Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: An Organizational Suggestion for Large Occupations

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 11:19 a.m. EST by JArnold (1) from Penngrove, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As groups of people become larger they tend to reach a critical mass where informal organizational methods become increasingly ineffective. They become more susceptible to frustration, disillusion, and disintegration through endless disputation, distraction, co-optation, manipulation, and subversion. Especially when wealth and power are at stake, undercover agents and provocateurs are to be expected, and they can operate most freely and effectively within a disorganized group.

Unfortunately, the remedy to the problem is often seen to be a highly centralized, top-down organization, typically controlled by people whose primary qualifications are their dominant personalities.

A remedy that I think best represents the goals of a democratic group is instead to form small sub-groups of a dozen-or-so members who appoint representatives on a rotating basis to an organizational committee. Such a committee can express their sub-groups' positions on issues and communicate group-wide ideas back to their sub-groups. The committee can create sub-committees for special purposes: organize actions, create agendas for group-wide meetings, deal effectively with the media, and monitor efforts to co-opt or subvert the group.

This is bottom-up organization. Sub-groups of about 12 people can have stable and intimate relationships rather than random interactions with the group as a whole. A small circle builds a sense of stability and solidarity among familiar faces. By delegating rotating members to the group's committee they can more effectively express their opinions, and can be better informed of other sub-groups' ideas. Undercover agents and provocateurs can be recognized and neutralized through sustained, small-group familiarity.

A general assembly can still be a worthwhile activity, but a committee of representatives can serve to develop an agenda and insure that it proceeds effectively with a clear focus.

Ad hoc groups, spontaneous committees are fine too. OWS seems to be thriving with those. Specialized groups for purposes like police relations, press relations, new member orientation, etc. are needed in any case. But for sustained occupations, or long-term movements, bottom-up, democratic consolidation is powerful, extremely effective for intra-group communication, and essential in crises.

When an occupation reaches a threshold size, when there are so many sub-groups that the number of representatives become chaotic, another level can be added. A group that grows to 1200 might have 100 representatives to the coordinating committee. At some point groups of 10-or-12 representatives might appoint representatives to a more central committee, each based on personal familiarity with their representative, and with ongoing direct contact. The mid-level groups can then serve as a reservoir for revolving membership in the core committee, for transmitting information and issues "up" and "down", for organizing and serving specialized tasks.

The government, the police, and economic interests are all well organized and focused. A formless group, especially a growing group, is a victim-in-waiting against those forces.

An effective occupation needs democratic, bottom-up organization!

5 Comments

5 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I am considering a system of sub groups

to propose issues for an internet direct democracy to vote on

[-] 1 points by JArnold (1) from Penngrove, CA 13 years ago

The strains seem to be showing at OWS. The only alternatives envisioned seem to be a committee of leaders or a mass of individuals increasingly bedeviled by unruly elements.

How about this: Form clusters of about a dozen members; each elects a delegate (a rotating position); a sub-group moves among the clusters and collects the names of the delegates; the delegates are called to convene. No leaders, no mob. Who but the muddled and the subversives could object?

[-] 1 points by bostonbobby (1) 13 years ago

I concur, now how?

[-] 1 points by johnbarber (39) from Altamonte Springs, FL 13 years ago

I like the idea, it still gives everyone a voice.

[-] 1 points by synonymous (161) from New York, NY 13 years ago

mmm...The need for total objectivity...yet the want for a powerful masculine decision-maker..one of life's little catch-22's. Remember it is always selfish people who mess up governments...by nature, people are selfish...a tinkers dam of sorts...