No more "Tyranny of Structurelessnes".

I want essays on why it's okay to be an anarchist who can't stand meetings and just wants to get on with trying to do stuff that seems useful while being an antisocial misanthrope who values social justice to validate my instincts.

So my first instinct on this is that the centralisation of decision making itself imposes a degree of centralisation of resources and authority which isn't otherwise necessary. It's also wildly inaccessible for a lot of people who struggle to negotiate conversations and...

...elaborate conflict resolution mechanisms often make this tendancy worse rather than better.

It also has a long tendency of creating a professionalised class of activist-bureaucrats who are extremely effective "community organisers", but by that they really are...

...a microclass of semi-professionalised activists with a fetish for the clipboards, same as the old boss.

Some of this stuff can be genuinely useful. Some decisions, some tasks and community needs really do need this sort of centralised organising, but a lot of mutual aid...

... organisations could themselves be perhaps better understood as a highly technocratic and centralised way of trying to address a breakdown of local communities and isolation such that people are unable to rely on their neighbours.

What work could we do instead to build communities that don't need consensus decision making to establish who's needs get met? What could we do to create the sort of networks that don't fall apart when a charistmatic organiser steps back, or is outed as an abusing megalomaniac?

I think it's important that we think about things like consensus networks, democratic processes and policies as a form of technology - a useful technology to be sure - for decision making, among many other such technologies. To frequently reevaluate the implications of these.

For instance, why do we choose as the first option for our supposedly horizontalist class eliminating decision making technology one which centralises naturally to those with the most spare time for meetings, that imposes such a huge learning curve on people?

Do the decisions we're afraid of tyrannical structurelessness always need as much structure as people give them?

Also go read Ursula Franklin's writing/speaking on "The Real World of Technology"

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/14195315

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Franklin#:~:text=Prescriptive%20technologies%20organize%20work%20as,%22a%20culture%20of%20compliance%22.

Another really instructive pair of pieces influencing my thinking here are "Give Up Activism", and its postscript.

They're about a different type of activist professionalisation and emulation of liberal models but I feel are useful
https://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism https://libcom.org/library/giveupactivismps