Grand Rapids Anarchists

In the anarchist movement, collectives are one of the core organizing models in use. From the Spanish Civil War to contemporary collectives that do all sorts of projects—from running books-to-prisoners programs to organizing militant street protests—collectives are attempts to form non-hierarchal structures that function as a living example of the world we wish to see.

In many cases, this can be beautiful. In a well-functioning collective, issues are discussed respectfully, the direction of the collective is decided by the members, and the decisions reached by the group are acceptable to all members. Collectives often use consensus process (basically a method of reaching a decision, see this page for more info) to guide discussion and decision making. Beyond that, great care is taken to ensure that members are doing an equal share of the work and—perhaps more importantly—that people are being taught the skills necessary to do the work. Even when there are problems, collectives (in theory at least) can address these in a caring and compassionate manner.

Just as there are an almost infinite variety of collective projects, there are numerous ways to run collectives. What works for one collective may not work for another, and vice-a-versa.

Unfortunately, while this all sounds great, most collectives at some point go through rather difficult internal conflicts. This can be due to any number of reasons: differences in strategy and tactics, individuals holding disproportionate amounts of power, male supremacy, or even outright betrayal of the collective and its principles (to name just a few of the most common). In many cases, these problems tend to disrupt the work of the collective (if not destroy it all together). While it is important to remember that there is no reason to think a collective must last forever (for example, once a project succeeds at a given goal, why keep it going if it doesn’t make sense to? Or similarly, why keep a failed project going?)—internal conflicts can often cause considerable strain on collectives.

A new book by AK Press titled Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry examines these conflicts and offers collectives—or individuals either looking to start a collective or those who are scorned by their involvement in poorly functioning collectives—advice on how to work through some of these problems. AK Press has published an excellent interview with the authors of Come Hell or High Water that looks at the motivation for writing the book.

A brief excerpt from the interview follows:

Q: I know people that think they just couldn’t function in collectives. It’s partly a fear of the interpersonal demons being unleashed (read the book for more on that!), a worry that their own vision would be lost if they aren’t firmly in control, and a sense that as an individual the institution would be stifling. How would you respond to someone who feels that collectives are great in theory but for someone else?

DV: I’ve heard people say that competitiveness is a natural human characteristic and that it’s naive or utopian to think that people can set aside their egos in order to work collaboratively. But I think that what human traits are “natural” (or somehow innate, or whatever) can be debated ad nauseum with no resolution, and it’s really not relevant. People have choices, and they can choose to be open and receptive even if it isn’t what they are used to. It’s only a matter of giving the process a chance, and one might be surprised at how well it can work. Our book focuses on the seamy underside of collectives, but the bright side shines though when strangers come together with good will and put forth genuine effort. And it happens all the time.

RS: I’m not sure what you mean here by “firmly in control.”  Do you mean of the group or of themselves?

[AK Press: Of themselves, their own personal agency.]

RS: If they think that they need to be personally in control of the group or its agenda…  Well, then, I have to ask what kind of vision they are pursuing.  If they have any vision for a nonhierarchical society, or at least a more fair and democratic one, then it makes no sense to want to be in control of other people.

If the question is whether they can be in control of themselves as individuals, I would say that a genuinely egalitarian collective creates more space for every person to have a say and be in control of her or his individuality than any more traditional, hierarchical group.  The complaints that I’ve been making about collectives have been mainly about their not being advanced enough as collectives.

Admittedly, sometimes there is a sort of balancing act in terms of how much to listen to an individual vs. the word of the collective.  This is dealt with somewhat in a chapter in the book, and it’s an issue that I’ve a put lot of thought into personally.  However, if it’s a matter of the traditional, hierarchical group vs. the collective, I would say that if people are really following the principles they say they’re following, then there is much more individuality possible within a collective.

Read the rest of the interview on AK Press’ blog.