|
|
|
|
|
The end of arrogance: Decentralization and anarchist
organizing
by Curious George Brigade, August 2002, NYC
|
For too long, anarchist projects have been mismanaged
by arrogant fantasies of mass. We have unconsciously adopted the Statist,
Capitalist and Authoritarian belief that “bigger equals better”
and that we must tailor our actions and groups towards this end. Despite
our intuitive understandings that large organizations rarely accomplish
more than small, tight groups working together, the desire for mass
remains strong. We must re-examine how we organize projects in order
to awake from the nightmare of over-structure that inevitably leads
to bureaucracy, centralization and ineffective anarchist work. This
article suggests a few ideas on how anarchists can reject the trap of
mass and reinvent ourselves, our groups and our work: from local community
activities to large revolutionary mobilizations. The rejection of mass
organizations as the be-all, end-all of organizing is vital for the
creation and rediscovery of possibilities for empowerment and effective
anarchist work.
The Tyranny of Structure
Most mass structures are a result of habit, inertia and the lack of
creative critique. Desire for mass is accepted as common sense in the
same way it is ‘common sense’ that groups must have leaders,
or that that they must make decisions by voting. Even anarchists have
been tricked into accepting the necessity of super structures and large
organizations for the sake of efficiency, mass, or unity. These super
structures have become a badge of legitimacy and they are often the
only conduits by which outsiders, whether the media, the police or other
leftists, can understand us. The result is an alphabet soup of mega-groups
which largely exist to propagate themselves and, sadly, do little else.
Unfortunately, we haven’t just been tricked into accepting superstructures
as the overriding venue of our work: many of us have gone along willingly,
because the promise of mass is a seductive one.
Large coalitions and super-structures have become the coin of the realm
not only for leftist groups in general but also for anarchist enterprises.
They appeal to activists’ arrogant fantasies of mass: the authoritarian
impulse to be leading (or at least be part of) a large group of people
that reinforce and legitimize our deeply held ideologies and beliefs.
Even our best intentions and wildest dreams are often crowded out by
visions of the black clad mob storming the Bastille or the IMF headquarters.
The price of the arrogant dream of mass is appallingly high and the
promised returns never come. Super-structures, which include federations,
centralized networks and mass organizations, demand energy and resources
to survive. They are not perpetual motion machines which produce more
energy than what is poured into them. In a community of limited resources
and energy like ours, a super-structure can consume most of these available
resources and energies, rendering the group ineffective. Mainstream
non-profits have recently illustrated this tendency. Large organizations
like the Salvation Army commonly spend 2/3 of their monies (and even
larger amounts of its labor) on simply maintaining its existence: officers,
outreach, meetings and public appearance. At best, only 1/3 of their
output actually goes to their stated goals. The same trend is replicated
in our political organizations.
We all know that most large coalitions and super-structures have exceedingly
long meetings. Here’s a valuable exercise: The next time you find
yourself bored by an overlong meeting, count the number of people in
attendance. Then multiply that number by how long the meeting lasts:
this will give you the number of person-hours devoted to keeping the
organization alive. Factor in travel time, outreach time and the propaganda
involved in promoting the meeting and that will give you a rough estimate
of the amount of activist hours consumed by greedy maw of the superstructure.
After that nightmarish vision, stop and visualize how much actual work
could be accomplished if this immense amount of time and energy were
actually spent on the project at hand instead of what is so innocently
referred to as ‘organizing’.
Affinity or Bust
Not only are super-structures wasteful and inefficient, but they also
require that we mortgage our ideals and affinities. By definition, coalitions
seek to create and enforce agendas. These are not merely agendas for
a particular meeting but larger priorities for what type of work is
important. Within non-anarchist groups, this prioritization often leads
to an organizational hierarchy to ensure that all members of the group
promote the overall agenda.
A common example is the role of the media person or ‘spokesman’
(and it is almost always a man) whose comments are accepted as the opinion
for dozens, hundreds or sometimes thousands of people. In groups without
a party line or platform, we certainly shouldn’t accept any other
person speaking for us—as individuals, affinity groups or collectives.
While the delusions of media stars and spokespeople are merely annoying,
superstructures can lead to scenarios with much graver consequences.
In mass mobilizations or actions, the tactics of an entire coalition
are often decided by a handful of people. Many of the disasters of particular
recent mobilizations can be squarely blamed on the centralization of
information and tactical decisions on a tiny cadre of individuals within
the larger coalition/organization (which might include dozens of collectives
and affinity groups). For anarchists, such a concentration of influence
and power in the hands of a few is simply unacceptable.
It has long been a guiding principle of anarchist philosophy that people
should engage in activities based on their affinities and that our work
should be meaningful, productive and enjoyable. This is the hidden benefit
of voluntary association. It is arrogant to believe that members in
a large structure, which again can number in the hundreds or thousands
of people, should all have identical affinities and ideals. It is arrogant
to believe that through discussion and debate, any one group should
convince all the others that their particular agenda will be meaningful,
productive and enjoyable for all. Due to this nearly impossible situation,
organizations rely on coercion to get their agendas accepted by their
membership. The coercion is not necessarily physical (like the State)
or based on deprivation (like Capitalism) but based on some sense of
loyalty or solidarity or unity. This type of coercion is the stock and
trade of the vanguard.
Organizations spend a significant amount of their time at meetings
trying to convince you that your affinities are disloyal to the greater
organization and that your desires and interests obstruct or remove
you from solidarity with some group or another. When these appeals fail,
the organization will label your differences as obstructionist or breaking
‘unity’ —the hobgoblin of efficiency. Unity is an
arrogant ideal which is too often used against groups who refuse to
cede their autonomy to a larger super-structure.
Many anarchists whose primary work is done in large organizations often
never develop their own affinities or skills and instead, do work based
on the needs of super-structures. Without affinity groups or collective
work of their own, activists become tied to the mass abstract political
goals of the organization, which leads to even greater inefficiency
and the ever present “burn-out” that is so epidemic in large
coalitions and super-structures.
Liberty, Trust and True Solidarity
“All Liberty is based on Mutual Trust” —Sam Adams
If we seek a truly liberated society in which to flourish, we must
also create a trusting society. Cops, armies, laws, governments, religious
specialists and all other hierarchies are essentially based on mistrust.
Super-structures and coalitions mimic this basic distrust that is so
rampant and detrimental in the wider society. In the grand tradition
of the Left, large organizations today feel that due to their size or
mission, they have a right to micromanage the decisions and actions
of all its members. For many activists, this feeling of being something
larger that themselves fosters an allegiance to the organization above
all. These are the same principles that foster nationalism and patriotism.
Instead of working through and building initiatives and groups that
we ourselves have created and are based in our own communities, we work
for a larger organization with diluted goals, hoping to convince others
to join us. This is the trap of the Party, the three letter acronym
group and the large coalition.
In large groups, power is centralized, controlled by officers (or certain
working groups) and divvied out, as it would be done by any bureaucratic
organization. In fact a great deal of its energies are devoted to guarding
this power from others in the coalition. In groups which attempt to
attract anarchists (such as anti-globalization coalitions) this centralization
of power is transferred to certain high profile working groups such
as ‘media’ or ‘tactical’. Regardless of how
it appears on the outside, superstructures foster a climate in which
tiny minorities have disproportionate influence over others in the organization.
As anarchists, we should reject all notions of centralized power and
power hoarding. We should be critical of anything that demands the realignment
of our affinities and passions for the good of an organization or abstract
principle. We should guard our autonomy with the same ferocity with
which the super-structure wishes to strip us of it.
Mutual aid has long been the guiding principle by which anarchists
work together. The paradox of mutual aid is that we can only protect
our own autonomy by trusting others to be autonomous. Super-structures
do the opposite and seek to limit autonomy and work based on affinity
in exchange for playing on our arrogant fantasies and the doling out
power. Decentralization is the basis of not only autonomy (which is
the hallmark of liberty), but also of trust. To have genuine freedom,
we have to allow others to engage in their work based on their desires
and skills while we do the same. We can hold no power from them or try
to coerce them into accepting our agenda. The successes that we have
in the streets and in our local communities almost always come from
groups working together: not because they are coerced and feel duty-bound,
but out of genuine mutual aid and solidarity.
We should continue to encourage others to do their work in coordination
with ours. In our anarchist work, we should come together as equals:
deciding for ourselves with whom we wish to form affinity groups or
collectives. In accordance with that principle, each affinity group
would be able to work individually with other groups. These alliances
might last for weeks or for years, for a single action or for a sustained
campaign, with two groups or two hundred. Our downfall is when the larger
organization becomes our focus, not the work which it was created for.
We should work together, but only with equal status and with no outside
force, neither the state, god nor some coalition, determining the direction
or shape of the work we do. Mutual trust allows us to be generous with
mutual aid. Trust promotes relationships where bureaucracies, formal
procedures and large meetings promote alienation and atomization. We
can afford to be generous with our limited energies and resources while
working with others because these relationships are voluntary and based
on a principle of equality. No group should sacrifice their affinity,
autonomy or passions for the privilege to work with others. Just as
we are very careful with whom we would work within affinity group, we
should not offer to join in coalition with groups with whom we do not
share mutual trust.
We can and should work with other groups and collectives, but only
on the basis of autonomy and trust. It is unwise and undesirable to
demand that particular group must agree with the decisions of every
other group. During demonstrations, this principle is the foundation
of the philosophy of “diversity of tactics”. It is bizarre
that anarchists demand diversity of tactics in the streets but then
are coerced by calls for ‘unity’ in these large coalitions.
Can’t we do better? Fortunately, we can.
Radical Decentralization: A New Beginning
So let us begin our work not in large coalitions and super structures
but in small affinity groups. Within the context of our communities,
the radical decentralization of work, projects and responsibility strengthens
the ability of anarchist groups to thrive and do work which best suits
them. We must reject the default of ineffective, tyrannical super structures
as the only means to get work done and must strengthen and support existing
affinity groups and collectives. Let us be as critical of the need for
large federations, coalitions and other super-structures as we are of
the State, religion, bureaucracies and corporations. Our recent successes
have defied the belief that we must be part of some giant organization
“to get anything done”. We should take to heart the thousands
of anarchist DIY projects being done around the world outside super
structures. Let us come to meetings as equals and work based on our
passions and ideals, and then find others with whom we share these ideals.
Let us protect our autonomy and continue to fight for liberty, trust
and true solidarity.
Anarchy works! All power to the affinity groups!
Back to Stop EU - Denmark
2002
|
|