I've noticed that mutual aid efforts in an org often focus on directing aid outside the organization, essentially operating as a charity. Additionally, many leftist orgs are quite small and could benefit from additional membership.
I'm wondering if it might be better for a mutual aid org to focus its aid efforts internally? It is mutual aid after all. Please understand, I recognize that helping one's community is worthwhile, but an org focusing aid internally materially benefits the self-interest of its members. If one sees material benefit to joining a group surely they're more likely to join?
Am I off base here? Seems like an idea worth developing.
The idea is not just to help people as a one-off in the moment (e.g. "I'm going to feed these people on this date"), but to build durable, long-lasting, self-sustaining dual-power structures. That's what makes a well run mutual aid collective different from a charity: you're not just giving things away and saying "here you go; good luck!" You are (ideally) helping people organize themselves in ways that make their communities more resilient long term. Of course, a necessary first step in that process almost always involves just giving people stuff in a way that looks like a charity--people can't organize themselves effectively if they're starving, or have no blankets, or can't get medication, or whatever--but while charity in the traditional sense just stops there, mutual aid is supposed to go further. You help people get the things they need to survive, and then help them build durable organizations that let them help themselves and other people in their community not just survive but thrive (at least as much as they can under current material conditions). The best mutual aid is like an avalanche: the inciting event that starts the whole thing rolling might look like charity, but it picks up people as it goes along until it's growing under its own momentum.
Mutual aid is about helping each other in solidarity, to share alike among ourselves. It can look a lot like charity if you widen yiur definition of "us" to be everyone not of the ruling class, especially if those organizing it are noticeably from another community than those receiving it.
Example: at lefty actions there are often mutual aid tents or carts. These tend to be paid for by the participants and the labor is donated by them. That's more clearly a "by us for us" thing. On the other hand, I've seen lib white leftists start mutual aid groups that go to very poor black neighborhoods to provide food and clothes. It's not a bad thing to get people what they need but it does have some odd vibes and it is edging towards a charity mindset.
I would recommend making connections anywhere you are working so that you either expand your org in a way that authentically embeds in community or to join efforts with any similar orgs already in that community, or both. If you are very lucky you might even be able to merge groups. Rather than become inward-facing with current membership, you can make the current recipient communities, whatever they might be, less separate.
Main mutual aid thing I've been part of is meal prep/distribution. Mostly people gravitated towards set roles they enjoyed: picking up food from stores/farms, preparing food, cleaning up, distributing food. We always made sure that everyone involved got food if they wanted it, whether hot meal or random groceries from the pickups. Also, we happily accepted donations of whatever people were willing to offer, even though it might only be a couple dollars from someone destitute. We'd use it to buy packaging/spices/supplies. There was a constant refrain of 'solidarity, not charity' and we would do what we could to embody it.
The idea is implemented (as I’ve experienced it) in a way that tries to help people while encouraging them to help themselves. For instance feeding the homeless, but the patrons also help serve the food. Or maybe their situation improves, but they keep on coming down to help deliver the service.
…that being said I’ve definitely been involved with orgs that just d*generates (it’s a verb word filter relax) into “charity with a red flag”, spinning their wheels for years at a time with no real political program being implemented. It’s an easy trap to fall into.
A parallel sentiment I've noticed is DSA members in labor-organizing focused spaces stating their goal is to "help labor." We are labor! We're not apart from it, we're trying to help ourselves!
seriously! The whole alignment of DSA-adjacent "mutual aid" is literally just liberal charity. I've rarely participated in anything I felt was truly mutual lol.
I wouldn't think you're wrong about the "charity" aspect of things.
"Better"? No.
I'd guess the expectation is that a person inside the org might already have a pathway to mutual aid by just being able to ask the members of the org, "Hey everybody, my car broke down. Could anybody help by... (carpooling, cash to help pay for repairs, cash for a cheap replacement car, any ideas on who to talk to as a reliable mechanic, etc.etc.)".
But it could also be true that many of the members might feel some shame and hesitation about making any asks of the org when they need help. So, it would be something to set up ahead of time for a member in need to know which member is trusted/assigned to mediate requests for aid within the group.
Pay dues -> get aid? I guess if it’s for those in need in the group it’s like a co-op bank or something?
