Anarchy: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{anarchism}}
{{anarchism}}
{{boxstart}}
{{headerbox}}
Anarchist philosophy is a major influence on Noisebridge's ways of excellent do-ocratic consensus.
'''Anarchy''' and anarchist organizational and educational philosophy is a major influence on Noisebridge's ways of [[excellence]], [[do-ocracy]] and [[consensus]].
{{boxend}}
{{boxend}}
= Recommended Anarchist Readings=
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman Emma Goldman] was an anarchist political activist and writer. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Emma Goldman wrote about anarchist models of education that are influential on Noisebridge's vision.


[[Anarchist Hackers]] are a techno political movement born out of the core values of the hacker ethics and the decentralization and horizontal societies of the Anarchist philosophy.
[[Anarchist Hackers]] are a techno political movement born out of the core values of the hacker ethics and the decentralization and horizontal societies of the Anarchist philosophy.
Line 8: Line 11:
[[Against Policy]] is a small manifesto.
[[Against Policy]] is a small manifesto.


[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tom-wetzel-on-organization tom wetzel on organization]
[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tom-wetzel-on-organization tom wetzel on organization]:
 
<pre>
Delegating Responsibilities
 
A Chair is Not a Boss
 
The Right to Dissociate
 
Talking Until Agreement is Reached
 
Formal Consensus
 
Consensus is Anti-democratic
 
Simple Majority
 
Small Groups, No Power
 
“Consensus” has had a certain popularity as a decision-making method among social change groups since the ’60s, especially within the anti-nuclear movement but also in anarchist and radical feminist circles. I think we can understand why if we consider what sorts of organizations exist in this country. Mass organizations in which the membership directly shape the decisions are hard to find. How often have members been ruled “out of order” at union meetings by an entrenched official? Most leftist political groups also have a top-down concept of organization, as befits their preoccupation with “leadership.”
 
On the other hand, this sort of alienation and lack of control appears absent in activities organized through small circles of acquaintances. Those who engage in an action together typically reached a common agreement after talking it over informally. This leads to the model of the small, informal group — no written constitution, no chair of meetings, no elections for delegated tasks, no careful definition of jobs, no written minutes of meetings. Decisions are made by having an unstructured discussion until consensus is reached.
 
But informality does not eliminate hierarchy in organizations; it merely masks it. To the insiders, everything appears friendly and egalitarian. But newcomers do not have the same longstanding ties to the group. And having no clear definition of responsibilities, and no elections of individuals who carry out important tasks, makes it more difficult for the membership to control what goes on.
 
Fortunately, the “small, informal group” is not the only alternative to the dominant hierarchical model of organization. It is possible to build a formal organization that is directly controlled by its membership. Being “formal” merely means that the organization has a written set of rules about how decisions are made, and duties of officers and conditions of membership are clearly defined. An organization does not have to be top-down in order to be “formal” in this sense. A libertarian organization would have a constitution that explicitly lays out a non-hierarchical way of making decisions.
 
...
</pre>
 
[http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdf The Tyranny of Structurelesness]:
<pre>The ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’ of first published in 1970 to address the need for organisation in the US women’s liberation movement
as it sought to move from criticising society to changing society. As such
the examples used are specific to that movement but anyone who has
been involved in a ‘Structureless’ group will be able to draw parallels
with their own experiences. Often the most frustrating thing about progressive struggles is that each generation must repeat the mistakes of
the pervious struggles. Learning from the history of these struggles can
save us having to make their mistakes ourselves. [AF, 2000]
 
Formal and Informal Structures
Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
‘structureless’ group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any
purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure
may be flexible, it may vary over time,
it may evenly or unevenly distribute
tasks, power and resources over the
members of the group. But it will be
formed regardless of the abilities, personalities and intentions of the people
involved. The very fact that we are
individuals with different talents, predisposition’s and backgrounds makes
this inevitable. Only if we refused to
relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate
‘structurelessness’ and that is not the
nature of a human group.
This means that to strive for a
‘structureless’ group is as useful and
as deceptive, as to aim at an ‘objective’
news story, ‘value-free’ social science
or a ‘free’ economy. A ‘laissez-faire’
group is about as realistic as a ‘laissezfaire’ society; the idea becomes a
smokescreen for the strong or the
lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony
can easily be established because the
idea of ‘structurelessness’ does not prevent the formation of informal structures, but only formal ones. Similarly,
‘laissez-faire’ philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from
establishing control over wages, prices
and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing
so. Thus ‘structurelessness’ becomes
a way of masking power, and within
the women’s movement it is usually
most strongly advocated by those
who are the most powerful (whether
they are conscious of their power or
not). The rules of how decisions are
made are known only to a few and
awareness of power is curtailed by
those who know the rules, as long as
the structure of the group is informal.
Those who do not know the rules and
are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from
paranoid delusions that something is
happening of which they are not quite
aware


[http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdf The Tyranny of Structurelesness]
...</pre>

Latest revision as of 13:28, 7 January 2022

Noisebridge | About | Visit | 272 | Manual | Contact | Guilds | Resources | Events | Projects | 5MoF | Meetings | Donate | (Edit)
About | Vision | 272 Capp | Materials | Testimonials | Lore | Photos | Hackerspaces | 501c3 | Press | Press Kit | Zine | Help | (Edit)
Vision | Excellence | Do-ocracy | Consensus | Anarchy | Edit
Anarchy | Anarchy 101 | Against Policy | Anarchist Hackers | Anarchafeminist Hackerhive | Edit

Anarchy and anarchist organizational and educational philosophy is a major influence on Noisebridge's ways of excellence, do-ocracy and consensus.

Recommended Anarchist Readings[edit]

Emma Goldman was an anarchist political activist and writer. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Emma Goldman wrote about anarchist models of education that are influential on Noisebridge's vision.

Anarchist Hackers are a techno political movement born out of the core values of the hacker ethics and the decentralization and horizontal societies of the Anarchist philosophy.

Against Policy is a small manifesto.

tom wetzel on organization:

Delegating Responsibilities

A Chair is Not a Boss

The Right to Dissociate

Talking Until Agreement is Reached

Formal Consensus

Consensus is Anti-democratic

Simple Majority

Small Groups, No Power

“Consensus” has had a certain popularity as a decision-making method among social change groups since the ’60s, especially within the anti-nuclear movement but also in anarchist and radical feminist circles. I think we can understand why if we consider what sorts of organizations exist in this country. Mass organizations in which the membership directly shape the decisions are hard to find. How often have members been ruled “out of order” at union meetings by an entrenched official? Most leftist political groups also have a top-down concept of organization, as befits their preoccupation with “leadership.”

On the other hand, this sort of alienation and lack of control appears absent in activities organized through small circles of acquaintances. Those who engage in an action together typically reached a common agreement after talking it over informally. This leads to the model of the small, informal group — no written constitution, no chair of meetings, no elections for delegated tasks, no careful definition of jobs, no written minutes of meetings. Decisions are made by having an unstructured discussion until consensus is reached.

But informality does not eliminate hierarchy in organizations; it merely masks it. To the insiders, everything appears friendly and egalitarian. But newcomers do not have the same longstanding ties to the group. And having no clear definition of responsibilities, and no elections of individuals who carry out important tasks, makes it more difficult for the membership to control what goes on.

Fortunately, the “small, informal group” is not the only alternative to the dominant hierarchical model of organization. It is possible to build a formal organization that is directly controlled by its membership. Being “formal” merely means that the organization has a written set of rules about how decisions are made, and duties of officers and conditions of membership are clearly defined. An organization does not have to be top-down in order to be “formal” in this sense. A libertarian organization would have a constitution that explicitly lays out a non-hierarchical way of making decisions.

...

The Tyranny of Structurelesness:

The ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’ of first published in 1970 to address the need for organisation in the US women’s liberation movement
as it sought to move from criticising society to changing society. As such
the examples used are specific to that movement but anyone who has
been involved in a ‘Structureless’ group will be able to draw parallels
with their own experiences. Often the most frustrating thing about progressive struggles is that each generation must repeat the mistakes of
the pervious struggles. Learning from the history of these struggles can
save us having to make their mistakes ourselves. [AF, 2000]

Formal and Informal Structures
Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
‘structureless’ group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any
purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure
may be flexible, it may vary over time,
it may evenly or unevenly distribute
tasks, power and resources over the
members of the group. But it will be
formed regardless of the abilities, personalities and intentions of the people
involved. The very fact that we are
individuals with different talents, predisposition’s and backgrounds makes
this inevitable. Only if we refused to
relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate
‘structurelessness’ and that is not the
nature of a human group.
This means that to strive for a
‘structureless’ group is as useful and
as deceptive, as to aim at an ‘objective’
news story, ‘value-free’ social science
or a ‘free’ economy. A ‘laissez-faire’
group is about as realistic as a ‘laissezfaire’ society; the idea becomes a
smokescreen for the strong or the
lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony
can easily be established because the
idea of ‘structurelessness’ does not prevent the formation of informal structures, but only formal ones. Similarly,
‘laissez-faire’ philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from
establishing control over wages, prices
and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing
so. Thus ‘structurelessness’ becomes
a way of masking power, and within
the women’s movement it is usually
most strongly advocated by those
who are the most powerful (whether
they are conscious of their power or
not). The rules of how decisions are
made are known only to a few and
awareness of power is curtailed by
those who know the rules, as long as
the structure of the group is informal.
Those who do not know the rules and
are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from
paranoid delusions that something is
happening of which they are not quite
aware

...