An anarchist organisation should consist of four wings
Community, political
Workplace for unions and industry
Propaganda
Active wing for stunts, demonstrations.
Especially (but not only) for the community wing, organisations should be local and autonomous. In the future society, most all power will be devolved to very small scale community neighbourhood councils, with larger organisations being restricted to loose federations exercising the minimum possible powers that are consistent with a modern economy. So should it be with anarchist organisations today.
To take a specific example: Scotland will be independent from Britain after the revolution. Further, Glasgow will itself be independent of the rest of Scotland. Further, individual towns and villages and individual neighbourhoods inside (greater) Glasgow, will all themselves be independent of Glasgow City Council and the other large scale local authorities such as South Lanarkshire.
It won't be complete independence of course, they would be federated together for the purpose of exercising community control over large scale syndicates such as transport, hospitals, manufacturing, and (crucially) for making large scale investment decisions. Of those federations, the most important by far would be the international one, where the most fundamental decisions on investment and the economy would be hammered out.
Essentially most all power will flow either downward to the community neighbourhood assembly, or upward to new international institutions. The old nation-states, whether British or Scottish, would be mere shadows of their former selves.
Pre revolutionary anarchist institutions should mirror this structure. That means giving local autonomy, including freedom to decide their own tactics and policy (theory), to local groups. That helps rather than hinders political activity, because groups are free to adopt the best tactics and policies that make the most sense in their particular locale. They don't have to wait for ignorant outsiders (however well meaning) to slowly work out what is going on and then pass down a decision.
Maurice Brinton in The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control [1] gives evidence that even the Bolsheviks initial successes was due to the unavoidable lack of control (and even knowledge) over the actions of local Bolsheviks in each soviet by Lenin and the other party leaders.
The Leninist parties have been continually crippled in Scotland by the wrong decisions being taken on the national question by their British-wide organisation. It took Militant years or even decades of loosing in Glasgow before their British organisation reluctantly allowed their local wing to change tack. And Irish and Northern Irish trots have been embarrassed to despair by the facile and naïve lines on the troubles that they have been ordered to sell by their British or British dominated parties, making ill informed judgements on Irish issues with more of an eye on the mood in Britain than on the ground where it matters.
Issues and public opinion is different in different cities. Something that plays well in New York, might be a very bad idea in London. The activities that are right for Edinburgh (midddle class, liberal) might not be good in Glasgow. Policy solutions to problems in Birmingham might be, will be, different to policy solutions in Glasgow. And that means – note this – different position papers in the different areas.
For practical reasons it may not be possible to have full autonomous groups everywhere – you need maybe approaching 100 members to have real policy formulation working – but that should always be the goal we work towards.
At the same time, regional and international federation is essential. Nation states form a substantial part of our enemy, so local groups in one nation-state area should work together and aim to share common policies and tactics where they can. Increasingly unitary nation states are becoming passé - in devolved or federal state structures you must shadow each structure with your federations in order to be effective. For us, that means both Scottish and British federations. The other enemy structure is the corporations, and they mostly need fought at an international level, so again, all local groups throughout the world should work together and aim to share common policies and tactics where they can. Or at least, for a start, throughout the English speaking world – and the Internet makes that easy nowadays.
In summary, I would like to see:
A single worldwide general union of anarchists, with a common (extremely minimal) set of aims and principles that everyone must agree to to be allowed in
Alongside:
Autonomous local groups each with their own theory and tactics.
The international and the other federations could and should draw up federation-wide theory and tactics, but local groups would be free to modify those to suit their own feelings and conditions.
Two finish, two important quotes from others on this issue:
Kevin Williamson http://myresignationletterfromthessp.blogspot.com/ :
There is also the fundamental question of why the SSP exists. It hasn’t satisfactorily been explained by either side of the current split. The need for a socialist party like the SSP has been unthinkingly internalised without any questioning of why this is so.
The actual role of a political party – its primary raison d’etre - is a serious source of divergence between myself and the two dominant political factions within the SSP. Both major factions still seem to cling to the essentially Leninist idea that a socialist party is indispensable as the primary instrument for political change. The Leninist (and Trotskyist) idea – so deeply ingrained in the SSP – is that such a party is necessary to educate and lead the masses to socialism. This elitist vanguardist approach has become anathema to my own politics.
My concept of libertarian socialism is based at a grassroots level, and engages with communities on their terms not ours. Socialists should try and help build their local community into a better place to live in - through whatever means our energies and imaginations can come up with. This is a far cry from seeking to lead or lecture people, or standing outside existing communities as some sort of separate political entity who only appear on stalls or around the doors looking for votes, money or new members.
In my concept of libertarian socialism political organisations exist not to take power for or by themselves but exist to facilitate a movement for change, working side by side with individuals, community and workplace organisations, and even other political parties. This is a million miles removed from a party that wants to “do things on behalf of other people”.
And, from the Platform http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000:
Anarchism has always rejected centralist organization both where the social life of the masses is concerned as well as in the area of its political activity. The system of centralization relies upon the stifling of the spirit of criticism, initiative and independence of every individual and upon the masses' blind obedience to the "centre". The natural and inevitable upshot of this system is slavishness and mechanization, both in public life and in the life of parties.
Contrary to centralism, anarchism has always advocated and defended the principle of federalism, which combines the independence of the individual or organization with their initiative and service to the common cause.
By combining the idea of the independence and fullness of each individual's rights with service of social requirements and instincts, federalism paves the way to every wholesome manifestation of the faculties of each individual.
[1] Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control is online at http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group