(en) Organization versus affinity group: hiperautonomització
process and structural weaknesses of an anarchist group By Embat (ca)
Presentation ---- Taking as part of the complex panorama experience the libertarian
movement Hellene, the author (Antonis Drakonakis) an analysis of the functioning of
anarchist affinity groups, a more or me NYS generalized function as basis of the anarchist
movement in Greece. ---- The text reviews the practical limitations of this organizational
model, focusing especially on the process hiperautonomització derived from the progressive
isolation of many affinity groups operating in that country. Finally, the author raises
the need to improve coordination and integration of fronts to fight through the gradual
consolidation of a libertarian organization that contributes one hand, the federation of
groups anarchists, and another in overcome the organizational weaknesses of the anarchist
movement Hellene.
"From our experience so far, we believe that the lack of access to society is what makes
us harmless for state power. Because the social revolution does not do us and our affinity
group, but all the exploited, anarchist dream becoming reality. This means that anyone who
does not see the need to structure and organize our field, with the corresponding blows
against selected State- is putting unconsciously practice and dogmatic, short-sighted,
obstacles to the development of the anarchist movement Greece and anarchist dream turning
into a nightmare everyday. True, in most cases, due to the young age prevailing Greek
anarchist movement, the process by which forms a collective anarchist / antiauthoritarian
is done in terms of affinity group. This, at first, it is judged de facto as something
negative: no one can, for example, consider a disaster creating a group from an existing
group of friends that politicizes the same time in a provincial town or a suburb of
Athens. Structurally, thus creating a political group initially based on relationships of
trust and friendship is nothing negative. The problem is found in a later stage in the
evolution and how the group experience over time.
Once formed, the entire community begins the process of building a common space among its
members. Members taking shape collectively develop their common political discourse and
build a collective everyday, which in most cases becomes "his own" reality. This last
point is, in our opinion, the source of the problem. Lacking an external control (in s
obviously referring to the control group in the context of a larger organization or
federation), the group created a concept exclusively on their becoming social and
political, not being committed to any other co group, it becomes more real every moment
and every action, embodied in a collective experience (the process of hiperautonomització
the assembly). This concept appears as a coordinate various factors such readings common,
everyday common shared experiences of movement and, finally, the influence of prominent
personalities of each assembly, for various reasons give the group and its members
terminology , the central theoretical sources and structuring your thinking.
The "invisible captains" or "influential fighters," according to the most condescending
term are, in our view, a natural and unavoidable phenomenon, congenital to the principles
of organization and collective human evolution (age, experience, sharpness, cultural
substrate), very close to the microphysics of power Foucault. But the problem is not the
phenomenon itself, but informal setting in which it develops and acquires dynamic.
The informal hierarchy faces no grumbling, but by controlling collective, democratic and
political emanating not only from the desire of some, but of the structure. The political
interventionism of some meetings by certain people is not a problem exclusive to these
people, but especially the assembly itself, its own operating system. A personality who
occupies the space left free the others; it is no coincidence that there are groups who,
deprived of one or two people vegetate. And here we come to the question of the
accumulation of capital experience and knowledge (a kind of social capital in the small
level of an assembly).
The mentioned shows that "influential fighters" have some kind of "expertise." Expertise,
instead of being shared with the assembly, constitute a monopoly in the hands of certain
people who manage to dominate in a relationship of dependency. These technical skills do
not come exclusively from its ability rhetoric, but a process of accumulation of
intellectual capital gains: capital experiential accumulated throughout the assembly in
its redistribution, suffers a short circuit. To put it more plainly, even collective
accumulated through their actions a capital of experience and knowledge. Initially, this
capital exists only as a product group, ie exists as a collective capital of the group,
without being individualized. But the inertia of many members, a lack of objectivity and
concrete political positions at the group level (attribute responsibility to the
structures and people) in combination with the natural abilities of the "influential
fighter," take this accumulated capital in the hands of a few, who benefit as well (often
unintentionally) the structural inequalities of Informalism. *
What we need, therefore, is not to expel the few, but to create a mechanism qu and
distributed equally among all the capital in question the members of the assembly. The
free market is the informality of a movement, and where there is a free market, there are
those who dominate the capital.
The process of hiperautonomització described above is not interrupted either by new
members of a group that, to a greater or lesser extent, are forced to be absorbed by the
microrealitat group and ensure the preservation of the desired range.
New members must face turn a series of problems: from an already established system of
internal communication within the group (terminology, phrases, humor internal taboo issues
relating politicians), compared to the informal (spontaneous ) to its s most prominent
members / assets and, ultimately, acceptance or conflict with a structured understanding
of their own reality, "reality" of the group mentioned above.
Under the weight of the obligation to adapt to a new microcosm structured without them,
these new members have three basic options: (a) adapt the existing framework and accepted
standards, (b) try to change it greater or lesser extent; and finally c) reject it and
leave the group. The problem is that between the first two options there is an inherent
inequality which, in our opinion, also comes from the lack of structure.
In a close examination we see that, in most cases, the balance tilts in favor of the first
option (leave aside the third). That is, a new member fits before or after the already
configured reality of the group, without trying to at least question the existing
framework. This is mainly due to insecurity experienced not only with regard to whether it
has the capacity to do it, but with it's own context understood if understood what is
going to face. This inequality lies in the structural weakness of the new members to
change the existing framework. One weakness is due to two main reasons: (a) the difference
between new and old "veterans" with what it entails, and (b) the relativity of political
framework for each group.
Firstly, it is well known that our "sphere" attracts new members almost exclusively very
young, especially students and youth. Thus, for a kid, the difference in age, experience
and theoretical substrate between himself and m embryo oldest greatly perceived,
especially by his side. Moreover, in most cases, unfortunately, the new member will not
find a coherent framework of political positioning, set up by a group of persons wider
than the narrow limits exceed the group. By contrast, face a set of ideas and practices
that constitute, as has been said, the reality of a group of twenty people. The relativity
of the object, then that could potentially be questioned, questioning deprived of meaning.
To put it more clearly, this relativity lies in the lack of political positions and
specifically formulated in the irresponsibility (politics) that distinguishes small
unknown groups in the absence of a broader political entity with name recognizable. A
consequence of this relativity criticism collides with an almost ritual performance of
each group, in most cases, has the effect that it can resolve political differences.
Lacking political positions well established, statutes, etc., all criticism is produced
exclusively on the "tactic" of a group, and the correlation of this with their tactical
positions. In addition, while the need to adopt this or that action is always judged from
the perception or the will of the people in a group, and not determined by their own
social need or the weight of a decision for action wider level throughout Greece, the
difference aflorarà in terms of personal criticism within the community and not in terms
of political coherence and social responsibility. What we advocate is thus that external
pressures (within an organization) does not "submit" to a group, but, on the contrary, it
helps to clarify its policy framework, taking away what As for points ambiguous and
politicized their differences and their internal conflicts.
Moreover, its hiperautonomització it into a group of friends who resolves his differences
with the sole criterion of cohesion and qualitative correlation between their particular
political aspirations and performance of its members. Under the current framework, if a
community has materialized his political aspirations, regardless of the political
circumstances impose, well underway. That is, their commitment begins and ends at the
coordinates of the wishes and aspirations of its members.
In summary
For example, five groups that sometimes are in motion processes and collaborate in a
framework of zero liability policy with respect to other (not beyond solidarity and mutual
support) are actually five different groups with a common ideological substratum, very
generally, every time they bring five different realities. This happens, as we said at the
beginning, because at the time of its formation there was no commitment, no communication
(political) control group and no essential part of a political entity superior
Organization (Federation) with the result of the vision of reality is not "filtered" and
collectively is not directly challenged by any force that no sig u own group.
The affinity group, thus grows in its own world, at the mercy of natural and social
inequalities implicit in relations between people of different age, social class,
experiences, expertise, trend, etc., it is only struggling with his own demons.
Without the support of a political entity, c ol·lectiu isolated perceives himself not as
part of
http://embat.info/organitzacio-versus-grup-dafinitat-el-proces-dhiperautonomitzacio-i-les-febleses-estructurals-dun-col%C2%B7lectiu-anarquista/
