When I was a member of the SWP, regardless of there politics, they kept in contact with new members, to let them know what was going on, what they could get involved in etc etc.
Obviously my politics has changed drastically since then, and of course the SWP take what i've described to extremes, usually being over zealous with new members or even potential new members to the point that they become disillusioned and simply give up...
I've only attempted to get involved with the anarchist scene in england for 2 months so I don't know anything, really, about what goes on, and how things are done. I can get an idea theoretically and that's what i'm concerned about with the anarchist movement in general.
Should the anarchist movement organise itself in a way that builds up contacts with new members, keeps them regulaarly updated about stuff and gets them involved as much as they want?
One anarchist principle, so it seems, is to not have paid members. Of course I can see what this could create. Creating power structures is fundamentally against anarchist organisation, and for good reason, but is having full time members active because they want to be and because other members can't be, necessarily a bad thing?
I don't see what the problem is by having federations/collectives voting in members who are given responsabilities that are a 24hour thing...Maybe it could be said that it isn't practically necessary, but I would disagree, it is necessary to have people working around the clock because for those members who work, they work.
In my two months experience of anarchism in England, I have not seen a visable anarchist presence. Maybe it's that old anarchist paranoia or even sectarianism or elitism, I don't know? But is attempting to create a visable, organised movement with commited members really against anarchism as a theory?