A few things - what it seems to push forth is that all forms of hierarchical structure is terrible. It's not specific as to what context it refers to "organisers" in but here's a few off the top of my head. This ain't exhaustative btw, its just what i see the problem is.
In most proper leftist organisations I've seen, organisers are typically cadre, or those who have shown committment to the professed cause and have displayed their ability to coordinate resources and efforts well, on top of maintaining a consistent message. They are looked up to, because they have "earned" their position, they have shown that they can handle it when shit goes down. However, this does not mean that they are "above" anyone in some unjust hierarchy. It usually just means they have more responsibility - they can be subjected to critique and recall, if it is justified.
Secondly, it's unwise to assume that all of your comrades are going to have the same amount of time or energy, or can put the same amount of effort into the liberatory struggle, for a variety of reasons, like working, or family, or study - also, some people are just more able to administrate than others. It's even less wise to assume the same in a mass movement or even in labour organising - the failure of horizontalism in Occupy in the late 2000s is an example. If i remember right, it bogged down decision-making, and allowed for opportunism to seep into the movement. Additionally, if your enemy is way more organised than a mass movement will most likely ever be, a non-hierarchical horizontalist movement is probably gonna get steamrolled.
It's also kinda wack? All leftist formations depend on organisers, to some extent. How else are you gonna work with the working class in a unified front to advance their interests
A few things - what it seems to push forth is that all forms of hierarchical structure is terrible. It's not specific as to what context it refers to "organisers" in but here's a few off the top of my head. This ain't exhaustative btw, its just what i see the problem is.
In most proper leftist organisations I've seen, organisers are typically cadre, or those who have shown committment to the professed cause and have displayed their ability to coordinate resources and efforts well, on top of maintaining a consistent message. They are looked up to, because they have "earned" their position, they have shown that they can handle it when shit goes down. However, this does not mean that they are "above" anyone in some unjust hierarchy. It usually just means they have more responsibility - they can be subjected to critique and recall, if it is justified.
Secondly, it's unwise to assume that all of your comrades are going to have the same amount of time or energy, or can put the same amount of effort into the liberatory struggle, for a variety of reasons, like working, or family, or study - also, some people are just more able to administrate than others. It's even less wise to assume the same in a mass movement or even in labour organising - the failure of horizontalism in Occupy in the late 2000s is an example. If i remember right, it bogged down decision-making, and allowed for opportunism to seep into the movement. Additionally, if your enemy is way more organised than a mass movement will most likely ever be, a non-hierarchical horizontalist movement is probably gonna get steamrolled.
It's also kinda wack? All leftist formations depend on organisers, to some extent. How else are you gonna work with the working class in a unified front to advance their interests