💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › miami-autonomy-solidarity-anarchist-accountability.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:24:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchist Accountability Author: Miami Autonomy & Solidarity Date: June 9, 2010 Language: en Topics: accountability, anarchist organization Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/anarchist-accountability/ Notes: By Thomas.
“This disease of disorganization has invaded the organism of the
anarchist movement like yellow fever and has plagued it for
decades…There can be no doubt, however, that this disorganization has
its roots in a number of defects of theory, notably in the distorted
interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism, that
principle being too often mistaken for the absence of all
accountability.” – Delo Truda Group [1]
“…[O]rganization, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it
and the only means whereby each one of us will get used to taking an
active and conscious part in the collective work, and cease being
passive instruments in the hands of leaders.” – Errico Malatesta [2]
The assessment of the Delo Truda Group from 1926 is as true today as it
was 84 years ago. But if that’s the case; and if, as Malatesta
suggested, organization is the only cure for authority, how do we as
anarchists differ from others in how we view organization? Or more
specifically, how does our view of individuality differ from the common
misconception of anarchism as the “absence of all accountability”.
Perhaps it’s best summed up by Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt
in their exhaustive account of the history of anarchist ideas, Black
Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
They explain:
“…[G]enuine individual freedom and individuality could only exist in a
free society. The anarchists did not therefore identify freedom with the
right of everybody to do exactly what one pleased but with a social
order in which collective effort and responsibilities- that is to say,
obligations- would provide the material basis and social nexus in which
individual freedom could exist.” [3]
This essay will describe anarchist accountability and how it differs
from the types of accountability we’re trying to replace. Implementing
accountability in all of our practices is fundamental to our
effectiveness now in our practice and how it prefigures the kind of
society that we want to replace the existing society.
The first form of accountability that we as anarchists are attempting to
combat most of the time is top-down, hierarchical forms of
accountability. Since we are against all forms of domination and
oppression, it’s only natural that we’d be opposed to formal and
informal forms of accountability to our employers, landlords, elites or
other relations defined by domination. Although certain forms of
top-down accountability may be considered legitimate, such as the
accountability of a young child to their parent giving loving and
reasonable child-rearing directives, the discussion surrounding opposing
most other forms of top-down accountability is only a question of
strategy and tactics. A key anarchist insight in opposing top-down
accountability is that to address the root of the problem the top-down
structure and relation must be changed, not the person or group holding
it. So unlike some Marxists or other radicals, we don’t believe, for
example, that a “proletarian” dictatorship, a matriarchy or a people of
color ruling elite will address any of the fundamental issues with class
oppression, patriarchy or racism. Anarchists believe that it’s the
structures and relations of hierarchical domination and oppression
themselves that must be destroyed and replaced with egalitarian and
horizontal structures and relations.
This brings us to anarchist accountability. Horizontal and egalitarian
forms of accountability are based in the notion of free association.
Free association must be mutual between all its participants if it’s to
be truly free for each. It would hardly be free if members of an
association were forced to be in an association or collective with
people they didn’t want to associate with. Within a freely associated
grouping of people, horizontal and egalitarian forms of decision-making
would involve each member having an equal say- no more and no less- than
any other member. Some decisions might need consensus; others might be a
simple majority according to the type of decision being made and the
practices of the group. However, societal influences from oppressive
socialization such as racism and sexism to personality differences such
as being shy or being talkative are likely to create informal
hierarchies that reintroduce domination and hierarchy within the group
if clear, explicit, collectively-established democratic practices are
not established and followed. Jo Freeman has a variety of useful
suggestions in setting up democratic and accountable structures within
any grouping in her classic piece The Tyranny of Structurelessness.[4]
Once democratic structures and organizational practices are developed
and utilized, then anarchist accountability demands that decisions made
collectively must be respected and collectively implemented. If there’s
disagreement within the organization over a collective decision, there
are a few options. Georges Fontenis outlines the basic framework for
this in his essay Manifesto of Libertarian Communism [5]:
1) Do Nothing/ Delay It: Decide that there’s too much disagreement to
come to a decision at this time and either drop it or discuss it further
at another time. For example, a group might decide not to have an
official position on whether capitalism is comprised of two or three
main classes until more research is done; or might decide just not to
have a position as a group at this time.
2) Accept More Than One: Decide- if it’s possible depending on the type
of decision needed to be made- to allow for more than one of the
proposed options to be accepted as the group decision with more or less
emphasis on either. For example, a group might decide that although the
majority might think that trying to build a militant minority network
within their respective workplaces is the best workplace strategy, they
also find it acceptable that some members of their group are pursuing a
dual unionist strategy with the independent union at their workplace.
3) Accept the Majority View: Depending on the group practice this might
be a simple majority vote or a super-majority. The minority view would
be rejected for collective practice; but the minority could continue to
argue for their view internally within the organization. For example,
the majority of the group might want to organize a May Day event even
though a minority of the group feels that it’s taking away time and
resources from the anti-eviction organizing the group is working on. But
since the majority of the group feels that it would be beneficial to
organize a May Day event, the group would do the event.
4) Split Based on Differing Views: If the issue is fundamental and
either the majority or the minority find it unacceptable to do nothing,
accept more than one view on the issue or to accept the majority view on
the issue. For example, if the group decides as the basis of their group
that structural racism is something that they’d like to combat as an
organization, but one or two members feel that it’s a waste of time to
confront structural racism because they believe it doesn’t exist anymore
now that Barrack Obama was elected president, there would have to be a
split in the organization since having such contradictory views on a
fundamental group strategy would give them no room to work together as a
group. However, this doesn’t mean that they couldn’t work together on
other issues where the have agreement or continue to try to dialogue
between each other on issues where they disagree.
Fundamental to all of this is that when a decision is made, it should be
respected and carried out until a decision is made to overturn it, an
exception considered or a member quits- or in extreme cases is expelled-
out of disagreement.
Holding each other accountable also means getting used to letting each
other know- in a comradely way- when commitments and obligations aren’t
being fulfilled. This is a practice that must be built through an
organizational culture where comradely honesty and constructive
criticism replaces competitive and individualistic
passive-aggressiveness or talking behind people’s backs. The flip side
of giving comradely feedback is learning how to receive it, using it to
help you and your organization grow and becoming more self-disciplined.
This is difficult sometimes since the vast majority of the times we’re
being called to task for something, it is coming from top-down
relations; but the practice of holding others accountable and being held
accountable is fundamental to learn, practice and promote if we want to
destroy and replace these top-down relations with horizontal and
egalitarian relations. And of course, ideally these practices would
increase self-discipline in carrying out tasks that group members commit
to. When holding each other accountable it’s important to come from a
place of love and respect that avoids being patronizing, competitive,
egotistical or dishonest in any way. And when being held accountable
it’s similarly important to cultivate an appreciation for comradely
criticism and renew our commitment to self-discipline. However, that
doesn’t mean we should allow our dignity to be trampled on or ourselves
to be disrespected. When criticism isn’t comradely, we should defend
ourselves and demand respect as an equal even when we’ve failed to
fulfill our obligations. But it is essential that comradely anarchist
accountability and self-discipline as a practice needs to be developed,
encouraged and cultivated within our organizations. Without
self-discipline and horizontal accountability, groups revert back to
dominating and oppressive top-down relations and/or involve stagnation,
demoralization and ineffectiveness.
What about delegates? Anarchists argue that delegates should replace any
necessary functions usually carried out by representatives. Delegates
differ from representatives because delegates are mandated with specific
views and tasks that are to mirror as close as possible the views of the
group that the delegate has been mandated by. Representatives are
top-down because they make decisions on behalf of groups that then must
obey these decisions; anarchist delegates are bottom-up because they are
mandated to bring the views, as expressed, of the organization to the
grouping of delegates they’ve been sent to. Sometimes the group may give
delegates some flexibility, but the accountability is always from the
bottom-up, not the top-down. Delegates can be over-ruled and recalled at
anytime and have no power over the group that they’re the delegate for.
When compromises between delegates need to be hashed out or new items
come up at delegate meetings that are value-laden decisions rather than
logistical decisions, the delegate usually has to bring back the
compromise to the group before it’s finally approved unless the group
already mandated the delegate with certain ranges of flexibility on the
issue. However there’s a difference between, logistical decisions and
value-laded decisions. For logistical decisions, a group might mandate a
delegate to carry out logistical tasks — such as checking and responding
to the group e-mail account — with greater flexibility to act as they
see fit. But they still might ask for transparency and regular report
backs and the person mandated with the task can always be directed by
the group to carry it out in a particular way since it’s the group that
the delegate is accountable to, not the other way around. In addition,
the concepts logistical and value-laden are open for interpretation; so
they are more accurately understood as two sides of along a spectrum,
rather than easily differentiated, clear-cut concepts.
In conclusion, this essay tried to clarify how anarchist accountability
proposes horizontal and egalitarian or bottom-up forms of accountability
to replace top-down forms of accountability. Capitalism, the state,
imperialism, racism, patriarchy, and all forms of exploitation,
domination and oppression aren’t going to go away without a fight and
without something to replace it. Creating the organizational structure,
practice and culture that encourages and takes seriously comradely
horizontal accountability, self-discipline and bottom-up mandated
delegation is fundamental to the effectiveness of our organizations in
building towards and prefiguring the type of society we want to replace
the current one. Whether, when and how we implement, develop, encourage
and promote these concepts and practices is the responsibility of us
all…
[1] Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad (The “Delo Truda” group). The
Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft).
1926.
[2] Malatesta, Errico. Anarchy and Organization. 1897.
[3] Schmidt, Michael and van der Walt, Lucien. Black Flame: The
Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
Counter-Power. Volume 1. AK Press. 2009. P. 48
[4] Freeman, Jo. The Tyranny of Structurelessness. 1970.
[5] Fontenis, Georges. Manifesto of Libertarian Communism. 1953.