News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between vi... by 208Gi on Thursday January 26, 2017 @01:03PM (#13493614)
"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it."

There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and, more.) In fact, this act of holding on to power has always been one of the major Anarchist critiques of Marxism. And, Anarchists were very present in the unions of the early 1900s.

One of Capitalism's and Authoritative Communism's finest achievements has been burying the history of unions. They've done it so well that many current unions are unaware of alternative power structures.

Re:Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between vi... by noam87 on Thursday January 26, 2017 @03:22PM (#13494944)
How do you avoid this division between organiser and organised, at a large scale? (thousands, millions of people)
Re:Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between vi... by mlmlmasd on Thursday January 26, 2017 @04:14PM (#13495298)
There are so many ways. The Zapatistas have tens of thousands of members/supporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

Re:Stanford historian uncovers a grim correlation between vi... by AndrewKemendo on Thursday January 26, 2017 @04:02PM (#13495227)
The surest case against a capably Anarchist existence is it's lack of efficacy in the face of powerful organizations.

It's unfortunate because there is so much to love about Anarchism.