Read on Twitter
A few ppl from diff chapters have reached out to discuss th question of nonprofits & similar orgs esp around coalition & org building, since the issues seem to be similar I'm just going to make a few points, but emphasize this: the way you make decisions defines who you are.
First: as soon as you hear the criticism that caring about procedure, democratic decision-making etc., is "PMC" or "white" or "middle class" whatever, know you're dealing w someone who just wants to be listened to and obeyed. Democracy in an org is empowering. Believe in it.
we're so beaten down in this country, we have no voice anywhere. An org where people can feel ownership, learn how to be political, & debate, and be goddamn heard, is an organization they will buy into and believe in. Anybody who says building that up is "PMC" is a con artist.
Caring about process that protects democratic decision-making is *not* the same as being a rules snob or martinet. Rules are meant to *serve* debate. So we train each other & encourage each other when a mistake is made. We don't use technicalities, but we also don't ignore rules
So that's the first part of saying: we talk about building a multiracial working class socialist organization by building "organic connections" bc we want ppl to have the chance to hone their political selves thru democratic participation, to become political agents of their own.
Ok, so in turn, that means you need an org w low barriers to entry, a big pipeline to leadership, and a commitment to democratic debate and decision-making. And those things require themselves in turn that your org is going to be pretty transparent, w regular disagreement.
An org like that is not going to be able to be a "combat" org, nor is it going to be able to be a "deal-maker" organization. It can on occasional engage in those kinds of things, but not too regularly. Those things req closed doors, & insular, fully empowered decisionmakers.
This is important (and I know the homie @IolaElla going to bust my chops for making an obvs point) it's okay for those types of orgs to exist & work together, diff orgs serve diff ends. An org that engages in disruptive acts that req secrecy & swiftness can't be v transparent.
acknowledging that means respecting diff orgs need to express a limit to what they can do or participate in--and how they make decisions. Being pressured to support & take part in e.g. legislative deals or certain actions w/o political debate will change your org over time.
Sociologists have a whole-ass term for this, institutional isomorphism, which I talked about before. If you're regularly making decisions without open political debate members can minimally observe & ideally participate in, youll look up one day to find a different kind of org.
So what do you do when some other org or coalition is coming to you constantly with asks, pressuring an org to adopt them, particularly when they're representing themselves as the spokespeople for some community or issue? You have to have the nerve to delve into *their* model.
Are they democratic? Do they have a mass membership? Does membership participate in decisions? Is their membership open? Can your members observe meetings to understand the debate and issues, to see what the politics at play are? If not, why are you rubberstamping them? Fear?
If a fairly democratic union comes to your org & asks you to sign on to a bill, you can feel fairly assured that the workers support it--you still have a political decision to make, but at least you know the force behind the ask. If an opaque grp comes to you, you have questions.
For all you know, you could be getting lured into a turf war between rival orgs in the same neighborhood; or you're siding with some front group for a microsect with no real base; or some ancient beef between two executive directors. On what basis do they speak for anyone?
That doesn't mean you don't sign on, but you should be informed and if you're committing the entire organization to a political path, there should be open political debate about it. If you're being pressured to make those decisions quickly, *that "partner" is shaping your org*
At that point, you have no political identity of your own, you have done the political education of your own members, and you have not helped members hone their political selves. You're just yet another institution where ppl who know best "sell" everyone else on the best policy.
And so what have you done to build an organic connection between organization and the working class? All you've done is chosen an institution that dictates to them, through your org in "coalition." Have you given voiceless ppl a reason to value your org?
Democracy is not a guarantee your org will grow and be strong. Money can do that. Institutional support can do that too. But if you have no money and no institutional support, all you have is ppl, and ppl who value their org as empowering is irreplaceable. Democracy does that.
We need policy orgs that cut deals--they win things. We need combat orgs who don't compromise and take the streets. We need national liberation orgs that build within national groups. And we need a mass socialist organization that is democratic & open. No one grp can do all that.
And because we need those different things, we can't be apologetic for our different modes of operation, we can't conform ourselves to different structures. We have to understand when there will be limits to cooperation w/o acrimony, & find a way to sail in the same direction.
Ppl join an org for a lot of reasons, but they'll stay in it and fight for it bc they see it as a vehicle for their liberation that empowers them. Everyone in leadership has felt that feeling of belonging and being heard. You have to want to grow the circle of ppl who feel that.
