why members leave organizations

Some other reasons:
1) relocation
2) personal life (such as illness, children, romantic seperation)
3) personality conflicts with other members
4) changes in occupation that make them no longer eligible for membership

I wanted to respond to what Joe said, but didn't want to clutter up that AF/WSM thread anymore with side discussion, so I figured I'd start a new thread on the topic of "ex-members" (or more accurately, why committed comrades leave anarchist organizations).

At one point we had over a hundred members in NEFAC. Now I think we have an active core of about two dozen or so. What happened? There are some who moved out of the region (or got deported), others who started families, some went back to school, a few had political or personal differences, etc. But most just sort've faded away. I still talk to some of these people, and know that it's not as simple as leaving over political differences. For the most part they would all still identify as class struggle anarchists, libertarian communists, etc.

As far as I can tell, the major reason alot of them let their membership lapse is because they became disillusioned with organizing their activity through a specific anarchist group... not because they disagree with the need for anarchist organization, but because they are disillusioned with the idea of trying to organize specifically as anarchists.

Beyond the obvious image problem provided to us by the lifestylists, primitivists, et al, there just isn't a serious culture of "fighting to win" within the anarchist milieu. Even the class struggle anarchist milieu. This is where the issue of anarchists taking up staff positions in unions and community groups comes up. Its not that these are reformist hacks looking to get fat off the working class. They are anarchists who have love for our class, and have pride in our class, and want to see our class interests advanced. Its people who have to take care of sick parents or children, and see first hand what happens to people with no health care. People who know that class struggle is indeed a struggle, and anarchist purity doesn't mean shit when losing means that working people suffer.

When it comes down it, for alot of these people advancing anarchist politics took a back seat to advancing class victories. Personally, I still have a belief that anarchist politics can be intimately tied to effective revolutionary praxis, where reformist victories can be won in a way that builds to a larger culture of resistance among our class. But I think it will require anarchists to step back and seriously challenge ourselves, continually reassess our strategies and tactics, and basically fight to win.

I just want to echo SRB on this. Honestly, I'm not really sure what I can do that will give me the satisfaction that I'm going it, towards a revolutionary goal. Hell, some modest immediate wins would be really nice too.

I think NEFAC has a general problem in which it has gotten involved as individual members in some movements that can sometimes take a long time to reach pay off and fall much more into the process of organizing, rather than the regular buzz of activism.

We know that we can't "black block" our way out of capitalism, but so often struggles are so isolated, episodic and distributed that it is hard to connect them back to a shared activity and organization. I think it's about learning how to create a specific anarchist organization that is useful for the long haul.

y'all sound like the Democrats and Labor.

-John Brown

This comment has been moved here.

I drive an SUV and have an 8 person jacuzzi.

This reminds me of the demands leveled at IDF conscientious objectors. I disagree.

Yes they should fight, no they shouldn't stay. If a revolutionary in an organization becomes aware of a cadre of counter-revolutionaries taking over it, she should speak up, put it on the table, urge other revolutionaries to join him, and then split, leaving the cadre inside the dry chassis of the old organization.

Hey all... I haven't gotton to far in the readings yet, but interesting stuff. If I may add a few comments.

Without beating a dead horse, I've been at this since the 1970s. One of the best names I've seen used on these lists is "battlescar". That's what you become after a while. You can look at it both positively or negatively. Not sure how the other person uses it. But I would say that if you're really serious and committed you'll find a way to weave through the battles, the human dilemas of life and the personal-political intra-organizational conflicts.

I think Flint's list is pretty right-on. And I think many veteran anarchists have gone through all of these things in our lives. We will surely have the periods of our lives that we'll fondly look back on. You know, the period of intense activity, non-stop, go-go. And we'll have the periods when it ain't happen', personally or otherwise.

But I'm a firm believer---hallalujha -:) By which I believe that even in our down moments we can make a contribution. Maybe not the same splashy contribution as in our frevernt, go-go time, but constructive contribution nevertheless. I look around me and often times wonder, "what happened to this one or that one?". I hear they're "burnt-out", they're "disillusioned" and so forth. Hmmmm, so why aren't I?. I guess the short answer is I still belive that no matter how many defeats, there are still alot more victories to be gained. Hell, regardless of what you may think of the CNT-AIT, it took them 70 years of agitation to gain mass numbers.So it's a question of a long-haul view.

Looking back over time, I would say that probably the deadlist thing I have found in our movement is allowing political differences(real or percieved) get personal. Time and again the lines are crossed---and to the detriment of the whole organization. Unless comrades find a way to be principled and not personal in their often intense debates, we will suffer organizational set-backs from time to eternity.

There's probably more to say, but I think I rambled on enough for now.

People also leave because they need to get their shit together. Revolutionary organizing, is long, hard, stressful, involves spare money, run ins with the police and is trying on your loved ones and lovers. If you're slightly less than stable, either from addictions, health or mental health problems, have children, or are just dead broke, you can find it hard to keep up and not let your life fall apart. Revolutionary organizations should have answers to this problem, ones that aren't "social work" or vulger interpretations of "the personal is political" but rather ways members can tap into discourse and action at the level of committment at which they are able, while still maintaining discipline. A hard challenge.

I know duke. I wouldn't of written it if I didn't mean it.

Ask philly what? Don't be shy. Say what you're getting at. I'm a little dense these days. Seroquil....

I decided not to write that. You're too quick. I edited that.

Rugger's post covers my case. Very well put.

this is a very good point, something that i've been thinking about a bit recently. The wisdom (WSM) is quite a small organisation which can demand a high level of activity and committment from its members, in terms of regular WSM meetings, meetings and actions for campaigns we're involved in, paper distribution and so on. That said, the individual level of activity is, from what i hear, lower than in previous years when the org was smaller.

Anyway, all of this can be a little daunting for someone thinking of joining. Some peeps will be put off by the level of activity, while others might join and not really participate. On the one hand, we want a wider range of people involved for obvious reasons, on the other hand, if they can't come to meetings, they can't develop really play a part in developing the organisation's direction.

As far as I can see, we need to find ways to allow people to engage in varying levels of committment, whether its simply writing the odd article and contributing a few quid here or there or being a full and active member. It obviously needs to be fairly flexible,since people's circumstances change. To an extent we already do this inside and outside the organisation, with non-members distroing papers and writing articles and some members taking breaks due to external pressures. Its probably down to the size of an organisation, when an org is small, it will prob be composed of a small core of active militants, as it grows it will include people who can give different things, but have different circumstances and capacities.

As I said, its already done a certain amount, but it is perhaps necessary to think about it more coherently.