💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › james-herod-anarchists-getting-ourselves-together.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:18:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchists Getting Ourselves Together Author: James Herod Date: March 2007 Language: en
Northeast Network of Anarchist Groups
(1) We assert that human beings are inter-subjective creatures, and that
therefore the words "individual" and "society" misconstrue and
inaccurately describe the reality of our situation and lives. This
means, among other things, that there is no such thing as an "autonomous
individual." Consequently, anarchy cannot be conceived as an aggregate
of such individuals. It also means that "freedom" cannot be an attribute
of an individual but only of a social order (that is, a pattern of
social relations). Freedom (and even individuality) can only be a social
achievement.
(2) In general, we picture anarchy as a world full of autonomous
communities, in which people control all aspects of their lives at all
levels. This is sometimes called (rather awkwardly and even confusedly)
a self-managed society. The core social forms through which our autonomy
will find expression are directly democratic assemblies in our
neighborhoods, in our projects (workplaces), and in our extended
households. These will be the basic decision-making bodies under
anarchy. This means that our new society (anarchy) will be horizontally
organized, not hierarchically.
(3) We fight for the abolition of capitalism, the state, and god, and
for the establishment of a social order without wage-slavery, markets,
money, commodities, classes, or war.
(4) We are committed to the principle of direct democracy, and reject
and will campaign vigorously against representative government. By
direct democracy we mean decision-making in assemblies through
face-to-face discussion, deliberation, and voting, and an association of
such assemblies built up through negotiated agreements (pacts,
treaties), not through federation (or confederation) using delegates.
The term has also been widely used in recent years to refer to
referendums and recalls, which is an unfortunate restriction and
weakening of the concept, which originally referred to direct
participatory democracy, as in a town meeting. We stick to the original
meaning of the term.
(5) We reject the principle of simple majority rule (half plus one), in
favor of decision-making procedures which achieve the greatest possible
majority on any issue (usually called, inaccurately, consensus decision
making).
(6) We stand opposed to all forms of domination and discrimination based
on race, gender, sexual orientation, age (and any other personal
attribute -- personal beauty, ethnicity, intelligence -- if irrelevant
to the issue at hand). All persons are equal as to rights.
(7) We are opposed to the destruction of the environment and the abuse
of animals.
(8) We make a distinction between us anarchists organizing amongst
ourselves as anarchists, for the purposes of agitation, and the social
forms that will be needed to constitute anarchy. Organizations (or
networks) of anarchists are still one step removed from anarchy itself.
For anarchy itself, we will need social forms to enable us to
self-management our social relations generally across society.
To agitate for anarchy, as defined above.
Within Our Groups
Decision making within our groups is based on face-to-face discussion
and voting. This is generally known as direct democracy or participatory
democracy. Since these groups have no power (nor desire) to impose
decisions on those in the group who do not agree with them, procedures
must be adopted which ensure that the largest possible majority will be
reached on any issue, and on securing the willingness to go along by
those who disagree. Such procedures are generally known as 'consensus
decision making' (a misnomer actually). Decisions will never be
delegated to a decision-making elite (elected officers, for example).
(See note below for further discussion.)
Amongst Our Groups
Decisions amongst our groups will be made in either of two ways.
(a) A proposal can be discussed and voted on within each local group,
but the votes will be tallied across groups. In this case, the votes
would be simple yeas or nays, that is, a straight up or down vote on the
proposal, with the individual votes tallied across groups. Consensus
decision making would not work here, since that usually involves
changing the proposal to take account of objections, until most agree
with the proposal. However, a similar process could be achieved by
successive votes on slightly modified versions of the proposal until
most agree with it. Cumbersome but necessary if direct democracy is to
be preserved.
(b) A negotiator from each group will be sent to a negotiating
conference to hammer out an agreement, which will then be returned to
local groups for ratification. This back and forth process will continue
until most are satisfied with the decision. This technique is already in
use all over the world on a regular basis in the process of negotiating
treaties amongst various autonomous entities. Cumbersome but necessary
if direct democracy is to be preserved.
(a) Origin of Projects
Any individual in any group can float a proposal for a project, either
within their own group, amongst several groups, or to the network at
large. Those who are interested in the project, and feel they have time
and resources to devote to it, will volunteer. All these volunteers will
then meet to hammer out an agreement about how to do the project.
(b) Control of Projects
Projects, both local and regional, are controlled (except for the veto)
by those who are doing them and not by the network as a whole.
(c) The Nature of Projects
A project can be anything that helps establish anarchy.
(d) The Vetoing of Projects
Any project can be vetoed by a two-thirds vote of all groups (with each
group having one vote).
Membership in the groups is left up to the individual groups themselves.
Initially, the groups present at the founding of the network are
automatically affiliated. Subsequently, new groups can apply for
affiliation and be admitted by a unanimous vote of existing groups (with
each group having one vote).
Any group can be expelled from the network by a unanimous vote of other
groups (with each group having one vote).
Definition of Network
The term network is vague. Nevertheless, we use it because it carries
with it the connotation of horizontalism, rather than hierarchy. It is
usually thought that a network consists of equal nodes, resting on a
flat plane, which are connected. And so it is with this anarchist
network, which consists of equal groups which are connected (by
communication and decision-making procedures) in the common purpose of
agitating for anarchy.
Network not Federation
Most of the anarchist federations established recently consist of
individuals or groups who agree to abide by the decisions of an annual
or bi-annual regional assembly of members. This feature will not be
characteristic of this network, the absence of which is what
distinguishes it from a federation. This network does not use delegates
or representatives for decision making. Nor would a regional assembly,
even if it were attended by every person in the network, have the power
to make decisions that were binding on local groups (such decisions are
made following different procedures, as explained above). The existence
of such a regional decision-making body would rapidly lead to the idea
that there is a superior, or higher, level of decision making than the
local group. This is what we want to avoid. Besides, in practice, one
hundred percent attendance is next to impossible to achieve, which is an
additional reason for not engaging in the practice.
Terminology. Group as Opposed to Collective
The word 'collective' is ugly and cumbersome. Moreover, it is
unnecessary since it carries no meanings that are superior to the word
'group,' so we're just using a bigger clumsier word when a shorter nicer
word would work even better. In fact, for those with a bit of history,
the term collective carries bad connotations, connected as it was for
seventy years with the authoritarian "collectives" of the Soviet Union.
Even without that connection, however, the word seems to imply the
superiority of the collective over the individual. For these reasons, we
prefer the much simpler word 'group.'
Terminology. Negotiator, not Delegate or Representative
We use the term negotiator because this word describes more accurately
what is going on. Both the terms representative and delegate are
unsatisfactory because they imply the relinquishing of decision making
power to these individuals. Many radicals are in the habit of claiming
that delegates hold no such power, because they are mandated and
recallable. We deny this, seeing these concepts as mere illusions, in
practice certainly. Negotiators are what we need, not delegates.
Definition of a Group
A group must consist of at least three members. They must hold at least
occasional (but preferably more frequent) face-to-face meetings. That
is, three people who communicate solely by electronic means or via
regular mail will not be considered a group for the purposes of this
network. Non-in-person communication of course can be used substantially
by any group.
Groups not Individuals as Members
We insist that groups and not individuals make up the network because of
our strong belief in participatory democracy. It is essential that
issues be aired in face-to-face discussions involving real people,
unmediated by remote communications technology (microphones and speakers
are okay). Votes could be tallied for isolated individuals, of course,
but this would be polling, not direct, participatory democracy.
On the Provision for Vetoing Projects
This is a precautionary procedure only. It is unlikely that it will have
to be used. It is conceivable, however, that scattered individuals
amongst several groups, or even one or two groups themselves, will
launch a very ill-advised project, which violates the Points of Unity,
and reflects badly on the network as a whole. There must be a mechanism
for blocking such projects.
A Brief Note on So-called Consensus Decision Making
There is an extensive literature on so-called consensus decision making.
There is general agreement in this literature as to what it means, but
there are nevertheless some variations. Plus there are some ambiguities
remaining (e.g., are the stand-asides obligated to help carry out the
decision even though they disagreed with it; and under what conditions
are blocks allowed?) No matter what version is used the process works
only if everyone is on board and have acquired some skill in it. Skilled
people can made some beautiful, effective, and satisfying meetings, but
half-assed consensus decision making usually results in a really
horrible meeting. You'd almost be better off using simple majority rule,
or Robert's Rules of Order. Moreover, already many misconceptions of the
technique are widespread in the movement, like the belief that it
overcomes majority rule, that there is no voting, or that a block can be
used by anyone under any circumstances. Nevertheless, this process
(relabeled with a more accurate name) is superior is all respects to
simple majority rule: it results in better decisions, achieves greater
compliance with the decisions, builds solidarity, results in more
effective actions and campaigns, and is consistent with direct democracy
and anarchism. A first task of the network will be to hammer out an
agreement amongst groups about the decision making procedures to be
followed (or at least recommended), that is, the version of so-called
consensus decision making that will be used. This shouldn't be all that
difficult. Four decades of work have gone into honing these procedures,
the result of the New Left's disgust with Robert's Rules of Order.
Alternative Names
North Atlantic Anarchist Association
North Atlantic Anarchist Network
Northeast Anarchist Network
New England Network of Anarchist Groups
North Atlantic Association of Anarchist Groups
Mid and North Atlantic Association of Anarchists
And so forth.
---
PS.
For background and a more extended discussion of many of the issues
involved here you might want to examine three previous papers of mine,
namely:
(1) "Remarks on the Efforts Underway to Organize a Northeast Anarchist
Network," March 2007, at:
http://www.jamesherod.info/testing/index.php?sec=paper&id=15
(2) "A Great Plains Association for Anarchy?" November 2002, at:
http://www.jamesherod.info/testing/index.php?sec=paper&id=16
(3) "Seeing the Inadequacies of ACF's Strategy Statement," February
1999, at:
http://www.jamesherod.info/testing/index.php?sec=paper&id=27
This present paper can also be accessed on the web at:
http://www.jamesherod.info/testing/index.php?sec=paper&id=31
Please note: These links take you to my new website. It is not loaded up
yet, except for a few blogs and the 23 papers under Selected Papers:
1998-Present. Clicking on anything else will just get you a blank page.
Sorry. I hope to have everything uploaded by the end of April (but don't
hold your breath).