Even anarchist mass movements if they persist for very long (Spain) develop a bureaucracy.
-Andy English
-----Original Message----- From: Alex LoCascio <alexlocascio at mail.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:40 PM Subject: RE: Two Cheers for Bureaucracy (Re: Where was the Color at A16 in D.C.?
>Nathan, baby, this is incredibly fucking naive. For bureaucracy's tendency
>to create "vibrant organizational structures," please see:
>
>Buhle, Paul. _Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meaney, Lane
>Kirkland, and the Tragedy of American Labor_
>
>Moody, Kim. _An Injury to All: The Decline of Organized Labor in the United
>States_
>
>Trotsky, Leon. _The Revolution Betrayed_
>
>Better yet, try actually working for a labor union, then tell me about
>bureaucracy's salutory effects on labor and social movements.
>
>cheers,
>
>Alex L.
>
>
>
>------Original Message------
>From: Nathan Newman <nathan.newman at yale.edu>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Sent: June 20, 2000 10:59:33 PM GMT
>Subject: Two Cheers for Bureaucracy (Re: Where was the Color at A16 in
D.C.?
>
>
>
>Just as we were having this discussion, I happened to be invited to attend
>a meeting of CWA regulatory activists from around the country who are in
>town for the national legislative and political conference. This was a
>general working group with about sixteen folks, so nothing earthshaking,
>but I was one of only three white males in the room, about half were folks
>of color, and most were women. It was a mixture of elected leadership,
>staff and rank-and-file members of regulatory task forces from various
>states.
>
>One big reason you had that diversity is that every single one had their
>flight paid for and I believe their time covered for being at the meeting.
>So you did not have a meeting self-selected of those with the time or
>money to sphlep across the country. And the resources were there because
>of hierarchical bureaucracy.
>
>I don't buy the Piven and Cloward line that pure movements don't have
>bureaucracy and its growth is a sign of receding activism. Stupid useless
>bureaucracy may be a sign of declining activism, but vibrant
>organizational structures that provide the resources to create real
>democracy are the most important fruits of historical activism. It is not
>just that organization gives grassroots groups the flexibility and power
>to challenge concentrated economic power but it also gives them the
>ability to create greater democracy within the movement.
>
>Spontaneity is lovely for folks who already have freedom and the ability
>to take advantage of it, but for those without such privileges,
>bureaucracy in a requirement for democracy, not its enemy.
>
>That doesn't mean that all energy is concentrated in the bureaucracy but
>it becomes a facilitator of that broader activism. The abscence of
>indigenous bureacracy usually means that outside forces end up having
>control of your movement - in the case of A16 those forces being
>foundation-funded NGOs. Lots of activists meet "spontaneously" in the
>streets, while those with the funding from outside forces end up being the
>intellectual spokespeople speaking for the movement.
>
>That's not democracy and never will be.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>
>______________________________________________
>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>