Fear of Organisations and parties...... why?

by yeah right Wed Oct 30, 2002 16:22

I've been looking through indymedia and one thing I notice is the commitment to get organised.
I think that the distrust of parties comes from either 1. Being active, 2. Being experienced, 3. Not believing in leaders.

by Web Warrior Wed Oct 30, 2002 16:29

What about a leadership that is accountable to the membership?

In my opinion it's good that there is a leadership (dont agree with 'a leader') in organisations. If you want to get things done there is a need for a body of people that are capable of organising, that's a leadership!

I hope this doesn't end up with a debate between Anarchists and Socialists on Krondstadt!.... what have I begun??!!!

by Ray Wed Oct 30, 2002 17:29

I don't think there's a suspicion of 'organisation' as much as there is of organisations. 'Organisation' is just when somepeople come together to accomplish a common goal, whether that's organising a demonstration or RTS, producing a leaflet or paper, fighting for better conditions in the workplace - all of these are done by organisations. Some are short-lived (often by design), others stick around for longer, some have immediate and limited goals, others have wider, long-term goals.

There is a difference in how people feel about single-issue as opposed to 'political' organisations, and with good reason. If you get involved in RTS, for example, all you really have to agree on is that there should be an RTS event. It doesn't matter what else you believe in, as long as you can agree to work on that. If you get involved in a group like Sinn Fein, the SP, or the WSM, then that implies you agree with the other members of the organisation on a broader range of things, from elections to immigration to workplace organising. Sometimes people are only interested in particular issues, and they don't see why they should be bothered about the rest.

As for leadership... well, there's an important distinction to be made there, and that's between those who lead with ideas, and those who lead because of the authority of their position.

In an anarchist organisation, if you have some good ideas on RTS (for example), then people will look to you to see what other good ideas you might have in other areas. If you have experience in trade union organising (for example), then people will seek out your advice when they want to organise in a new workplace. If you know a lot about the 1913 Lockout (for example), then you'll be encouraged to write articles or give talks about it.

In other organisations, if you have some good ideas on RTS, you will be given a job in the organisation, and placed in charge of campaigns. When another campaign comes up, you will tell everyone else what to do. If you have experience in trade unions, you will be put in charge of the trade union section, where you will tell everyone else what to do. And if you know a lot about the 1913 Lockout, you will be given a fulltime job, which is to write articles about the Lockout, and anything else that articles are to be written on.

The difference is obvious. In an anarchist organisation, actions and policies are discussed by the membership. If you've had good ideas in the past your future ideas are more likely to be taken seriously, but they aren't implemented automatically - every idea stands on its own merits. In other organisations, when you have a good idea you're put in charge, as if every idea you have in the future must also be good. Actions and policies are frequently imposed, rather than discussed, because the value of an idea depends on the seniority of the person proposing it.

These different understandings of 'leadership' translate into different behaviour with people outside the group.
Anarchists tend to come to people and say, "We have some experience at this sort of thing, and we think we have some good ideas. Let's have a meeting to discuss them."
Others tend to come to meetings and say, "We have some experience at this sort of thing, and we think we have some good ideas. Let's have a meeting so you can elect us to be in charge of your campaign."

by Andrew Wed Oct 30, 2002 17:30

If you don't want it to end up as a debate on 'Krondstadt' then its probably smarter not to bring that particular example of what is wrong with leadership dominated politics up in the first place! But anyway you are still confusing three things that are not all the same into one ie organisation (of which there is a lot of), (political) parties which activists are rightly suspicious of and leadership (which in itself means two different things). An essay on all three which doesn't mention Krondstadt is at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr3_organise.html. Written in '96 after the Zapatista encounter it prefigures a lot of the issues brought up here.

by ignatius the indignant Wed Oct 30, 2002 17:41 ipsiphi23 at email dot com

a bit of a wallflower they think it best to not get involved. Many of these people can´t afford the great expense involved in being involved. Sure it all mounts up, stickers and pamphlets and posters and cybertime and text messages and phone calls and the literature, oh the literature lots of books to read and the music, well now lots of that too, sure with some of the more traditional parties you have to sing a song now and again and well I never had the voice for that, and then there´s the conferences and meetings and such, and the balloons, great innovation the balloons but they cost you know, and the drums, don´t come cheap and the fines, did you ever think about the fines? and when your equipment is confiscated and the legal costs, well really, bringing governments and multinationalcorporations into lengthy court wrangles doesn´t come cheap, I´ll tell you, and the travel, and the gas masks and the spray-paint (you can always get friendly with an art college I suppose and be a bit thrifty) but it all mounts up.

by Bob the trot Wed Oct 30, 2002 17:55

In other organisations, if you have some good ideas on RTS and the leadership doesn't like them you will be kicked out of the Revolutionary Worker Party. But if you just repeat the ideas of the leadership and shout loud enough you will be given a job in the organisation, and placed in charge of campaigns. When another campaign comes up, you will be told to tell everyone else what to do. If you have experience in trade unions, you will be kicked out of the Revolutionary Worker Party, but if you are ready fuck over your colleagues, you will be put in charge of the trade union section, where you will tell everyone else what to do. And if you know nothing about the 1913 Lockout, you will be brainwashed and given a fulltime job, which is to write articles about the Lockout, and anything else that articles are to be written on.

by 1913 lockout Thu Oct 31, 2002 15:39 http://fractalia.virtualsd.net/barna23/index.htm

socialists without megaphones they hadn´t been invented bravely seized the opportunity and stormed Clery´s which hadn´t been invented yet and faced down the Catholic Church with the help of Big Jim LArkin who was still called wee Jim then, and established a template for all global revolutions since. IT is known that Che Guavarra and Fidel used to talk about the 1913 lockout all the time, and Fanon and Naomi Klein has a collection of postcards of Countess Markievicz on the picket lines and UNison were the media because indymedia hadn´t been invented yet and 1913 is the start and the finish of it all.
Understand 1913 and you understand it all.
1913 is a prime number as well.
And Qhadaffi wrote about 1913 in his little green book.
And Mao wrote about it 1913 in his little red book.
And Mr O´asif wrote about 1913 in his little black book.
(::::: is that an advert?)

by hs sp Wed Nov 06, 2002 13:22

...or you become the defacto leader and bully people about except their is no democratic structure to give others their say. The only democracy is Fidel Castro style show of hands at meetings, with you agree with me or not. Fair enough don't trust parties, watch everything, but keep the same suspision for those who have no need for "beaucracy" or "leaders" cause they could turn out much worse.