yo:
> >Historically, I think radicals have accomplished more by thinking
> >and acting radically than by imitating their oppressors.
Yoshie Furuhashi:
> In concrete terms, what does imitating oppressors mean when it comes
> to organization? Adopting Robert's Rule of Order rather than a
> consensus model? Electing president, treasurer, secretary,
> delegates, etc., i.e., practicing representative democracy rather
> than direct democracy?
It depends where you're starting from, doesn't it? The liberal forms you mention were probably quite revolutionary at one time. Today they'll do for the Rotarians. (Do they still have Rotarians any more?) But I was thinking more in terms of harder stuff, like militarization, which is implicit in any attempt to take off the present system by direct force. That sort of thing may seem far-fetched, but when Left causes were drawing big crowds in the '60s a lot of people started talking about it, and it's going to be noised about again if the present street rebellions against the International Capitalist Conspiracy continue and grow. Yet militarism is the oldest of old, hard hats, and in my opinion has had poor outcomes, like, mostly, more of the same.
A famous article about organization showed up in Public Secrets,
| ...
| THE TYRANNY OF STRUCTURELESSNESS (Jo Freeman, 1970)
| -- http://www.slip.net/~knabb/CF/structurelessness.htm
| ...
| [ This ] is an influential examination of the manipulative tendencies that
| are often hidden within apparently "structureless" organizations. It was
| originally addressed to the early women's liberation movement, but its
| insights continue to apply to present-day radical groups and activities.
As I commented on its announcement elsewhere,
This is an interesting article. It is certainly persuasive;
on the other hand, once the Women's Liberation movement became
overtly structured, it mostly lost its radical edge, and turned
into a set of liberal constituent-interest-group organizations.
Maybe this was inevitable; or maybe the structures which most
immediately suggested themselves to the radicals (both feminist
and otherwise), those of representative democracy, are conducive
to elitism and reformism, and something else should be tried.
In any case, 28 years after this was written and the advice
taken, NOW was giving frat-boy a free pass.
I don't have a specific _tao_ in mind; I just think that radicals should not be afraid to think radically about organization and method, to include decentralized and diffuse forms -- but I already said that, more or less.