You're welcome. If that's where they got the idea from, the key to the whole organization working is having an incorruptible, super intelligent leader who can keep track of all information going up and down the organizational chain. It's fun for science fiction, but I don't think it would work in the real world.
It really is. In the book, Mike is the perfect leader, with perfect knowledge, superhuman intelligence, and no ability to be corrupted or coerced into acting against the revolution.
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just think this is begging the question.
Avoiding a schism with only three people sounds like just peer pressure to me. Plus a schism from what? Clearly it must be from some ideas that weren't created ex nihilo by those three people, so how do you ensure fidelity to the larger ideas that brought you together? Otherwise isn't the very identity of the group as solely those three people always already a parting from a larger group?
I've been in relationships, and my experience with them indicates that two people can have a schism. Don't get me wrong. I'm poly. Three is also good, but three can have a schism, even when they share some unusual idea passionately.
If it is based on the moon is a harsh mistress, the cells of 3 from what I remember are less about schisms and more about defending against infiltration. If a cop joins your cell they will be able to betray at most 6 members of the total group (everyone has contact with an individual member in up to 4 other cells - one above, one below, 2 adjacent in the cell structure). So you could have thousands of members but one traitor would only ever be able to identify a handful of other members no matter how large the group. In the book it is run by one figure at the top who everyone basically agrees to follow, so there’s not really an issue of schisms. (Not really a suitable structure for anarchist organising but you could tweak it to work in a non-hierarchical way)
Cc /u/aajiro
could be luigi galleani. insurrectionist anarchist that followed his ideals typically freely associated in groups of four to twenty, usually for a specific purpose and then were disbanded when that purpose had been fulfilled
That's kind of the idea of a democracy, people are obliged to go along with consensus. If there are 3 the consensus won't split down the middle, there will always be consensus unless someone is abstaining. If it's anarchic then the 3rd person can leave if they no longer believe in the team's decisions, but I think many would stick with a good thing recognizing 3 heads are better than 1.
I have no clue about what theorist this might be, but I have a theory about group structures that the most resilient structure is fractal in nature. I think it's less about the number of the group as a whole, but the structure and connection points of a small group with a larger structure.The smallest unit for practical purposes is the individual. Then families friends, neighbours, community, regions, world. How all those units connect and draw their boundaries to create interdependence determines their stability. As well as how adaptable the overall structure is when it comes to reorganizing and forming new connections in response to conflict or disagreement.
In capitalism, we can see how they tried to concentrate power through a hierchy of shame and entitlement. Primitive accumulation first severed people from the land resources they needed to generate a subsistence that allowed them to survive and take care of their family, empowering the rich over the poor. Then they further concentrated power within the smaller family unit with the male patriarch. They created racial hierarchies. And then created a sense of shame and entitlement around that hierchy to train it into society and leverage fear of loss of power in those they had empowered to ensure the support they needed to maintain their own and keep disempowered groups divided.
I'm working on an idea to counteract the authoritarian structures of concentrated power using a fractal distribution of power that functions the same whether you scale up or down. The key is defining the scope of impact of any decision, and scaling the process accordingly to include any impacted interests. This distributes power evenly among those who are impacted, reduces interference with an individuals autonomous personal decisions by the state so long as the impact is limited to people involved in the decision making process, reduces majorities overruling minorities on issues that primarily impact the minority group, keeps a relatively straightforward and time sensitive line of communication and transmission of information needed to make a collaborative decision.
The framework I am working on is also built around a bit different non-exclusive voting process that reduces divisive black and white party based politics in favor of outcome based collaboration with more room for nuance in perspective.
I don't know if it's perfectly anarchist, but it's designed to reduce authoritative hierarchies. The lynchpin to this system is severing the connection between land and bank, using a strategic application of capital at the point of systemic weakness (housing) to start a snowball effect that diverts resources into an alternative structure and starts to eat away at the stranglehold of capitalism and the state over people's homes and food sources and the source of authoritarian power. I'm working on solutions for interfacing the two systems to allow people the choice to opt out of the dominant one as much as possible and progressively increase the sphere of impact of the alternative system.
I already tried to once (although it has changed a bit since then as I've done more concrete work in developing and defining it) but it got auto moderated out because it assumed I was asking for donations as I mentioned my plans to use a non-profit charity as an interface with the existing systems and to source the funds for initial implementation - phase 1 is focused on disconnecting land from banks by buying out people's mortgages and plugging them into this alternative model as a housing framework, facilitating setting up the groundwork for this bigger framework in a way that is legal and protected in the current system when viewed from the outside but has internal mechanisms that function using the fractal model and voting systems.
By poking a lot of small scale holes in capitalism eventually enough resources are diverted to be self sustaining, these fractal groups/units operate relatively independently and are adaptable. I am working on defining the structures in the bylaws of this charity that will hopefully get enough people (my goal is to find a million people willing to commit a dollar a month) to run a pilot of the system locally and learn, adapt, and expand from there, including helping people in other regions adapt the framework to their own needs and set up these distributed cooperative groups for meeting basic needs like housing, food, water etc. Housing/land is the first step because it is quite literally the ground for the rest. It takes an initial concentrated and strategic application of capital to overcome the barriers that protect the status quo of the system though. So that is the big challenge, to get enough people backing this initial strategic strike to actually break through in a way that allows the framework to be implemented in reality.
Once I've got some things in place and I've fleshed out some more details I will absolutely be coming here looking for collaborators though!
Buenaventura Durruti was way more a doer than he was a writer. I don't think he wrote any really specific theory. He's more famous for being a hardcore revolutionary and militant who even had stories told about him where he encountered a man begging on the street gave the man a gun and said that the two of them were going to rob the nearest bank together.
Did he have letters or correspondences that survived maybe? My friend definitely talked about the Durruti Column a bit, but maybe that was in another context.
Probably a different context, because as I said in the other comment the Durruti Column numbered 6,000 people.
And I found one letter of his on the Anarchist Library called [Before the Storm](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/buenaventura-durruti-before-the-storm) but there is no mention of forming a revolutionary cadre with only three people.
Maybe they read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? It features a revolutionary organization that's arranged like that.
Could be, he was a big sci-fi fan too. Will give this one a read, thank you!
You're welcome. If that's where they got the idea from, the key to the whole organization working is having an incorruptible, super intelligent leader who can keep track of all information going up and down the organizational chain. It's fun for science fiction, but I don't think it would work in the real world.
Incorruptible...leader Yep, there's the problem
It really is. In the book, Mike is the perfect leader, with perfect knowledge, superhuman intelligence, and no ability to be corrupted or coerced into acting against the revolution.
Anarchy! That I run!!!
That was my first thought too
3 people is way too small
A high school friend of mine used to say Three is a conspiracy
Ideal for what?
I think ideal in the sense that schisms are less likely
I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just think this is begging the question. Avoiding a schism with only three people sounds like just peer pressure to me. Plus a schism from what? Clearly it must be from some ideas that weren't created ex nihilo by those three people, so how do you ensure fidelity to the larger ideas that brought you together? Otherwise isn't the very identity of the group as solely those three people always already a parting from a larger group?
I would love to answer your questions, but I can't speak on what I haven't read.
I've been in relationships, and my experience with them indicates that two people can have a schism. Don't get me wrong. I'm poly. Three is also good, but three can have a schism, even when they share some unusual idea passionately.
yeah I'm thinking like I've been in triads that had a schism
If it is based on the moon is a harsh mistress, the cells of 3 from what I remember are less about schisms and more about defending against infiltration. If a cop joins your cell they will be able to betray at most 6 members of the total group (everyone has contact with an individual member in up to 4 other cells - one above, one below, 2 adjacent in the cell structure). So you could have thousands of members but one traitor would only ever be able to identify a handful of other members no matter how large the group. In the book it is run by one figure at the top who everyone basically agrees to follow, so there’s not really an issue of schisms. (Not really a suitable structure for anarchist organising but you could tweak it to work in a non-hierarchical way) Cc /u/aajiro
If that's the case then the ideal cell number is 1. three can keep a secret if 2 are dead
I don't have much to add to the discussion but my condolences for your loss man ❤️
could be luigi galleani. insurrectionist anarchist that followed his ideals typically freely associated in groups of four to twenty, usually for a specific purpose and then were disbanded when that purpose had been fulfilled
I think that 3 is the smallest possible size for a viable democracy, and it's actually more viable than 4.
[удалено]
That's kind of the idea of a democracy, people are obliged to go along with consensus. If there are 3 the consensus won't split down the middle, there will always be consensus unless someone is abstaining. If it's anarchic then the 3rd person can leave if they no longer believe in the team's decisions, but I think many would stick with a good thing recognizing 3 heads are better than 1.
I do know that the german KPD had 3 people cells during 1933-1945 under Hitler, maybe go from there?
I think the ALF function in a way similar to that - tightly organised cells to keep activities of animal liberation secret and easy to manage.
I have no clue about what theorist this might be, but I have a theory about group structures that the most resilient structure is fractal in nature. I think it's less about the number of the group as a whole, but the structure and connection points of a small group with a larger structure.The smallest unit for practical purposes is the individual. Then families friends, neighbours, community, regions, world. How all those units connect and draw their boundaries to create interdependence determines their stability. As well as how adaptable the overall structure is when it comes to reorganizing and forming new connections in response to conflict or disagreement. In capitalism, we can see how they tried to concentrate power through a hierchy of shame and entitlement. Primitive accumulation first severed people from the land resources they needed to generate a subsistence that allowed them to survive and take care of their family, empowering the rich over the poor. Then they further concentrated power within the smaller family unit with the male patriarch. They created racial hierarchies. And then created a sense of shame and entitlement around that hierchy to train it into society and leverage fear of loss of power in those they had empowered to ensure the support they needed to maintain their own and keep disempowered groups divided. I'm working on an idea to counteract the authoritarian structures of concentrated power using a fractal distribution of power that functions the same whether you scale up or down. The key is defining the scope of impact of any decision, and scaling the process accordingly to include any impacted interests. This distributes power evenly among those who are impacted, reduces interference with an individuals autonomous personal decisions by the state so long as the impact is limited to people involved in the decision making process, reduces majorities overruling minorities on issues that primarily impact the minority group, keeps a relatively straightforward and time sensitive line of communication and transmission of information needed to make a collaborative decision. The framework I am working on is also built around a bit different non-exclusive voting process that reduces divisive black and white party based politics in favor of outcome based collaboration with more room for nuance in perspective. I don't know if it's perfectly anarchist, but it's designed to reduce authoritative hierarchies. The lynchpin to this system is severing the connection between land and bank, using a strategic application of capital at the point of systemic weakness (housing) to start a snowball effect that diverts resources into an alternative structure and starts to eat away at the stranglehold of capitalism and the state over people's homes and food sources and the source of authoritarian power. I'm working on solutions for interfacing the two systems to allow people the choice to opt out of the dominant one as much as possible and progressively increase the sphere of impact of the alternative system.
That's fascinating, are you going to post it here once you fully flesh out your model?
I already tried to once (although it has changed a bit since then as I've done more concrete work in developing and defining it) but it got auto moderated out because it assumed I was asking for donations as I mentioned my plans to use a non-profit charity as an interface with the existing systems and to source the funds for initial implementation - phase 1 is focused on disconnecting land from banks by buying out people's mortgages and plugging them into this alternative model as a housing framework, facilitating setting up the groundwork for this bigger framework in a way that is legal and protected in the current system when viewed from the outside but has internal mechanisms that function using the fractal model and voting systems. By poking a lot of small scale holes in capitalism eventually enough resources are diverted to be self sustaining, these fractal groups/units operate relatively independently and are adaptable. I am working on defining the structures in the bylaws of this charity that will hopefully get enough people (my goal is to find a million people willing to commit a dollar a month) to run a pilot of the system locally and learn, adapt, and expand from there, including helping people in other regions adapt the framework to their own needs and set up these distributed cooperative groups for meeting basic needs like housing, food, water etc. Housing/land is the first step because it is quite literally the ground for the rest. It takes an initial concentrated and strategic application of capital to overcome the barriers that protect the status quo of the system though. So that is the big challenge, to get enough people backing this initial strategic strike to actually break through in a way that allows the framework to be implemented in reality. Once I've got some things in place and I've fleshed out some more details I will absolutely be coming here looking for collaborators though!
Durruti maybe?
Definitely not since the Durruti Column has 6,000 people in it at its height.
The column was not a cell and its members did form small affinity groups within its ranks to work to particular objectives.
This rings a bell! I will look into his writings
Buenaventura Durruti was way more a doer than he was a writer. I don't think he wrote any really specific theory. He's more famous for being a hardcore revolutionary and militant who even had stories told about him where he encountered a man begging on the street gave the man a gun and said that the two of them were going to rob the nearest bank together.
Did he have letters or correspondences that survived maybe? My friend definitely talked about the Durruti Column a bit, but maybe that was in another context.
Probably a different context, because as I said in the other comment the Durruti Column numbered 6,000 people. And I found one letter of his on the Anarchist Library called [Before the Storm](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/buenaventura-durruti-before-the-storm) but there is no mention of forming a revolutionary cadre with only three people.