Criticism brochures Joe Freeman Tyranny structurelessness, inspired by the recent spate of criticism "beginningless" anarchists from "organizatsionalistov" No one surprising fact that, when organizatsionalistov there is a need to justify attempts to merge in a leftist-anarchist mutation of anarchist theory and leftist political practice, they inevitably grab the already outdated essays, Joe Freeman, entitled The Tyranny of structureless. In fact, quite a noticeable spread of thisMeeting attacks Freeman on libertarian anarchist theory of organization of the Internet, is connected with another surge of interest in the organizational platform of libertarian communists (for authorship Arshinova, Makhno and others) among the least inclined to self-criticism and the most leftist-minded anarchists. The popularity of this opus among the Russian anarchist resources, fortunately, limited project "Autonomous Action" ( avtonom.org and torrent "Autonom Library anarchists" ) and Red ( bakunista ).Another popular medium (in addition to the national intelligentsia, of course) - is most interested in the criticism of anarchist organization projects (socialist movements such as ICDs and the CCF , Reform, Green, and the like), and - already abroad, in addition to those mentioned Socialists (ISO - International Socialist Organization) - reformist or authoritarian pacifist resources. Unfortunately, criticism, such as that contained in the pages of the pamphlet under discussion, often becomes the basis of documents like the "minimum program Autonomous Action , and the arguments themselves Freeman cited as the ultimate truth, the alpha and omega of the need for a mass (whether anarchist? ) organizations. In essence, the discussion of the article - not that other, as just a funny historical document from a distant era of revival of the feminist movement in the late 1960's and early 1970's.And since the essay was intended as an attack on "non-structured group that emerged early in the determination of the feminist movement, many pieces of text have the greatest effect when used in this context and within the specified time period.It becomes obvious each (th), who takes the trouble to read the original document. Brief description of the essay Freeman on one of the anarchist sites ( www.anarchism.ws ): "Why do to ensure the democratic process, organizations need structure." But the fact is that - at least since the completion of phase self-feminist movement - all have long agreed with Freeman that the question itself "structure against structurelessness" really takes us away from real problems.All social groups, formal or informal, somehow have a definite structure. Valid send an essay could be formulated as "Why is the formal political organizations better anarchist." Even so, when the self-determined anarchist (s) uncritically cited an essay or load it into your web page, it's like uncritical citation of the Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist tracts on the need political parties.At best, these friends are baffled and do not come quite intelligently. At worst - betray anarchist principles. As you might guess is a strange name, Tyranny structurelessness reads like a poorly reasoned and incredibly surreal, devoid of any logic of paranoid schizophrenic attack in the direction of sociology. Fear of freedom, friendship and community friends, as well as fetish sterile, ordered, due to a set of rules Relations (devoid of spontaneity and life) permeate every page of the essay.There is no doubt that the author is not, and never was, anarchist. Judging by the text, it really does not believe that anarchy could be a realistic goal for the social aspirations of a reasonable person, not to mention the fact that someday, this goal was realized. Once upon a time, she was part of a movement for freedom of speech in Berkeley. But, in her own words, she took part in it as a criticism of the radicals.She also participated in the Human Rights Movement, but - again - not as a libertarian activist. Now Freeman - Political scientist and yuristkoy, and her interests are concentrated in a strictly ordered world of political parties, where the "tyranny" is no longer a problem because of its political system is no more sinister "besstrukutrnyh groups" who are so worried about her in the past! Based on the autobiographical comments avtorshi and thinking about the typical apologists such criticism, we can conclude that the tyranny of structurelessness primarily involves "bookworms" socially illiterate - or anti-social - personality, who has drawn interest in politics, but there is no self-confidence, or they do not want (unable) to plunge into social relations, where there are no clear rules and formal role.Duality ("double standards"), spontaneity and informality, mutual friendships (and relationships within the community) irritate these people.And save them from irritation called security, hierarchy, leadership and discipline of authoritarian institutions. A fundamental discovery of Freeman in this essay yalvyaetsya the fact that informal groups are subject to the power struggle in which so full of sharp corners and dangerous curves. Which, however, is much more frequent and more conspicuous in large, formal organizations. Of course, few will disagree with this her observation. However, Freeman believes that the existing permanent hanging over each(Oops) Party (particle) Affinity Group dangers inherent in small informal groups, are much more dangerous than those minor problems that are so rarely occur in formal organizations like political parties! You see, the latter is explicit rules, formal leaders, and clearly defined roles that maximize efficiency and minimize irresponsible, elitist, undemocratic antics preceded by informal groups unprotected. Each (th) anarchist (ka) immediately react to such arguments as a paranoid, schizoid, and nauseating opportunism.And opportunism becomes more apparent that these theses Freeman periodically emerge in authoritarian leftist publications (navrode mentioned), where used as a sort of journalistic clubs, to walk on the backs of horrible, undisciplined, but the dictatorial-minded anarchists, every time they refuse to provide authoritarian socialists even the slightest chance to be elected as leaders of the anarchist movement. In fact, the potential problems that are so concerned about Freeman in informal groups, are much more prevalent, more common and more destructive as once a large (mass) of formal organizations.But those who believe in such structures and encouraged such an organization is not greatly concerned with such matters when they arise in their structures. Partly because of lack of formal organizations and other rather obvious problems, in part - because these people did not initially worried about the fundamental issues of personal and social freedom - and if agitated, it is exclusively in an organized and politicized representations (in other words, fraud). His Kafkaesque critique Freeman focuses on four issues.
- She utverzhadet that "unstructured" or - in this context - the libertarian, small informal groups functioning as a "smokescreen to hide the ambitions of strong and successful leaders to establish enduring hegemony over others."This is because "As long as the structure of the group is informal, decision rules are known only to a few, but an understanding of the dynamics of power is available only to those who know the rules." And "To each (w) had the opportunity to participate in the activities of the group ...structure must be explicit rather than implicit. "Obviously, this problem can really be the place to be - in very rare cases. It is equally clear that "the establishment of hegemony strong and successful over others" contribute more formal organizations (because it is much easier to implement when you create such an organization or during the capture of senior positions).After all, why bother with a "smokescreen" to hide a fragile hegemony over the small informal group, which is much easier to occupy an important position in any formal organization? Adoption Freeman though some people suffer domination simply because exercising dominance are more familiar with informal structures of the group shouting about their absurdity. The structure of informal groups is far from the occult. It is formed as a result of interpersonal communication and on the basis of mutual expectations of cooperative activities.People who allow others to dominate the other in informal groups, just admit it and be in formal organizations - and even more easily and readily, as originally projected structure of dominance in formal organizations occurs much more often!
- Freeman argues that the problem of elitism inherent in a small, informal groups, rather than formal organizations. Its conclusion she makes on the basis of essentially ridiculous definition of elitism, which she also provides: "The elite - it is nothing like a group of friends who are involved in the same political activities" For this reason, "The individual, being an individual, not can be elitist "(because the person is not a group of friends!).Thus, the problems of the capitalist, political or transnational elites do not exist, if only we are not talking about a group of friends, "which, among other things, involved in the same political activities." And this nonsense was written by the then future political scientist! And you say, "smokescreen designed to hide the hegemony!" From the standpoint of Freeman, the only problem for us are the elite, consisting of informal groups of friends.Anything else that you can easily find a more "democratic" formal organizations like political parties, so egalitarian that it is not even worth mentioning.
- Freeman argues that the "Star" system "(a strange room," star "in quotation marks hers) - causing a" structurelessness.Even if we assume that it limits his analysis of the feminist wing of the movement, this argument has no meaning in a society of the spectacle / consumer society, where the star system entered into absolutely every level of public life, although none of these areas were not so burdened by informal organizations such as feminist movement in 1960-1970's. Again, a significant portion of potential problems described which comprises a system of stars, distributed in the same or greater extent in formal organizations, as well as in informal.But it does not bother avtorshu. For Freeman poor are only those stars that appear in the context of informal groups.
- Freeman believes that the informal group of politically powerless. Obviously, that is true in the sense that invests in the political activities of-state political system. Informal groups will never go so far as projects to create political parties and mass organizations, or collection of millions of dollars in corporate contributions. But, as everyone knows (ND) anarchist (ka), libertarian organizations have the capabilities to achieve - and not once reached.This can be seen on the example of long-term projects hunter-gatherers and the example of a short-term transition projects in the recent revolutionary periods. Only from the fact that anarchist groups are often small in numbers and informal, does not imply that they are not able to use (or have never used), the elements of formal organization that is right, if they see fit and necessary.
Finally, Freeman recommends a short list of "principles of a democratic structure." Finally we got to the part of the work, where there is at least, something interesting, although most of its proposals as (and more) applies to informal groups, as well as to formal.It offers a system of drawing lots, which throughout history many times been used by various anarchist groups. Further afield the know-how as a "delegation of authority," "rotation tasks", "distribution of tasks in accordance with the criterion of rationality," and even as much as possible of the distribution of information "and" equal access to resources of the group. "Any of these proposals much easier realizable in informal libertarian groups than in almost any (with rare exceptions) even the most radical of the formal institutions of the planet.Including anarchist. And it is clear that these recommendations can be attributed to formal and informal organizations. Freeman, two other proposals I have not mentioned in the preceding paragraph for the reason that they are clearly based on authoritarian assumptions: a uniform distribution of power between the largest possible number of people rationally conditioned "(anathema to anarchists (s) in the sense that in this formulation, it clearly has in mind, and political power as well) and "demand accountability to the electorate from all those who took power as a result of the delegation."Morons try to say that the politicians whom you regularly elect! Given a decade of experience in the Democratic Party, Freeman seems to have remained in the naive ignorance of the very common and destructive tyrannical practices of capitalism, statism and organizatsionalizma. If we consider the Tyranny structurelessness from the standpoint of critics of the informal anarchist organization, then any (oops) anarchists (ke) by the end of reading this work will be clear that this essay - complete bullshit.Of course, for antianarhicheski minded politicians of all stripes, similar antianarhichesky nonsense will always be a useful tool. But for anarchists, this essay - just a useless paper, trying to "create a smokescreen" for a variety of potential threats to individual and public freedoms inherent in a formal organiztsiyam of any kind (including anarchist), and especially - deliberately authoritarian formal organizations.Of course, we must be alert and responsive to the authoritarian, hierarchical, dominating and exploiting the relationship in all aspects of public relations. Just do not expect the greatest release of the mud from informal authorityization.