Tag: WG

Working Groups, Horizontal Organising, and Getting Things Done

“Working groups (#WG) have one job – get things done, they don’t need permission for every step – they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it, that’s the whole structure.”

One of the biggest recurring naiveties of horizontal organising is the belief that every decision needs to be made by everybody. This sounds democratic, but in long historical practice this leads to endless meetings, burnout, frustration, and eventually informal hierarchies where the people with the most time, confidence, or stubbornness end up making decisions anyway.

The result is a process that appears horizontal while quietly becoming ineffective. A simple principle cuts through much of this mess – Working Groups (#WG) have one job: get things done. They do not need permission for every step. They do not need endless consensus rounds, do not need to return every small decision to the collective, they need to:

  • work openly
  • report regularly
  • consult when their actions affect others
  • hand back decisions that are too large for them to own alone

That’s it, everything else is unnecessary.

The purpose of a working group is not to represent the collective. It is to carry out practical work on behalf of the collective. If people have agreed that a task matters, then the group trusted with that task needs the autonomy to do it. This is the difference between #4opens governance and bureaucratic administration.

To make this work we do need to compost some mess, we have the trap of process fetishism, many activist groups develop what can only be described as a fetish for process. Every decision becomes a collective decision, disagreement becomes crisis, and every proposal requires multiple rounds of consultation. The intention is usually good, people want participation, accountability, and fairness. But the outcome is the opposite, the people doing practical work become exhausted, new people struggle to engage, urgent opportunities are missed, and hidden power emerges behind the scenes. What looks democratic becomes an all to familiar form of paralysis.

The irony is that this benefits the existing informal leadership. When formal decisions become impossible, influence shifts to whoever has the strongest social networks, the loudest voice, and the most time to spend in meetings. The supposed “open” process becomes a mask for power rather than a challenge to it.

Healthy horizontal organising is not about removing responsibility, it is about distributing responsibility. People take on work, groups take on tasks. Decisions are made at the lowest level possible and issues only move upwards when they genuinely affect the wider collective.

This keeps decision-making close to the work itself, as the people closest to a problem usually understand it best. The wider group only needs to step in when questions become collective questions. It’s a #KISS working path with a long history that creates a living structure rather than a bureaucratic one – healthy movements should feel more like a network of trust than a chain of command.

The challenge is not only structural, it is emotional, by organising through feelings, relationships, identity, and emotional response. This is not inherently bad, as movements need care, solidarity to built as people who support one another, without this emotional connection, activism becomes mechanical and brittle.

But there are too sides to this, when emotional comfort becomes more important than practical outcomes, problems emerge. Conflict becomes difficult, criticism becomes threatening leading to accountability becoming personalised leading to disagreement becoming interpreted as harm. The result is that difficult conversations are avoided until they explode, groups become trapped between politeness and resentment so nothing gets resolved. This is where the debate between fluffy and spiky becomes useful.

  • Fluffy practices build trust.
  • Spiky practices solve problems.

Healthy organising needs both, but too much fluffy and nothing changes. Too much spiky and people burn out. The art is finding the balance.

The foundation of horizontal organising is trust – Trust people to take initiative, working groups to carry out agreed tasks. Trust transparency more than control, trust report backs more than permission, accountability more than management. The goal is not to eliminate power, it is to make power visible, distributed, and accountable.

That means allowing people freedom to act while ensuring the collective remains informed and able to intervene when necessary. A working group should never need permission to do its job, if it does, then either the group has not been trusted with the task, or the collective has not yet decided what it wants. In both cases, the problem is not the working group as good process should help people act together, not prevent them from acting at all.

Trust the work.

#process #oxfordboaters #WG

The non-action bloc: resignation, cynicism, and the culture that keeps people powerless

“#Oxfordboaters – Some of the people have to lie to themselves as they blindly believe in private property and rule of law but squat on private property and brack the law by not moving. They try and pretend this is not true, if they do this pretending to strongly they will make us all homeless.”

A lot of people are up shit creek without a paddle, yet keep looking in the same places that got them there. On this apathy and laissez-faire “common sense”, we have a real problem, decades of #stupidindividualism have left people expecting things to somehow fix themselves while collective capacity withers. The answer isn’t wishing people were different, it’s building structures, cultures, and tools that reflect challenging take this reality.

There’s plenty of room for creativity in that work. So how do we start to compost this mess of people ending up trapped in this contradiction. To recap, they profess a strong belief in private property and the rule of law, yet in practice they occupy private property and rely on not being moved on. To avoid facing this contradiction, they tell themselves stories that make the contradiction disappear.

The problem is that reality doesn’t go away just because we refuse to look at it. The more tightly people cling to these comforting narratives, the harder it becomes to deal with the actual situation. And if they cling too hard, they risk creating outcomes that harm everyone, including making all us #Oxfordboaters homeless.

Yes, these stories can hold things together for a while, but when events threaten to sweep them away, the contradictions are exposed. What looked like certainty is revealed as wishful thinking, and people are left paralysed by indecision, unable to act because the assumptions they depended on no longer fit the world in front of them.

We can’t do much about the hardened #fluffy crowd – so committed to comfort and respectability that no amount of evidence will shift them toward meaningful action. That is a real limit, and it’s worth being honest about it rather than wasting energy trying to convert the unconvertible.

But the hardened fluffy crowd is not the main problem. The more urgent challenge is the vast non-action bloc: the enormous number of people who are not hostile to change, not ideologically committed to the status quo, but who have simply stopped believing that collective action is possible, meaningful, or worth the cost. The culture of resignation that surrounds this bloc is one of the most significant political #blocks of our times.

This mess is almost entirely manufactured, so how is this resignation made, it’s not because people are stupid, but more that decades of #neoliberalism have done systematic work on how people understand themselves and each other. Isolation has been normalised. Cynicism has been marketed as sophistication. #stupidindividualism – the belief that you are fundamentally alone, that your choices are personal rather than political, that the market is more real than the community – has been embedded so deeply that it feels like common sense.

People are taught to see themselves as consumers, not citizens, as individuals navigating a system, not as communities capable of changing one. That teaching is not accidental as an atomised population is a manageable population. Resignation is not a natural response to difficult circumstances, it is a political outcome, produced and maintained by specific interests.

On coalitions? Some people argue we need to “build coalitions” with everyone – that the task is to be broad, inclusive, and endlessly accommodating. That pink haired instinct comes from a good place, but a coalition is not built by enabling anti-social behaviour, learned helplessness, or endless doom-scrolling. A coalition is not a waiting room where everyone gets to stay comfortable while somebody else does the work. A coalition needs people willing to act together – the only meaningful definition. Broadness is a means, not an end. A movement that is wide but paralysed is not a movement, it is a demographic.

These are two retreats that serve the same master – the real problem is not disagreement between people who want change, as disagreement is healthy and productive. The problem is the shared belief – held across otherwise very different political tendencies – that nothing can fundamentally change, or that someone else should be the one to change it. This belief takes two main forms, and both are dead ends.

  • #toxicIdealism retreats into fantasies of purity – waiting for the perfect conditions, the perfect movement, the perfect analysis before acting. It mistakes the map for the territory, the theory for the practice, the vision for the work. It can look like radicalism while functioning as paralysis.
  • Mindless cynicism retreats in the opposite direction – into excuses for inaction dressed as realism. Nothing works, nothing changes, everyone is corrupt, the system always wins. It can look like hard-headedness while functioning as surrender. Both #toxicIdealism and cynicism leave existing power entirely untouched. They are, in that sense, two faces of the same capitulation.

There is nothing in toxic idealism or mindless cynicism except fuel for the status quo, one retreats into fantasies of purity, the other into excuses for inaction, both leave existing power untouched. The actual task

The path is not hate of the people who have been shaped by these cultures, or contempt for the resigned, the cynical, or the burned-out as this is both morally wrong and politically stupid – it deepens the isolation it claims to criticise. The people inside the non-action bloc are not enemies. They are, in most cases, people who have been failed by every institution that was supposed to give them a reason to act.

The task is to challenge the culture that keeps people powerless., to offer, concretely and practically, experiences of collective action that work – that produce real results, relationships, and evidence that things can be different. Not rhetoric about possibility, but demonstrations of it. Free people from isolation, show them they are not alone, that their situation is shared, that shared situations have shared solutions. Free people from cynicism – not by arguing against it, but by making it empirically wrong. Rebuild collective action, not as an ideal but as a practice: small, visible, cumulative, and real.

The #enclosure we are pushing back against is not only economic or digital, it is the enclosure of imagination – the slow fencing-off of the belief that collective life is possible at all. Reclaiming the commons begins with reclaiming the conviction that there are a commons to reclaim. That is political work, and it starts with the person in front of you.

#OMN #fluffy #neoliberalism #stupidindividualism #toxicIdealism #enclosure #commons #activism #collectiveaction #openweb

#Nicenasty the hidden power of soft obstruction

“Working groups (#WG) have one job – get things done, they don’t need permission for every step – they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it, that’s the whole structure.”