Dealing with centralisation in social movements

to focus on “a discussion about power, and conflicts of interest” and “social capital”…

I’ve said this here before, but if you want to get anything to happen, somebody has to do it. If you want it to last, some people need to be committed to it for as long as you want it to last.

Those people will have more whatever-you-want-to-call-it than people who just came yesterday.

People who did more work will have more of that than people who did less work (usually, but not always, I think unfortunately).

At some stage, a core or inner circle will form. And more hurdles will appear for new people to move inward. This is inevitable, I think. No point in complaining about it. No use decrying power and calling whatever-it-is social capital as if the people who did the work are necessarily capitalists and should be demonized.

It’s like a cell has a nucleus and a membrane.

But a healthy human-organizational cell continues to incorporate more people and help them move toward the nucleus, and when needed, divide into more cells, and expand into an organism. (Sorry for the metaphors, but they seemed apt, and I mean them as more than metaphors…)

When does the inner circle decay and threaten the health of the cell and and the organism? How do the members of the inner circle refresh the organism?

overheard on scuttlebutt

More from Aadil Ayub