I’ve argued quite a few times that the new model the left needs to follow must be non-hierarchal and based on linking of local community struggles, rather than top-down organisations like trade unions and the Labour Party. Some have questioned how you can create a mass movement without that kind of global organisation. So I want to explain what I mean by radical federalism.
The Radical Housing Network is an example of some of this in action. At first you have individual groups popping up here and there, protesting evictions, or demolition of a historic building, or rising rents, at first isolated and focusing purely on their local community struggle. They may even be just one person. Let’s call these groups ‘Save Toy Town Library’, ‘Tingle Estate Residents Group’ and ‘Stop the Bush Hall Development’. Groups start to find each other and create links. But rather than just showing solidarity over social media and so on, they start attending each others meetings as delegates. You invite delegates from other groups to yours, and ask to attend theirs. When it’s clear there’s enough interest (say, three or more groups) you create an umbrella – Toy Town Action Network is born!
But these smaller groups don’t get subsumed into the whole, they retain their individuality. They keep at their local struggles, and also attend regular network meetings to report on their work and gain solidarity. Most importantly, these meetings are used to decide on joint actions. They set a date, and do a picket together.
Through visibility on the streets and on social media, other individuals and groups hear about you, and you invite them under the umbrella, always keeping a non-hierarchal, consensus based structure. This town-level organisation becomes a way-in for individuals to get involved when there is no local campaign in their immediate area.
If the group gets too large to handle, FEDERATE. The group can split into lower level areas, say East Toy Town and West Toy Town. Both hold their own regular Area Meetings, and send delegates to the continuing Whole Town Meeting. Within each, we still have the original local groups operating in their local area. The power remains at the BOTTOM, sent upwards, not in a leadership that sends instructions downwards. This way you always retain the embedded, ongoing struggle of your local campaigns, you get support and solidarity from a growing federal organisation, and you empower individuals in the decision making process at every level.
Now, supposing this were a movement happening in other areas, and these federations were popping up in other towns, or on other issues in the same town – we can federate again! Toy Town Action Network joins with Fight for Normal Town and also Campaigns Against Cuts in Old Town – forming the Valleyshire Action Federation. Just like at the town level, you now have a way of bringing in isolated people: now other smaller groups and individuals, who are otherwise alone in the countryside, or in a part of a city without a movement, can start attending these county meetings, and finding solidarity from the people in the towns and cities who have already started building a movement. An individual in a village might want to organise a stall, but couldn’t do it on their own, and had no like-minded friends in the village. Now with the federation’s support, they can arrange as a group to go and do the stall together. And on the other end of the scale, joint action at a county level can mean the power to organise bigger demonstrations and marches.
The umbrella group isn’t a hierarchy which dictates DOWNWARDS, it is a forum for members to send instructions UPWARDS. You never have ‘representatives’ – such as in Parliament, where a permanent member takes decisions on your behalf. Instead you always have ‘delegates’ – people who carry opinions from the lower level group to the higher level meeting, and who are rotatable and recallable. And regardless, as all are open meetings, anyone is free to attend higher levels of the organisation – again, unlike Parliament. Which shows that, although I’m using words like ‘upwards’, it’s not a ‘hierarchy’ per se – it’s a nested structure.
This model isn’t just some abstract idea pulled out of the air – as I mentioned, the Radical Housing Network has started on this course, and I believe to grow it should continue federating and making new links. This is also pretty much what anarchocommunists argue for as a model for the whole of society (see the writings of Murray Bookchin on what he calls ‘Libertarian Municipalism’). It also reflects the structure of the Anarchist Federation (which through federation operates at local, regional, ‘national’ and international levels). And it’s the structure reportedly being used for broader administrative purposes in the autonomous Kurdish region of Rojava (one of the only stable areas in Syria, which successfully repelled ISIS in Kobane) and the wider Kurdistan. Street councils send delegates to community councils, who send them to town councils, who send them to regional councils – and at every step, anyone can get involved at any point in this structure. There it’s called Democratic Confederalism.
But whatever you call it – radical federalism, libertarian municipalism, anarcho-communism, democratic confederalism – the model is pretty much the same: bottom up power, non-hierarchal structures, consensus decision making, nesting of groups within groups.
Reblogged this on UNEMPLOYED IN TYNE & WEAR.
Hi Graham,
Great summary, thanks for taking the time to set out in such straightforward terms the main features of how an organisation such as this works. On top of what you’ve mentioned there are some particular features of the RHN that make it strong and that I think other groups could bear in mind.
First is the mixture of activists and academics (and many people might have a foot in both camps). The two aspects tend to strengthen each other, giving a clear intellectual basis to the movement without risking it being too theoretical and not achieving practical results on the ground.
Another is the broad focus. There are not just protest groups but groups involved in direct action and others working on practical alternatives. Again, there is a lot of overlap. This helps the network to be more resilient, as it provides opportunities for people involved in different groups to learn from each other and share the value of their skills and experience. So people tend to remain involved beyond the scope and lifespan of any single campaign.
The third is that it organises through working groups. This allows people to take on specialised roles without creating hierarchical structures or leaders. Anyone who is interested can join a working group if they think they have something to offer so whatever skills a person has, they can find a role that allows them to feel that their contribution is valued.
(I was going to say something about a radical food network but that can wait…)
Excellent points Tony! Will share on Twitter as more need to see this
[…] in providing and protecting housing for the benefit of the community. There is an excellent article here explaining the way the RHN is organised and how that helps it to be so […]
[…] in providing and protecting housing for the benefit of the community. There is an excellent article here explaining the way the RHN is organised and how that helps it to be so […]
[…] « The new model for the left: radical federalism […]
[…] the first Radical Assembly. The discussions can be seen both on this site and on Graham’s blog, along with various conversations on Twitter. We arranged to meet up at the first Radical […]