Let’s talk about how we actually organise, in grassroots movements, in radical alternatives, and yes, even in the broader currents of #mainstreaming. Like a river system, the real action is often happening under the surface in tributaries and undercurrents that shape how power flows and decisions get made. We can roughly split organising methods into two broad categories:
The Horizontals (our grassroots tradition) is often celebrated, but rarely understood in practice. These organising streams look flat, but dig deeper, and you’ll find varying, often opaque, forms of power and coordination.
- Organic Consensus
This is rare and usually fleeting. Think early Rainbow Gatherings, decisions emerge from shared myths, rituals, and a communal “vibe.” Beautiful when it works. Fragile and easily co-opted when tested.
- Bureaucratic Consensus
Common in large activist spaces. Looks democratic on the surface, but often masks actual power structures. Over time, it leads to ossification and burnout. See: late-stage #climatecamp or current versions of the Edge Fund.
- Opaque Affinity Group
A small group is running things behind the scenes. You don’t know who they are, how to join, or how decisions get made. Common in alternative media and radical tech, including late-stage Indymedia and many “open” collectives.
- Invisible Affinity Group
Stuff just magically happens. This is common in the early, energetic phase of projects like #climatecamp, #londonhackspace or early #indymedia. It feels great, until burnout hits, or when trust gets broken.
- Open Affinity Group
Rare, but promising. A visible and accessible group makes decisions transparently and encourages participation. The tech crew at the Balcombe anti-fracking camp is a good example. This takes real work to maintain, the tendency is to slide into opacity or bureaucracy over time.
The Verticals (the legacy paths) are forms of organisation more familiar, and more obviously flawed, but still dominate much of the institutional and party-political terrain.
- Democratic Centralism,
SWP-style top-down “consensus.” Power is concentrated, often corrupt. These groups make noise, absorb new blood from the fringes, but produce little meaningful change.
- Bureaucratic Democracy
The #NUJ model. Predictable, structured, and slow. This can create space for long-term work, but is often reactionary and sluggish to adapt to new challenges.
- Career Hierarchies
Trade unions, legacy NGOs, the Labour Party, in theory democratic, in practice dominated by careerists and backroom deals. These can be captured by opaque or invisible affinity groups, as #NewLabour demonstrated.
In the water of social change and challenge, reading the river, what you see on the surface rarely reflects what’s going on underneath. Almost all meaningful organising for social change happens through opaque or invisible affinity groups. The more stable and formal infrastructure, the parts that stick around, tend to fall into bureaucratic or hierarchical forms. And when those structures merge with the #mainstreaming, they’re usually co-opted by careerists and institutions seeking stability, not change.
We live in turbulent times, enjoy your ride down the choppy river, just make sure to understand the currents below. Know what you’re paddling, and where it’s likely to carry you. As some currents are much more useful tan others for the change and challenge we need to happen.
Let’s look at how we acturly organise. Grassroots alternative streams (and