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 |
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.
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 ...