Anarchy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 |
Anarchist philosophy is a major influence on Noisebridge's ways of excellent do-ocratic consensus. |
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.
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]