The second is a matter of degrees I think. Bureaucracy gets a bad rep, but it can be essential to ensure that especially action focused org don't descend into just a discussion group, and also it offers some protection against cops and wreckers deliberately trying to derail orgs. If you've got the kind of bureaucracy where you're having meetings about voting on a meeting chair for the next meeting or whatever, then you've already failed on those points anyway.

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

i see critical thinking went out the window for half your analysis but came back hesitantly probing at the god awful detatched-ness of the second.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago

I just read your reply to Owl above on the first point and think we agree on most of that.

Organising needs to be collaborative, organising seminars are good, mailing lists or newsletters aren't a substitute for action and relationships.

I have however been around some orgs over the years, especially much smaller ones unsurprisingly, that have been borderline hostile to the idea of not only collaborative organising but every other organisation in general. They certainly weren't collaborating or incorporating other groups or activists to achieve anything.

I read Owl's first point as specifically talking about that kind of behaviour from a limited number of experiences, not a blanket sweeping statement of vendetta against ML groups in general, as you seem to have. Which I suspect is a big part of our disagreement here.

Anyway, I hope you got that beauty sleep comrade.