "consensus", will try to force others to his/her view. A critical environment of continues self-reflection is in this way not nurtured, but suffocated.

Like I said however, a lot of conscious anarchists will embrace the principle of Democratic-Centralism, whether they call it that or give it another name. But the question is justified nonetheless, because what is the theoretical framework for anarchist organisations?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Platformists don't use bolshevik style 'democratic centralism', neither does anyone else. I've never come across anyone who uses consensus.

We think its a bit silly to have a set in stone theory of how to organise. Organisation can always be made more libertarian, and there is an enormous complexity to any form of organisation. The task of making organisation more libertarian will likely never be finished. We encourage those involved to work things out for themselves as much as possible, rather than prescribing for them.

That said, there is an awful lot of worked out theory about anarchist organisation. This gives a good overview of common forms:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ3.html

[Kropotesta]

Anarchist organization?

What is this thing of which you speak?!
:lol::lol::lol:
you are having a laugh, right?
These may be of interest
The Platform- http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/newplatform/org_plat.htm
and by Malatesta
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/malatesta_project.html

[Lamanov]

Anarchist organization?

What is this thing of which you speak?!
:lol::lol::lol:

Oh, look, comrade Lenin made a joke! Wooow!


* * *

Back to original post.

If you're looking into anarchist organisations you have to know that there are two kinds: ideological and class-struggle. The latter are actually anarcho-syndicalist organisations which take up the very most of the anarchist movement. The former come in many shapes.

Anarcho-syndicalist organisations come in 3 varieties: 1.) classic anarcho-syndicates, made up of workplace or industrial groups ("unions"), that take anyone who agrees with the set of principles and goals - like CNT, USI, 2.) propaganda ogranisations, made up of local groups of anarcho-syndicalists who spread respective propaganda - like Solidarity Federation, 3.) Foraist "unions", that are made up of class-struggle libertarian communists, organised into workplace groups or/and local groups - like KRAS, FORA, PA.

I myself am a "factory organisation" council communist, so in anacho-syndicalist terms I'm close to Foraist concept of revolutionary organisation.

Obviously, they all function through direct democracy - a non-professional unpaid, imperative and recalleable delegate system; all decisions are submerged to basic principles and statutes.

[nvm]

Thank you all for clarifying this.

I am in a trotskyist organization and we use democratic centralism and all officials are recalable and of course voted in office . Also some that have to dedicate a big chink of their day to the organization are payed the average wage of a worker.
That being said how does drect democracy and the system I described above differ?

@
TheDevil'sApprentice

How can one organization be more libertarian than one that uses democratic centralism?

Btw I liked alot Q-Collective 's respnse

[GeistDerRevolution]

Anarchy, organisation - used in the same context...does not compile.

On a more civil note, I do fail to see how an anarchic society more complex than rioting, picking fights with the police and waving black flags could possibly function, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question.

[trivas7]

Platformists don't use bolshevik style 'democratic centralism', neither does anyone else. I've never come across anyone who uses consensus.

I've been in anarchist organizations that used consensus process. Anyone can block a decision (e.g., do we use funds to repair a bridge or throw a party?) and this issue is shelved until it is agreed upon by everyone (= usually only up to 100). All decisions therefore become long and drawn out slogs and things happen at Comcast's Slowskis pace.

[nvm]

All decisions therefore become long and drawn out slogs and things happen at Comcast's Slowskis pace.


Yes I can see that.
Cencensus is the worst system of taking decisions.
But if we agree that oncensus is not effective we are left with democratic centralism right?

[Forward Union]

It varies. Here is how the 2nd largest anarchist organisation in the world, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) works; Though it's Anarcho-Syndicalist, it's decision making processes are good. Sounds like some comrades here are steriotyping anarchists on american anomolies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/CNT_structure.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mapa_confederal_CNT.png

[nvm]

It varies. Here is how the 2nd largest anarchist organisation in the world, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) works; Though it's Anarcho-Syndicalist,


How does all this differ from democratic centralism?

[Kropotesta]

Anarchy, organisation - used in the same context...does not compile.

On a more civil note, I do fail to see how an anarchic society more complex than rioting, picking fights with the police and waving black flags could possibly function, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question.
you're so ill-informed.:crying:

[Forward Union]

How does all this differ from democratic centralism?

Delegates councils. In Leninism the council has decision making positions held by single individuals. So The party leader can make executive decisions, but is elected.

In Anarchist organisations this scenario doesnt occor, the decision making body or "delegates councils" is made up of temporary reprasentatives. And any positions of functionality, have clear mandates.

[nvm]

In Anarchist organisations this scenario doesnt occor, the decision making body or "delegates councils" is made up of temporary reprasentatives

But in democratic centralism everyone is recalable and need to be voted again in office every now and then. So I see no difference.


So The party leader can make executive decisions, but is elected.

From my experience he cannot make a decision without consulting with the Central Comitee . For important decisions there is a vote between all the members.



Delegates councils


Isnt that like the CC, but in an anarchist organization there is one for every aspect ?(sorry i dont know the correct word in english)


Anarchy, organisation - used in the same context...does not compile.
I would suggest that you read something about the Spanish civil war and the FAI.

[Forward Union]

From my experience he cannot make a decision without consulting with the Central Comitee . For important decisions there is a vote between all the members.

Well, there is no Central Comitee in an Anarchist organisation. Supreme decision making rests in the hands of the majority and is expressed in delegates councils.

[Lamanov]

Anarchy, organisation - used in the same context...does not compile.

Oh, wow, an idiot.

Why do you have a cresent of SED, the ruling class party of state capitalist DDR?

[Forward Union]

Why have all the stalinists stopped now that I've posted graphic representations of Anarchist organisations?

Were they expecting organic cider?

[Kropotesta]

Were they expecting organic cider?
Frosty Jack's, mate.

[Q]

Why have all the stalinists stopped now that I've posted graphic representations of Anarchist organisations?

Were they expecting organic cider?
I guess they got bored :P
And yes, cider is good, can I have some regardless? :D

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

@
TheDevil'sApprentice

How can one organization be more libertarian than one that uses democratic centralism?By not setting up the bloody cheka :lol:

Seriously, democratic centralism is basically what we have now. It was consciously modeled on the forms of organisation found in bourgeois parliaments. I am going to assume you are a marxist. As such, you believe that ideas are at least in part determined by the material conditions from which they emerge - ideas about organisation included. Democratic centralism emerges from capitalist material conditions - it follows that better would emerge from the material conditions of a post revolutionary society? Well not if the revolution is made by a party which touts democratic centralism as the best there is and reorganises society along such lines.

All maner of things affect how libertarian an organisation is. How willing people are to speak up in meetings, how effectively different elements of it communicate with each other, how new ideas are recieved... I could go on for ever. Democratic centralism is very vague, and does little to adress a lot of this. By formally adopting democratic centralism, such considerations are marginalised - the formal organisation becomes what counts, not the actual operation of democracy within the organisation. Same as with the modern democratic states.

One formal difference between anarchist and leninist organisations is that we have delegates, not representatives. Much emphasis is put on delegates been given a clear mandate, and there is a strong expectation for them to merely implement the decisions of those who delegate the role to them. Not so for represenatatives.

Sorry for being brief, I'll probably answer this at much greater length later. I'm busy with exams at the moment.

[RoterAnarchie]

Ofcourse there should be not structure at all
structure facilitates dictators and limits our freedom!
only in a world without any nations or structure where all are equal can mankind really be free

[Kropotesta]

Ofcourse there should be not structure at all
structure facilitates dictators and limits our freedom!
only in a world without any nations or structure where all are equal can mankind really be free
No structure? What do you mean? How could a mass society run with no structure?

[RoterAnarchie]

evidently I oppose mass society
I dream of a lawless/nationless world with small community's (150- 300 people) that provide eachother with needed services for free and in perfect harmony with nature
community's should share needed resources with other community's and share if they have more then needed

[Kropotesta]

evidently I oppose mass society
How do you "evidently" oppose it?

[RoterAnarchie]

not accepting authority => declining structure and law => imposibility for mass society
mass society also leads to crime and social inequality
only in small anarchist society's there can be harmony with all (both nature or mankind)

[Kropotesta]

only in small anarchist society's there can be harmony with all (both nature or mankind)
anarchism is an ideology based on a mass society......