The leaderless org: Snake without a head or freedom at last?
Let's have a debate! The concept of the leaderless organization and suggestions that it may be an effective model for worker organizations has generated some very heated reactions in a couple of other threads. I'd like to invite anyone with an interest in this subject to debate this proposition:
The leaderless model of organization may be an effective model for working people in pursuit of their interests because:
1. Power corrupts. In the power-based model of organization, even the most well-intentioned of leaders are likely to become corrupted over time.
2. The lust for power corrupts. The desire to get into power leads to corrupt courses of action (such as dishonesty, misrepresentation, intimidation of opponents and the like) which can have a destructive impact on the very people the aspiring leader seeks to represent.
3. Power-based positions tend to attract self-interested individuals. Corrupt people are drawn to these positions and actually have an advantage in competing for them if only because they are prepared to go to any lengths to get power.
OK, let's have it. All views are welcome. If you want to enhance the quality of the debate give us your opinion and supporting arguments as well. For those unfamiliar with the concept of the leaderless org (it's not just about people running around doing their own thing without any focus on a common goal), I would encourage you to do your own online (or other) research. There is an abundance of information and commentary on this subject out there. No name-calling or personal attacks please.
quote:
Betterment thinking might be critically important in the war on terrorism. To win the "war", a strategy will be needed to win the peace. Betterment thinking would be helpful in providing a full menu of possibilities for a better world from which to choose
from an essay by Michael Marien.
Yeah his strategy for peace is a good idea eh? But the betterment thinking concept might be useful in developing (facilitating?) the leaderless org. I have to go to work and I can't take the 'puter. Let the imagination begin, and free groceries for everyone. 
Keep it clean 'til I get back.
Yes, for sure, power corrupts and democracy is really a pipe dream. The one thing that the power elite fears is social unrest. That could lead to revolution, and while revolution isn't fatal to power, it is fatal to those who currently hold power.
Democracy is definitely an illusion. I've watched machine heads use that illusion to great effect. For example, the president of a large Alberta UFCW local placed an order for several thousand dollars worth of union insignia pins. He picked the design because he liked it best. He then went to the union executive board with an array of pin designs, but really pushed how beautiful his choice was. A motion was made to order the pin that the president had already arranged delivery for. A vote was taken and the majority voted for the pin. I doubt if any of the e-board members realized that they had just voted on something that was 'fait accompli'- their vote was for show. They truly thought they had a say and that the pin was their choice.
Consensus is the ideal. With consensus, there can be no trough because everyone freely agrees that it is the best place for some to swim. With consensus the group doesn't need a 'head' or 'leader' to keep those for and those against from each others' throats, or to force the will of the majority or to manipulate the will of the majority.
Facilitators have a role in consensus building, but facilitators have now power and can assert little force.
The Battle in Seattle was waged by disparate groups with a wide range of views of how society should be and a broad spectrum of ideas on how to achieve their world view. However, through webs, nodes and networks, they reached 'Consensus' on a single issue and put their collective resources toward achieving it.
They came together without a 'leader' but had the power, if you must use the snake analogy, of a Medusa. To make a comparison with a Medusa-like creature, the head is the issue; the hair is made up of many snakes independent of each other but all attached to the same issue.
The leaderless group is small enough that it can reach consensus. Those who can't mesh with the rest of the group will move on and join groups where they can reach consensus. Each of the groups will expand, contract, disappear and reappear with different participants. Those groups, or nodes, will seek out other nodes to network with. When an issue arises, which affects the nodes, the ones affected will begin to network and 'web' to address the issue. When the issues or 'event' to address the issue is exhausted or resolved, the nodes dissipate to resume their networking with like-minded nodes.
There's an interesting book on the market called The End of Management, and the rise of organizational democracy (Kenneth Cloke & Joan Goldsmith). It has a business perspective on how 'networked' groups or 'webs' will do away with the need for 'heads'.
I know some of you will say, 'Ah, ha! There goes Finnamore with his business agenda.' However, the reason why I bring it up is because the average union is built on the business model. Hell, look at how many damned UFCW presidents have the gall to put CEO on their business cards. Unions have turned into businesses and to run a business you have to think business. That's why the average member doesn't dare run for union office. He or she thinks she has to be able to run a huge business.
That being said, logic has it that if the business model is dead, wouldn't the current union model? If business is looking to a 'headless' model, what makes you think that unions are going to retain the status quo.
Remember, unions in their present form are a gift to you from the power elite. The power elite hates social unrest and revolution, so they created laws that formed the businesses called unions in an effort to control the workforce and prevent revolution.
OK here goes:
When an organization claims it is not "power-based," I tend to suspect that what it is actually doing is not eliminating, but rather, masking the lines of power within it. Just because someone doesn't have formal authority doesn't mean they can't exercise considerable power through personal charisma, alliances, ability to control the supply of outside resources etc. Often these people will be acting at least somewhat self-interestedly, and sometimes they will also be corrupt or corruptable as a result.
In an organization with a formal authority structure, the promise of "official" power may well draw these people out, just as RV discussed above. At least as long as "official" power promises at least some benefits above what they would otherwise be able to accomplish behind the scenes. At the same time, these people's identity would be signalled to the rest of the org's members. Assuming the org also has an effective mechanism for holding its leaders accountable, the members then have the best capacity to monitor their leaders, and reap the full benefit of leadership by the "good" leaders while swiftly deposing the "bad" ones.
I am not sure how the above process would work in a "leaderless" organization. Without a formal authority structure, I doubt you can have a formal accountability mechanism either. I am sure that there are informal and ad-hoc processes you could follow, to correspond with the supposedly informal and ad-hoc nature of your leadership. But I worry that those processes might wind up being just as vague and obscurist as your leaders are.
God, i feel like i'm stuck for another 11 hour stint to Jefferson WI. My friends from the socialist workers party, spent the entire time trying to convince the car full the revolution was just around the corner. Hugh, if i didn't know you better, i'd say you've been doing one too many doobies, and i don't mean the brothers.
There is always this burning desire to point to Seattle and the WTO. So what. A bunch of freaks got together and made some noise. And then????
There-in lies the problem, how do you sustain, day after day, week after week, month after month, and on and on. Contracts, negotiations, grievances and the problems with workers having a collective voice, ultimately need structure. Explain to me how it works, the day to day daily tasks of running the union. I know, we could all take a day, each member, president for a day...cool.
Okay, i'm pulling your puds a little, but i'll end this with the same message i gave the SWPer's. There ain't a revolution going to happen anytime soon. While the frustrations are growing, i don't find anyone looking for a war. There is a need for change, but change typically is more an evolution than a revolution. Unless of course you are in the SWPers' Utopia, Cuba.
What a putz, i got so excited about that long ride, and talking about the revolution, that i posted twice. Going again Saturday, i can tape it and we could do an audio stream if you feel like you are missing out.
Hey Bill, has anybody told you that you repeat yourself?
Seattle, Quebec City and other places were the scene of a massive demonstration of what one form of social unrest looks like. The power elite fear social unrest. The MFD site and YAWM are other demonstrations of social unrest. A riot is only one form. When a group of workers hits the bricks, the outcome isn't always immediately evident. Sometimes it takes years for the true effect to be revealed. Just because you can't see what's going on in the bosses' head doesn't mean he isn't thinking and planning and that he's not truly afraid of the unrest that will sap or destroy his power.
Those demonstrations had a large effect. What that effect was has yet to be revealed. For all we know, it may have only achieved greater secrecy.
My point isn't so much about how much or what was achieved, but rather the process that made such a huge demonstration of social unrest possible.
When you get the community involved in a Borders campaign, are you the boss? Does the community buy totally in to everything that you stand for, or are they brought together for a common purpose and will then disperse once the common event is dealt with?
It's a new process. Revolution doesn't always dress in camouflage, berets and smoke cigars. Look around, you're living in a revolution, and you in particular are part of it. 
The problem is sustaining the revolution over time. Maintaining that energy through the mundanity of day-to-day union work: bargaining and processing grievances over scheduling, wages and hours, premiums, job classifications, etc.
The reason why the whole legalistic LR structure was erected in the first place was arguably not just to *contain* workers revolution. It was also to *sustain* the rights and claims of workers over time, protecting them through formalized rules and procedures where continuous mass mobilization was not possible.
P.S. And what about the leadership accountability problem?
I tend to see the leaderless org functioning in much the same way that HJF described it:
quote:
The leaderless group is small enough that it can reach consensus. Those who can't mesh with the rest of the group will move on and join groups where they can reach consensus. Each of the groups will expand, contract, disappear and reappear with different participants. Those groups, or nodes, will seek out other nodes to network with. When an issue arises, which affects the nodes, the ones affected will begin to network and 'web' to address the issue. When the issues or 'event' to address the issue is exhausted or resolved, the nodes dissipate to resume their networking with like-minded nodes.
I am always surprised at the reaction that talk of leaderless orgs gets from people within the labour community. I don't expect them to get on board and embrace the idea. It's a mind-bending concept even for us fringe types to wrestle with but I am surprised at how dismissive people are about it. There seems to be a lack of willingness to even consider it or to kick around ideas about how such a concept could be made to work. That's very odd because in other communities, there is a lot of discussion. Do an Internet search and you'll find loads of examples of people talking about it, weighing the pro's and con's, considering the impacts these kinds of orgs might have on our society. It's not just a business community thing either. It's being discussed in academic, government, not for profit, artistic, social justice circles - just about everywhere. There are also examples of real live leaderless orgs that exist and are achieving things. So it would seem to me that there might be some merit in at least talking about the concept or learning for others who have experienced the leaderless org.
I think one of the obstacles is that we are so heavily influenced by corporate values that we assume that for something to be successful, it's gotta be big, it's gotta be high profile, it must be causing some sort of earthshaking change that is measurable with the corporate yardstick (profit, marketshare, size, number of members, number of sound bytes on CNN and stuff like that). I don't know if those measures are appropriate in determining the success of a leaderless org. Other measures may be needed. I suggest that the appropriate measure may be: The one that is meaningful to the members of the leaderless org.
My main interest in these kinds of orgs is that the conventional models of organization do not appear to be serving working people very well. That's not a criticism of the leaders of those organizations, it's just an observation. There are a lot of things to consider but I think it's worth considering them. Our understanding of the leaderless org is another barrier to pursuing this. There is a tendency to assume that there is only one model and that's where everyone is running around doing their own thing and so many necessary activities will be neglected or the expertise required for the successful outcome of those activities will not be available. I think this is what BP is getting at when he says:
quote:
how do you sustain, day after day, week after week, month after month, and on and on. Contracts, negotiations, grievances and the problems with workers having a collective voice, ultimately need structure. Explain to me how it works, the day to day daily tasks of running the union. I know, we could all take a day, each member, president for a day...cool.
There's nothing that says that in a leaderless org, you could not retain experts to provide specialized services or decide on a member or member(s) who are best equipped to carry out these functions. It's the process of making those decisions that might be a challenge at first.
RD's point about how to keep the leaderless org leaderless is a really important consideration. No doubt, in any organization there is the possibility that someone with a desire for power, could usurp power. I think again that there would need to be some process understood by the members of the group to guard against that. As a starting point, it may be worth looking at the factors that could cause that to happen and eliminating those factors. How do you guard against people being swept up by the personal charisma of others, how do you prevent any one person or group of people from controlling access to resources, information, etc.? I think there are answers to these questions, we just need to find them.
In terms of keeping leaders accountable, we won't have leaders in the formal sense. A leaderless org will probably have people who act as coordinators, facilitators, negotiators and many other roles. How to keep them accountable? What's their mission? What are their results? What's expected of them while they're carrying out the mission? Again, I don't think it's impossible to hold anyone accountable as long they know what's expected of them. Formal or informal processes could work, it depends on the nature of the informal org and what it's looking to achieve. Which leads me to RD's last comment:
quote:
But I worry that those processes might wind up being just as vague and obscurist as your leaders are.
By 'your leaders' I'm assuming you're referring to MFD. The reason that our leaders seem vague and obscurist is that we have no leaders. So if you look for a leader here, whatever/whoever you're looking at will seem vague and obscure. MFD is an example (one of many) of a leaderless organization. We have no leaders because we have no need of them. You have to look at the purpose of this web site and what it's looking to achieve. It's a place for information and discussion about work and work-related issues with a focus on organized labour. It's general objective is to contribute to the empowerment of working people so that they can engage the future. As long as there is information and discussion taking place about this, the purpose of the site is being achieved. Is the general objective being achieved? Depends on how and what you're measuring. To me, everytime someone comes here and gets even a little better informed, or is encouraged to think about something that they previously thought wasn't for them to think about or goes off and starts a discussion somewhere (anywhere) about work, the workplace, unions, the future of the community of workers or anything along those lines – the objective is being achieved. There's no need for a head honcho. In fact, if there was a head honcho the whole thing would go the hell in a hand basket. The focus of our visitors and participants would become the head honcho and not the process of empowering themselves through becoming more knowledgeable and engaging others.
I know where the leaders of the leaderless organizations are: they are the leaders of the leadered organizations. Leaderful leader organizations will lead the leaderless organizations, by virtue of their experince in leadership and greater power. As long as leaderless organizations co-exist with leaderful organizations, leaderful organizations will lead.
quote:
I am not sure how the above process would work in a "leaderless" organization. Without a formal authority structure, I doubt you can have a formal accountability mechanism either.
The accountability mechanism will be that of a mindless swarm, devouring good and bad, indiscriminately.
The problem with my post, besides repeating myself, was it was just picking fly shit.
I see HJ's point on influencing outcomes. That is our definition of leadership BTW, but it can't just be about affecting decisions of others. That of unto itself leaves way too much power in the hands of those who make the decisons already.
I hate to keep beating the drum, but over the years i have found some of the techniques that force change actually can work. The situational leadership model has 7 potential, power bases. They are; Expert, Referent, Reward, Coercive, Information, Legitimate and Connection. The point of raising them is, if we could force unions to teach them to members, we could begin to change the way unions function. Better yet, if they won't teach them, we can.
I see the activities of leaderless members/workers acting in concert, making unions become more progressive and more democratic. I think the internet as already doing that. Incremental change is slow, but it can happen, if the stimulus is right.
Frankly, the greater the preassure, the quicker the change.
My problem with these kinds of think tank debates is always in the ultimate question; are they realistic? I can redesign anything on paper, but how do you put it in practice? Especially when there are already structures in place, or in the way.
The perfect analogy is: take a blank canvas and take one with the picture on it. It's easier to start from scratch and end up with a masterpiece, than it is to take an existing painting and make it very much more different than it already is.
I see a paradigm shift being articulated rather than a 'readjustment' or touch up. In a paradigm shift, the old canvass is set aside because it is no longer regarded as aesthetically pleasing or functionally needed. When society shifted from a land-based aristocracy to a capital-based democracy, the land-wealthy aristocrats faded into obscurity. Today, and aristocrat is little more than a novelty.
I think people who fail to understand that evolution 'is' rather than 'was', also fail to realize that the boat is moving, and not in circles. The boat sailed past the aristocracy and will sail past so-called democracy, but at an ever-accelerating speed.
There will always be oppressors and there will always be a power elite to take on that role. However, history clearly shows how the all-powerful and totally oppressive aristocracy faded and was replaced by industry titans who took on the mantle of oppressors. That was accomplished with a paradigm shift.
We are in the beginnings of a new paradigm shift. As power shifted from the aristocracy to the capitalists, no one could see and no one fully understood what was happening, but in hindsight we can now see the results.
Bill, the Renoir is being shifted to the sidelines and a new canvas sits before us. The brush strokes are being laid upon that canvass.
And on a lighter note, we love ya' dearly, but the Canucks are going to kick some Minnesota butt, or you can take me to the UFCW convention. (It's called a win-win for me.)
quote:
My problem with these kinds of think tank debates is always in the ultimate question; are they realistic?
What is realistic? I'm not sure the question is relevant in the course of a discussion about actions that aim to change the current reality. What is realistic is by definition whatever is consistent with the current reality.
What was achieved by the protesters in Seattle and other places? Ask them. Ask a lot of the rest of us who sat in front of our TV's watching them and saying, "Dammit, these guys are right. It's time corporations stopped ruling the earth". The kind of change we are witnessing is subtle and not easy to measure because it's happening in people's heads.
quote:
By 'your leaders' I'm assuming you're referring to MFD. The reason that our leaders seem vague and obscurist is that we have no leaders. So if you look for a leader here, whatever/whoever you're looking at will seem vague and obscure.
Actually I was just referring to "you" as a member/enthusiast for "leaderless orgs" in a general sense. But I can use this website as an example.
All in all, the stakes here are pretty low. The site's purpose is "information and discussion that empowers working people." You do that pretty well for a fair number of people who cruise by here. OTOH, you're not going to single-handedly tear down the labor bureaucracy you so oppose. You're not going to organize a bunch of new workers into a bunch of new unions. Basically you are a virtual coffee-house for like-minded people to pop in and chat. And then, one day, hopefully actually go off and do something about the ideas they bounce around here. It's not a bad little project. In fact, it could be the kind of thing that starts revolutions. But it is not the revolution in itself.
Anyway, my point is that even in this low-stakes, modest-aspirations, modest-participation project, there are still the trappings of power, and participants who are more or less able to exercise that power. E.G. (1) This site is privately owned. The owner is a necessary and powerful participant in the community because if he/she is ever excluded, he/she retains the power to shut the whole thing down. (2) The forums on this site are moderated. That means some people have the power to control and define the participation of others. They do so according to a set of (unilaterally determined) posting guidelines, but nonetheless, they have the exclusive power to interpret those guidelines. (3) Nobody gets paid for participating. That means the content of the "information and discussion" provided is largely determined by those who have the free time and motivation to contribute, subject to the above restrictions on their contributions. They are further restricted by the need for sufficient computer knowledge, communication skills, and confidence to get involved.
So what happens if someone starts abusing their powers? For example, I think Scott might argue that slek abused his power over this site by banning him. Scott has a few options - he can leave, he can go back to slek or the other "powers that be" and ask for reinstatement, or he can find ways to circumvent the ban and "troll." What he can't do is appeal the ban, or organize to vote out the site leaders at the next MFD general meeting. You just don't have those structures in place.
How important is all of this? Well in the immediate case, I don't think it really is. I mean, this is just a web forum, who really cares what happens? This comes back to that this site is a fairly modest project right now. If you are trying to do something more ambitious, however, like organize a union, fight the company, stop a war etc., I think you will have a lot of trouble if you try to undertake your task organized around a larger version of the MFD model. I think your org runs the risk of being just as much or more exclusionary than the structures you seek to replace, but in different ways. I think this is part of the problem with the anti-globalization/anti-war movement today.
Also, I think there is a whole other practical problem, if you actually do make gains with your leaderless org, as to how you claim and consolidate those gains over time. That's what I was getting at in my last post (responding to Bill). I think that's actually the bigger part of the anti-glob/anti-war movement's problems right now. This post is getting kind of long, though, so maybe that's something to come back to later.
What an interesting comment.
quote:
speaking of founding members why did they leave the movement and send around a letter saying they were no longer involved in the mfd?
I've been asked to engage in debate and wasn't answered the first time. i've been accused of being someone'e else's emissary like i don't have a brain of my own. i've been called a mulititude of names by various participants here. all because i questioned what and who was behind this site.
i don't have time for this and you'll only lock up the threads anyway. you've demonstrated what this sites all about all by yourselves. i know personally if this site was registered at cupe.net i'd be livid. as it is i trust the managers of this site will refrain from any further mud slinging about my union. if not than one can only hope my hunch as to who is actually pulling the strings here
is off base. i'd hate to think of the consequences for a misguided group managers caught publishing material that tarnishes the public image of unions.
might get a little sticky. but then who ever said I was a lawyer. 
That has nothing to do with the topic DA. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.
IMHO. Getting from here to -> there depends on correcting our awareness of here. Humankind needs to develop life looking forward instead of backward, measuring and planning the future using the artificial historical stick is never going to change nothing.
Just 'cause the cheese was in that corner and it was good ... doesn't mean there isn't better cheese in the other corner. We're a bunch of mindless mice, we keep going for the cheese we can see.
[edit = removing off-topic] Bad weiser, bad, bad weiser.
I have to admit that I am a bit lost in this debate. How could we take a group of people, reform our union and exist with the machine heads in the trough and not become part of them. Is that possible? I know it is because I have seen it happen.
Power has not corrupted us, our desire for power was to change the machine, not become part of this crap. Over a decade of work has not diminished those facts. There is a great deal that can be done to help people from within the machine and still not partake in their excesses.
Yes, corrupt people are drawn to these positions because no one wants to spend the time to be involved. If no one cares to be involved within a model that is know and understood how can one create a new model from scratch with people who do not give a rat's ass about union activism?
Someone has to train the leaderless worker; leaderless activists need some guidance and support, which has to come from somewhere. There has to be some agreed upon goals to obtain. You have to fight highly organized company models, highly organized machine models, banks of attorneys, P.I.'s, business agents and the others that have vested interests in the machines existence.
It is intellectually dishonest to propose something that will take a massive amount of effort by a bunch of people who could care less about making change. Most would be happy to crawl around and eat the crumbs under the table left by the elite. It is much easier to do that than to make change.
Small decentralized groups of workers acting together but creating an illusion of acting independently is an effective method for taking over existing union locals. You must find and work with small groups of people who care about others. We did this; we revile the machine and all that it stands for, we exist, we care, we push on despite the apathy of the working class.
The bums will always lose
The above is about the war, but can be adapted to any situation.
The labor bureacracy is destroying itself and unions, as we know them, will either adapt to the new age or they will pass into history much like the plantations of the south did during the shift from agriculturism into industrialism. Anything with a structure can be targeted at the weakest points in order to bring the entire edifice to the ground.
IMHO, the "leaderless organization model" is how the present administration in the U.S. is accomplishing their goals. It involves not only the elected officials in the traditional structure, but many, many, other orgs and think tanks involving hundreds if not thousands of other people with the same goals and agendas. Cutting off one of the heads isn't going to stop the beast. Cutting off two heads won't topple the structure they have in place. It's just too encompassing to target! This is the strength of what is being called "leaderless organizations". I honestly believe there is no such thing as a leaderless organization for within such an org, there are multitudes of leaders with multitudes of tasks and talents who are ready to replace, support, or shift as the need arises. This is the strength of such an org, and the Bushies are utilizing it against the workers as we speak!
Hey, it wasn't that long ago when it was unthinkable for Canda Post or the US Postal Service to disappear. Even they have had to change the way they did business just to stay alive.
Think of how you were able to use computers 10 years ago. Think what you are doing with them today. It's understandable that people aren't able to fully understand things not yet in existance or in their infancy. Things that mutate and change by the minute and second.
And please don't think for a second that when I refer to the WEB or webs that I'm talking only about purely computer-aided interactions. Technology is a primary and integral part of obtaining and retaining power in the post-capitalist age, but face-to-face human interaction is a big part too.
I want to respond to some of the points RD raised in his previous post.
I think RD that you are looking at this concept through the mainstream lens and for that reason are making assumptions about the nature of power in a leaderless organization that may not be valid. I am not sure that the 'trappings of power' you reference are really that at all. 'Power' implies that, in the pursuit of some objective you can compel people to do things your way. In order to exert power over others, there has to be some compelling reason for the others to comply with your demands. If this is the case, then Iit would seem to me that the administrators of the leaderless org that is this web site have very little real power. They cannot compel anyone to do anything as participation is entirely voluntary. I don't know how the administrators could exert power over participants to achieve the objectives of the site. Controlling participants would seem to be a cross-purposes with these objectives. The 'trappings of power' that you speak of are more akin to trappings of administration. Even if elements of power are present, I think that the extent of that power is minimal.
quote:
(1) This site is privately owned. The owner is a necessary and powerful participant in the community because if he/she is ever excluded, he/she retains the power to shut the whole thing down.
'Ownership' is an administrative necessity rather than a source of power. To maintain a web site, one must have a url. Someone must be registered as the owner of the url. I'm not sure that any real power flows from this. If rather than having a web site, MFD had a town hall that it rented from a landlord, would the landlord be a powerful participant in MFD simply because he or she has the power to boot us out of the building? I don't think so. The landlord would, at best, have the ability to inconvenience us by forcing us to find another home, but he would not have any real power within our organization. Certainly the administrator has some power in that he could, if he wanted to, shut down the site either by withholding his services or simply deciding to take it off line. While this may be a source of some power, how much is arguable. To assume that this gives the adminstrator a great deal of power would be to presuppose that the other members of the group have not given any thought at all to a contingency plan or a course of action that they might take if the administrator were to disappear from the scene, url in tow. The administrator has as much power as the other members want him to have. If they do some contingency planning, the departure of the administrator might not be a huge impediment. Even if there is no contingency planning, a smart group will, in a emergency take stock of its options for survival and choose the one that makes most sense.
quote:
(2) The forums on this site are moderated. That means some people have the power to control and define the participation of others. They do so according to a set of (unilaterally determined) posting guidelines, but nonetheless, they have the exclusive power to interpret those guidelines.
Again, I'm not sure how much real power this provides the site administrators. If MFD was the only web site online for union reform issues and there could be no others, then this would be a source of power. However, as I've already stated, those who do not like the moderation or the guidelines (which are quite reasonable and in line with what you'll find on most online discussion boards) are always free to vote with their feet. I'm not sure what you mean by the administrators being able to define the participation of others. Participants are free to initiate and pursue discussions about whatever they want provided that it is somehow relevant to the labour and the workplace issues. As a result, the participants actually play a big role in defining the site and its content. The rules are minimal and oriented more towards maintaining the site and providing an environment where constructive discussion is encouraged rather than controlled.
quote:
(3) Nobody gets paid for participating. That means the content of the "information and discussion" provided is largely determined by those who have the free time and motivation to contribute, subject to the above restrictions on their contributions. They are further restricted by the need for sufficient computer knowledge, communication skills, and confidence to get involved.
Are you suggesting that if contributors were paid, that the quality of the contributions would be better or more consistent? That's a big leap of faith. What if the site exists to provide a venue for those who are not likely to be published in the mainstream media? What assurance is there paid contributions will, all things considered, make for a more appealing web site for people from the community of workers? The content on this site is, in my view, superior to that found on many mainstream labour or mainstream media web sites. I would argue one of the factors that contributes to this is the fact that the contributors' motivation is 'from the heart' and not 'for the money'.
The ability to pay for services or contributions is not a predictor of success for any organization. Look at some of the incredibly well-funded mainstream labour orgs that consistently fail to meet with objectives. At best, ability to pay may extend the life span of an organization. It doesn't guarantee success. Look at the origins of any successful social movement and you will find a great deal of voluntarism and very little paid employment. Here I think it's actually the participants who have the power: They can decide where and how to participate. If they are motivated, they'll participate. They'll decide how much of their free time they want to commit to participation. As for computer knowledge, communication skills and confidence – from the diversity of our community, I think that the knowledge, skills and confidence are out there perhaps in greater abundant than you assume. Conversely, I'm not sure how you can participate in anything at all if you lack the skills, knowledge and confidence? I don't see how this gives the administrators any real power.
quote:
So what happens if someone starts abusing their powers? For example, I think Scott might argue that slek abused his power over this site by banning him. Scott has a few options - he can leave, he can go back to slek or the other "powers that be" and ask for reinstatement, or he can find ways to circumvent the ban and "troll." What he can't do is appeal the ban, or organize to vote out the site leaders at the next MFD general meeting. You just don't have those structures in place.
If Scott believes that the site administrator abused his power (assuming he has any real power) there is indeed an appeal process. It's up to the individual to avail himself of it. As for the ability of a member to vote out the site leaders, there are no site leaders so that's kind of irrevelant. I would suggest that in any leaderless collective it is possible a member who wants to propose or advocate for courses of action that s/he feels strongly about is able to do so through a variety of means (the simplest of which is to put his proposal before the other members and persuade them to accept it). Eventually the other members of the group will decide (through whatever decision-making process they have chosen to use) on whether or not they wish to adopt the proposal. If the consensus (or the majority) decide to reject the member's proposed course of action, the member has a number of options: He can propose an alternative and continue the dialogue, he can accept the decision and forget about it, he can move on to another venue where his views are more likely to be received favourably. What the member does not have the option of doing is seeking to impose his views on others by force or seeking to usurp control of the organization or seeking to disrupt or otherwise harm the organization because other members are unwilling to go along with his proposal. At this point, the organization is not so much wielding power as defending itself.
One thing that I've become conscious of in my experience with MFD is that participants in these leaderless collectives are bound together by a common interest and a strong desire to pursue that interest. Their commitment to this interest is what binds them together and guides their decision-making. It would follow that members who do not share their interest will find themselves in a position where they are no longer part of the group. I don't quite understand why a member who does not share the group's interest would want to continue on with the group anyway, especially if he has other options in terms of pursing his own interests. It would seem a waste of his time and energy.
quote:
If you are trying to do something more ambitious, however, like organize a union, fight the company, stop a war etc., I think you will have a lot of trouble if you try to undertake your task organized around a larger version of the MFD model. I think your org runs the risk of being just as much or more exclusionary than the structures you seek to replace, but in different ways. I think this is part of the problem with the anti-globalization/anti-war movement today.
Maybe. However, the tried tested and true model is not getting us anywhere. I think success depends a lot on the shared interest of the members of the group and the degree to commitment they feel towards it. If they are genuinely committed to it, then it would seem to make sense that they make it part of their mission to seek out and include like-minded others. Those that are very exclusionary may not be committed to their interest or their mission, they may have rather selfish motives and just be part of the group because membership serves those selfish motives. The toughest part of being in the leaderless collective or whatever we want to call it, is the constant soul-searching about who's interests come first – my own or the mission's.
Think I'll go ponder this some more.
RV - thank you for your last post. I was wondering who/what/where the guts of MFD is. Very factual article, sure helps when you are a new person to this open forum/open agenda. Perhaps one could submit another post stating what you people all do here...someone moderates, someone does website maintenance, someone does this, that, and another thing. If these functions were not attended to, there simply would not be a MFD website. I, for one, am grateful you all do what you have to do in the way of contributions and maintenance.
I do not think this is leaderless, as mentioned, you have to have people maintain. Snake without a head - geez, I hate all snakes especially ones in the bush that are ready and more than willing to pounce on you.
Freedom at last - in general, if you reside in the USA/Canada - well, we know freedom and we would have a revolution if that freedom was taken away from us, wouldn't we?
Personally, with the New World Order, I believe some of these freedom factors may silently be slipping out of our hands and we don't even know it.
RV, thank you as well for your last post. I get the feeling we might be talking past each other and I want to try to fix that.
Thank you for defining power. It's a good start before we talk further. You wrote:
quote:
'Power' implies that, in the pursuit of some objective you can compel people to do things your way. In order to exert power over others, there has to be some compelling reason for the others to comply with your demands.
I agree with this, although I would add a couple of things. I think to measure relative power, I think you have to consider the context it is being exercised in and the types of objectives it could be marshalled towards within that context. I would also add that I am not using the term "power" pejoritively. I think that power is always present and exercised in society. I think we have to ask questions of fairness about how and why it is exercised. I think that is where "accountability" comes in. By "accountability" I am talking about ways to set "fair" standards for the exercise of power, and hold people to those standards. I am not sure quite how to define "fair" yet, I am just calling it like I see it. But I am sure someone can jump in if they see a problem.
So, what I was trying to say above was that in the MFD context, the objective of the site is "information and discussion." As a result, the type of power that is relevant here is the power to control and regulate the discussion and information provision which takes place. And for the above reasons I mentioned, I believe that people on this site have unequal levels of power over this area. There are rules about what types of information and discussion are permitted and what are prohibited, and there are people who enforce those rules. You can't really compel people to participate, but you certainly can compel people not to participate. There are also outside cultural and social forces which further influence people's participation. Ergo, significant forms of power exist in this context, some people have more and some people have less.
In addition, the people who have power here are subject to fairly limited accountability mechanisms. Basically, you wrote above that someone who feels unfairly treated can either appeal to the administer/moderators to change his/their minds, or the person can leave.
In the workplace scenario, these are the same kinds of options that a non-union worker has when they feel oppressed by a management decision. They can ask their boss to change his/her mind, or they can quit. Most people agree that these are not terribly meaningful options, at least most of the time. The point of setting up a grievance/arbitration process, for example, is to create more meaningful options to hold management accountable for the exercise of its power. Personally, I think these processes are still too limited a check on management's power. I think they are easily manipulated, for one, and I think even when they work their remedies are limited, for another. E.G. at best a fired worker gets his/her job back, but they don't get to turn around and fire the unjust boss. In the long run, I'd actually like to flip the power relationship around, reversing the very idea that managers should have the default authority to set work terms and conditions for workers in the first place.
Anyway, I also know that this website and the workplace are not very good analogies for each other. This is what I was getting at when I talked about this "just" being a website. I didn't mean to denigrate the importance of this project for you. I just meant that, well, it's not like getting kicked off this website means that you lose your source of income. And conversely, it's not like control of website content here gives you much of anything other than a lot of extra work.
So, in terms of fairness, I think the way this website is run is probably broadly appropriate for what it's actually all about. I'm also saying it's not necessarily a good model for some other types of organizations.
I guess to boil down my concerns into a few of sentences: I think power is exercised everywhere, including "leaderless organizations." I think that exercise of power has to be monitored, and that the people exercising it have to be held accountable for their actions. For this website, the only real forms of holding people accountable are persuasion, or "voting with your feet." I am concerned that this may be the general case in a lot of the "leaderless organizations" you seek to establish. I think that persuation and exit are probably adequate forms of accountability for something like a website, but that they are less effective for organizations with different purposes and consequences. So if the accountability mechanisms of this website are broadly representative of the accountability mechanisms in "leaderless organizations," I think these organizations are going to have serious power-abuse problems just as do the ones you are criticizing right now.
Why is it, as individuals, we can and do imagine and achieve *better* and we do so despite all the obvious obstacles? Yet in the context of the larger community we can't imagine something better and we defeat it before we even discuss it? 
I see a future where everyone has enough before some have too much. Is that unrealistic? Is that irrational? Is that impossible?
As cells of collective communities of people become the norm, utilizing decentralized decision making units based on a knowledge base, there will be no hierarchy. Decisions which require immediate action can be accomplished by any of the cells within the collective and the knowledge is transferred between the other cells and acted upon. It all happens in real time, rather than through the pyramidial hierarchy mud hole where it takes forever to transfer important information (from member to business agent to president to secretary treasurer to business manager to executive board) and then (from executive board back to business manager to secretary treasurer to president to business agent back to the member) for a vote and then (from member to an accountant firm which determines which votes are from elligible members and who tallies the votes and then .......................hell, what was it we were voting on anyway? Is it even important anymore? What was once a little hill we were facing has, during the course of the time it took to take action, literally become a mountain!
The power lies within the knowledge base, not upon individuals within the communities! Have any of you went white-water rafting? If you have, you probably remember how much concentration you placed on the torrents of the river rather than on the beauty of the immediate surroundings of rock formations and flora. When you're in the stream or river, that's all you can concentrate on because survival is your major priority. Flowing with the current, keeping yourself within the boat, and surviving the river, are your main concerns. But an experienced rafter learns to watch and read the surrounding formations as they are what determines how and what the river is doing below the surface. Yes the river is defined by and contained within the banks, and it is relentlessly flowing in a certain direction, but if we can focus away from the river, we can begin to understand why the river acts the way it does. We learn where the trouble spots are and we learn how to either maneuver through these dangerous spots or avoid them entirely. The answer to surviving the river lies outside the current. You just have to step out onto the bank and look and listen!
Hmmm! Must be the 'shrooms!
RD said:
quote:
So, in terms of fairness, I think the way this website is run is probably broadly appropriate for what it's actually all about. I'm also saying it's not necessarily a good model for some other types of organizations.
I guess to boil down my concerns into a few of sentences: I think power is exercised everywhere, including "leaderless organizations." I think that exercise of power has to be monitored, and that the people exercising it have to be held accountable for their actions. For this website, the only real forms of holding people accountable are persuasion, or "voting with your feet." I am concerned that this may be the general case in a lot of the "leaderless organizations" you seek to establish. I think that persuation and exit are probably adequate forms of accountability for something like a website, but that they are less effective for organizations with different purposes and consequences. So if the accountability mechanisms of this website are broadly representative of the accountability mechanisms in "leaderless organizations," I think these organizations are going to have serious power-abuse problems just as do the ones you are criticizing right now.
I can see some similarities of what will be in the future when I look at what's happening in the MFD and some other sites. They are extremely unrefined models of what will be.
This site isn't what it was two years ago and it will evolve to something much different than what it is today. In fact the evolution of sites like this are only a part of the future.
There will be what are considered rabble webs loaded with bits and remnants of junk information and worn and ragged information. There will be elite webs with second hand but valuable information and there will be power webs with primary and extremely valuable information. The higher up in the hierarchy of webs one is invited the more power one has--the power to help or hinder.
According to human nature, the members of the power webs will seek to control and manipulate those in webs "lower" in the hierarchy.
The future will see "activist" webs and nodes whose purpose will be to crack the membership firewalls of the elite and power webs to gain information to lessen or weaken the oppression and manipulation of the rabble.
There will always be those with power and oppression. The future will see the power in the hands of a new breed of oppressors. To fight that oppression, we need a new type of activism.
We won't get there is we think the corporate model is the only model. Unions have corporatized and they have brought their members in to a corporate style of thinking.
The corporation is essentially in its death throws, thus corporatized unions must also be.
Some are stuck in the same place as a feudal serf as the aristocracy and monarchy was dying and capitalism was emerging. It was beyond the serf to envision a world without the king and noblemen.
We can't afford to think like serfs.
I agree with everything you have just written, weiser. Networked organization and all that is exactly where the world is going.
I only took issue with what I perceived as the assertion that this meant the abolition of "leadership." I think there will always be some kind of leaders in every organization, even "networked" ones. These new leaders will certainly look different than the ones that came before. But they will still exist. The important thing is to have a way to keep an eye on them.
quote:
These new leaders will certainly look different than the ones that came before. But they will still exist.
Do you think these leaders will still be part of a pyramidal framework or do you think the leaders in these new orgs will be part of an entirely different structure?
How do you think lawyers will come to play in the networks of the future? Do you foresee any drastic changes or has there been any discussion on futuristics up in Mass?
mmmmmmmmmmmm, sounds like transformational leaders to me. You know, the kind that are willing to give away power. I posted the power bases for that reason. As members are given/taught how they work, we will see things change. We have talked about on-line education, we have tried to give workers tools; imagine if the labor movement said, our goal is to stop top down, and develope leaders at all levels within the membership. If they were only intellectually honest enough to admit, they don't have any answers. The simple truth is, the answer lies in the workers, not the leaders.
Unfortunately, to do that is terrifying because their job may be in jeopardy. That is the reason i think we have some ground to cover before we get to the point where we have leaderless orgs. I am convinced the evolution will take us to that next step. I am convinced sites like this and the others will be the tool to force others to become agents of change. It also means we won't need guys making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, acting like they are the solution.
The net is building small communities of like minded individuals at breakneck speed. Once these specialized communities have formed, they will draw from practitioners within the group and apply their collective interest using their collective power.
The practitioners (leaders) will be chosen by the collective as opposed to the ugly scenerio of today, where it is an either/or choice.
Power driven, fragmented agendas of centralized gov's will die an ugly death and be replaced by smaller based peripheral community models, each a compliment of the other.
it is already in practice to a large extent. I once thought ... not in my lifetime, but for the first time I think I might be wrong. 
I am probably posting this in the wrong place. Please forgive me. It was vintage Pearson today (fearless leader of UFCW 789) he was on the phone as I came into the hall today and screaming at a management drone on the phone telling him what he thought of the situation. Needless to say, Pearson was telling this cat the way it was going to be, and he wasn't too p.c. in the whole deal. Fearless Leader ,I salute you and challenge anyone in Union Leadership position to drop the diplomat stuff and just do it.
It has been a long day and tomorrow we go down to Jefferson, WI for the Tyson Foods strike.
See you in the streets,
St. Paul Trotsky
I still am having a hard time coming to grips with this leaderless model. I do not understand how it is supposed to function in the dynamic of the human condition that has evolved over the millennia.
I know of no culture in history where a leaderless model has worked. I know of a few collective organizations that have failed miserably. Some of their failure can be attributed to attempting to survive within a competitive world of lead organizations.
One has to have some understanding how humans have evolved physically and culturally (that is, unless you believe God waves his magic wand and things happen). We evolved to fit our environment. We organized into tribal units. Tribes fought other tribes for coveted resources. Some tribes used their gray matter and created alliances with other tribes. The leaders that arose in these tribes were either skilled warriors, had some physic power over the others or used their intelligence to created or obtain coveted articles for the others.
Eventually more organized and complex units arose lead by small circles of people such as religious figures, warriors and the very adept thinkers. On and on we go to today's wars, rebellions and unjust societies lead and ripped off by the same small circles of power that has governed Homo Sapiens rise through the evolutionary process.
Short of a KT event (like the one that killed the dinosaurs) we cannot break this cycle. It is too much a part of our human condition. That is why I argue for another model that works within the machine, undoing the machine with whatever resources we can muster, through well thought out planning, such like the Bolsheviks used to take over Russia (minus the Stalinist elements).
quote:
Short of a KT event (like the one that killed the dinosaurs) we cannot break this cycle. It is too much a part of our human condition.
See Topic " Five Monkeys"
The 5 monkeys is an interesting analogy and I think it may work if it were put to the test. Chimps are our closest ancestors in the animal world but I think you will agree we have some special qualities that place us far above the animals. The UFCW is based on a reward model. The spoils of the war against the membership go to the union leadership. They get all the bananas. The members get to slip on the peels they cast away after gratifying themselves.
I know of someone who once had a chicken coop with a thousand chickens. He fed his chickens regularly at the same time every day. One day something happened and he missed a feeding. He entered the coop to feed his chickens and they smothered him to death trying to get at the food. That, my friends, is a real world true story.
You want another one? High up in the Andes Mountains there was a tribe of Indians who were never conquered by the Spaniards. They were willing to give up their gold they knew where they could get more. What they were not willing to part with were the seeds they would use to grow next years crops.
Bill stated that for unions to be effective they must create leaders within the membership. That is probably the most important concept a progressive union leader can learn. The seeds for change are there but in small precious quantities.
There may be a place for leaderless organizations and the net may now make that possible. As I read on I may learn how they are to work. My point is why chase something so new and beyond what has ever worked before when we have the experience to help others change the structure from within?
May I answer my own question? We are both chasing dreams that will never happen, who am I to think that the members will ever develop into an organization of change and who are you to think that leaderless (that is practitioner lead) organizations will ever become the norm replacing governments and traditional institutions.
Is there anyone on this site that has their feet planted firmly in this bloody well real world?
quote:
Is there anyone on this site that has their feet planted firmly in this bloody well real world?
Breaking away from the *thought conditioning* process that those five monkeys were all subjected to, isn't easy.
I've never quite been able to get my head around the idea of Brooke Sundin, or Bro-ken as my leader. Elected or not, they are just the people paid to represent our issues.
So if ya' want to get technical, the *leader* thing is a myth, a pigment of their imagination and a well developed and long standing elitist illusion. What a great deterent to new ideas that conditioning is eh?
What man put together man_y can dismantle.
Making the world 'perfect' is the delusion, making it functional has never been attempted, there's no profit in functional. Building a functional world is rational and possible.
Ok guys you can beam me up now eh?
I do not have a clue where your logic comes from.
I think I will "vote with my feet" for a couple of months. I will stop by from time to time to read where you all are going with this idea. As it develops I might be able to get my arms around the concept.
Never did thank some of you for your attempt at running for union office. It is always nice to see some people make an attempt to change the system.
I never did understand the full story, I guess they stole the ballot box. Too bad, you probably beat the pants off of them.
Good luck, hope your model works. See you in a couple of months.
Isn't *voting with your feet* the same as apathy? I know they get the same result; nothing changes.
Hurry back ... 
quote:
Bill stated that for unions to be effective they must create leaders within the membership. That is probably the most important concept a progressive union leader can learn. The seeds for change are there but in small precious quantities.
BP is right about sharing with the membership and creating leaders of all the members. However, "small precious quantities", are the key words here. It is definately an important concept but unfortunately, within the present structure of organized labor, there are very, very, few who agree with this concept! Guarding knowledge is unfortunately the norm within most of our present organizations.
quote:
Is there anyone on this site that has their feet planted firmly in this bloody well real world?
The discussion of futuristics and open mindedness seem to go hand in hand. I agree it is very difficult to step out of the current we have always been in and look at, and talk about, ideas which seem so abstract! The ideas can appear to be very threatening and we have a tendency to shield ourselves from anything which threatens our comfort level. Remember that the world as we presently know it was once an abstract thought and people had to overcome their fear of the new in relation to their comfort of the old.
quote:
The discussion of futuristics and open mindedness seem to go hand in hand. I agree it is very difficult to step out of the current we have always been in and look at, and talk about, ideas which seem so abstract!
I couldn't agree more lic, actively working to shape the future is essential if we are to evolve into something better than we are today. The labor movement for far too long has been a reactionary force who's only eye to tomorrow was our retirement date (myself included). The sad fact is, if we were actually building organizations of leaders at all levels, it would be immaterial who retired or who stayed. We aren't there yet.
The real problem is, we can't have those kinds of open discussion/debates except on these rebel websites that mainstreamers view as something suspect. Hell, i've been in the "inner circle' and they won't have them there. To do so is to admit we failed. It means that the huge salaries, with little or no justification, may well have to be flushed.
It was encouraging to see the boys toss Georgine, after all, 12 million over the past 5 years is a bit excesive. I know, it is too little too late, but it's a start. We are talking about the boys breaking ranks, that is significant.
Unionnow is on target, you can dream about, or better yet, fantasize over what you think will be there is 20 years, but we all still live in the reality of today. I am convinced there will be a gasless car in the years to come, but i still have to pull into the gas station and fill up. If the goal is to destroy the labor movement to get to the Utopia of leaderless organizations, there will be an enormous amount of pain.
I learned a long time ago, managing change was far easier than having change shoved down anyones throat. If the labor movement is gone tomorrow, workers will suffer far worse than they do today. We've had this discussion before, but it is significant in the context of leaderless orgs. Morris Massey said that they only way human beings change dramatically their personalities is thru SEE's (significant emotional events). I could easily argue 9/11 was a SEE, and it has impacted our society in a very ugly way, but it is irrelevent here.
The point is, if there is to be an significant change in a workers behavior, it will only happen with some kind of remarkable event or act. Otherwise, it will be a steady transformation, accomplished over time.
My final point is this. Inspite of the constant attacks on the labor movement, it is the only thing going for workers that has the potential to make a difference. Classic example was the rally yesterday in Jefferson WI. The 11 hour drive was well worth the two hour spectacle that brought trade unionists (leaders and members and supporters) together. Ann Feeney was exceptional, the speakers were adequate, but the solidarity was moving (for me to tears). To think that postal workers in St. Paul would drive that far to show their support tells me there is hope. For the United Latinos to be on hand with a check for $5,000 was inspiring. When the UAW president from the area said they had raised over $5000 in support of their brothers and sisters, i knew i was in the right place. It went on and on, workers and their unions, are not going to let their brothers and sisters fight these bastards from Tyson alone.
It's how it works gang. The labor movement with all its faults, is still the the power of workers. I am an active participant in this site, and the net in general, because i think we can be so much more than we are. I think we can help create the changes that are so desperately needed. I am convinced, we can force them to have those discussions about our future, simply because, we will have them without them. The numbers of workers that are joining the ranks of the internet unionists are growing faster than any of us ever anticipated. If they continue to ignore, they run the risk of becoming obsolete. If the join us, they run the risk of losing their jobs, becoming better at what they do, or heaven help us, rebuilding a bigger, stronger labor movement that is about the workers, not about who the leaders are.
It has been said that "All the answers come in the trying." Defining leadership or "new" leadership might be best discussed as an evolutionary process. Currently there are unions that limit the leadership to one term in office, after which they must go back to the workplace. This simple rule keeps leaders accountable to the membership. It also negates nepotism and political careerism. I realize that this is not likely to happen here in Canada for those very reasons. But it is one of many issues that can and should be fought for.It may take hundreds of small steps to eventually arrive at such a change.
No doubt the net will hold the promise of educating as to the "hows" and the "whys" of evolving leadership to a more democratic accountability. Unionism today has left a huge void in just about every respect of representation. This void is the opportunity and the context for the evolution of leadership. Leadership is not a bad concept, it's just at a low point in terms of functionality and effectiveness. Somewhere down the road, leadership may evolve to the point where it does not exist in some organizations. In others it may evolve into something more accountable and democratic. At the end of the day, leaderless or not, what I want is an organization that is accountable and effective.
I'm sorry to see unionnow stepping out for a breath. Unionnow is a great contributor of ideas and perspectives.
A point that hasn't necessarily been made is that the leaderless organization isn't something that anyone will wake up and find on Monday morning.
When capitalist industrialism arrived, serfs didn't down tool and show up for work in the factories on the first Monday after the dawn of capitalism. The process was relatively slow by today's standards. While the current paradigm shift that's been talked about may very well happen much more swiftly, it still won't be here and ready to roll full speed tomorrow morning.
Unions will still have leaders for quite a few years to come. There will be a need and a role for those leaders to play. Just as capitalism won't disappear, neither will its institutions.
What is being said here is there is a change a comin'. That change will see a shift in power. Yesterday's union honcho was a big fish in a little pond. He was pretty powerful because he controlled vital information and its dissemination.
That type of power is slipping from yesterday's union bosses. From the time unions were formed the power to control information has grown steadily for union bosses. Such power reached a pinnacle a decade or so ago and then started to decline. About four or five years ago, the gradual decline tipped to a sharp drop.
The capitalists and the business unions have lost their grip on information. They will never regain it. However, others will, and they too will oppress the masses.
That being said, what I see being bandied about here is something that will happen relatively swiftly compared to the industrial revolution, but still slowly enough that it won't hit those of us who are prepared like a bucket of frozen poop on a January morning.
There's still work to be done to make union leaders act ethically and to ensure that they become accountable. There is work to be done to let others know about the change that is happening, so they better understand what it is that they are seeing and experiencing.
I think what is happening here is a prediction of what will be, not what we are creating. We are part of the creation. It's something that will happen with or without us. The reason why I like to talk about it is so that we can understand what is happening and what will happen.
If you recognize the change for what it is and what its consequences are, you stand a better chance of riding the wave rather than being knocked over by it. The activist of the future will teach people to surf and warn those who can't to step a safe distance from the shore.
quote:
Is there anyone on this site that has their feet planted firmly in this bloody well real world?
The reason that I am here blabbing about alternative models of organization is because I've been in the real world of labour-management relations for a long time and what I've seen does not give me a warm feeling that mainstream union leaders are going to give the power of their unions back to the members any time soon. I don't completely discount the possibility that some of the large mainstream unions may implement the kinds of reforms that are needed to put the power of the union in the hands of the Power Source, however, I strongly doubt that we will ever see it happen. This is especially so in the case of the UFCW under Master Dority.
Master Dority and others like him have no desire to cede power to the members. They did not scale the lofty heights to hand it over one day to the lowly members (and believe me, many of them consider the members a lower form of life). They have no intentions of ceding power, they cannot be removed from power, they are surrounded by a cadre of wannabes who are waiting to grab the baton if anything should ever sideline the leader and - this is really important - fear of losing power isn't much of factor for these guys. In the unlikely event that they lose power, they have already got their golden parachutes and soft landings figured out.
You see, for a lot of these guys leading their union is not a calling or even a responsibility that they have to carry out. It's more like an investment. It's something that will generate a return for a period of time (hopefully a long period of time) but which may eventually tank at which time they'll move on to something else.
Maybe some cataclysmic event might change the trajectory of the biz unions but I don't think so. Cataclysmic events tend to make autocratic leaders rely even more heavily on autocratic tactics. See BP, we can agree on something.
I am not so sure that these online discussions are a waste of time or whatever was being suggested in BP and unionnow's posts. No, we are not rallying people to some big watershed event. What I think we are doing is creating a venue where people can think for themselves. This is a very big step for oppressed populations and one that I think needs to happen before there is any rallying and action. The oppressed are tired of being lectured at and told what to do. They are also not taking well to venues that smack of the rich and the powerful. Think on that for a bit.
I understand that the leaderless model of organization sounds very strange to most of us. Is that because it can't work or is it just because we've been conditioned to think that we must always have someone speaking for us, tellling us what to do, making our big decisions for us? Leaderless doesn't mean rudderless. Within the leaderless organization there is plenty of room for people who coordinate activities, seek out information, facilitate meetings, make and revisit plans, keep people focused and so on. The difference between the contentionally-led organization is that no one person or group of people controls resources, makes decisions, dispenses or withholds rewards, determines the organization's objectives and so on. No one is able to say, "There's no way I'm going to allow that" or "here's what we're going to do".
I agree with RD, that within these kinds of organizations there are going to be challenges and that one of the biggest will be to prevent individuals or groups from ursurping control or shifting the direction of the organization. I think this can be accomplished through a combination of founding principles, clearly stated objectives and a keen awareness on the part of all group members of the insidious ways in which power can be usurped and wielded within a group of any size. Unlike the traditional organization where everything revolves around the leader(s), in the leaderless org everything revolves around the objective or the mission of the organization.
You may be interested to know that it has been suggested in various circles that some groups of people respond more favourably to the leaderless/networked model of organization. Women for one. If you think I'm kidding, check out a book called The Web of Inclusion by Sally Helgesen. It's a book about business leadership (sorry, but there isn't much out there by labour leaders on this subject) but it makes quite a compelling case.
quote:
What I think we are doing is creating a venue where people can think for themselves....
Thanks. We people didn't have that before. Previously, that venue was referred to as "the brain" or the "the mind", but current theory has shown those entities to be mere topological metaphors. Personally, I refer to my venue as "the volcano."
quote:
I understand that the leaderless model of organization sounds very strange to most of us. Is that because it can't work or is it just because we've been conditioned to think that we must always have someone speaking for us, tellling us what to do, making our big decisions for us?
Yes! If anyone rejects your leaderless ideology, it's because they are old-fashioned or obstinate! Take from me. I *hate* computers. Bill Pearson has to type with one finger, but I type with with one finger and blind-folded: I can't bear to look at these screens! I think they're making floaters in my eyeballs!
quote:
(sorry, but there isn't much out there by labour leaders on this subject)
That's because labour leaders take their cues from business leaders. 
Sorry JD, what I meant was that we encourage people to think for themselves. What do you think would be an effective model of organization for working people?
Oh. I think they should self-organize. That would exempt me from having to think of an alternative!
hey but seriously, read that Harper's article. those people know how to organize!
Hey RV, i think there is more than that one time we have agreed . As i reread this thread, i found myself smiling, and thinking, "damn this is good stuff." Here's what even makes it better; it isn't being had in a backroom, it isn't a bar where no-one is sober enough to remember what was said, it isn't quietly held between two consenting adults who know its the gospel that won't ever be heard. It's in front of God and everyone who has both the balls and the brains to come and get it. One of the reasons i've posted here is, it gets a fair airing. It ain't getting censored or hidden, and damn, that is powerful of unto itself.
