Formal Organizing or Informal Organizing?

Gawd! The start of this thread sounded dead promising!

Good question - it doesn't match your example imo. And that's why I'll ask you to clarify what you're asking here. Unless I'm mistaken, Anon are not organising anything (though what "they" do has it's place and is worthy of respect).

Two questions:

- How are you defining "formal" and "informal" organising?

- How do you feel Anonymous fits these things?

I don't see how those two contradict each other.

Look at anarcho-syndicalism, for example the FAU covers both grounds perfectly well (at least those you described here).

Well, if you're asking what is the best structure to build for a task(s) specific purpose - informal or formal - then my guess would be it's about size and whether it can work. I presume you'd want to enshrine direct democracy within the group/organisation and this is difficult to take on without agreeing protocol. Larger the group, larger the geographical spread and then you're into federalism. But as Railyon has said, there shouldn't necessarily be contradictions in any anarcho-syndicalist org. Small groups are less formal, relying on consensus instead of voting, but these groups in turn feed into a wider more formal structure - and it works well imo.

within a formal organisation you have informal organisation. Formal orgs are not monolithic.

so formal orgs will have different groups of friends and different cadres who may group around political issues.

formal organisation is a kind of shell that can be used to bring together and mediate between multiple instances of informal organisation.

Yeah, I too thought this thread was going to be about the workplace.

The OP should read about formal or informal (activist) organisations.

As others have said it's a question of goals, size, and activity. Although (and as those in my SF local will confirm) I'm a sucker for formality and formalised protocol.

Id agree with this sentiment as i think formalisation creates at least the potential for greater accountability and collective responsibility.

I think the best organisational form is determined by the kinds of thing you want to do, who might be involved and the external restrictions and obsticles. Anonymous is a great form for organising illegal action based around a theme (in their case hacking). In some ways it's similar to how certain antifacist cells opperated in Spain. Small groups of people getting together for a task or series of tasks, identifying with a movement, but being secret individually.

For longer term legal groupings based on some organisational unity and (national political orgs, revolutionary unions, etc) federalism seems obviously appropriate, as does formal, closes membership (as in, people have to be formal members to vote at meetings etc., and have to agree with the politcal program/ethos of the organisation).

For national 'united front' (for want of a better term) groups (anti-cuts, for example) federalism with a fixed membership of organisations (local groups) rather than people makes sense, given that locals are likely to have non-fixed membership.

For local 'united front' groups, open membership but with a couple of elected officers to keep thins ticking over seems to make sense.

And these are just the kind of forms one might use for a few of the more common/notable types of organisation in the UK today. There are plenty more when you widen scope.

Formal, because in an informal group where anyone can claim membership, weird/silly "anarchists" like you will start dealing drugs or something and claiming association with the group. Fuck that shit.

+1

You were trying to deal drugs in the name of anonymous? Fuck...

That was Anonymous, as it was - the "internet hate machine".

I think at one stage, most likely the early ones, they also labeled themselves nihilists, so there you go... (which was just a petty defense for their shit-stirring anyway)

And I can still remember the whole RL trolling thing, confused the fuck outta me to see them go hacktivists at one point, not that I mind in the least.