Read the full document attached here by a click on "attachments"
Possible tools of communication, structures and aims of an international horizontal anticapitalist network
Intro and disclaimer :
The first part of this document relies mainly on the report of the final decisionnal meeting from the PGA conference in Dijon in august 2006 and from the winter meeting in Hamburg in January 2007. There are also various “reminders” from older meetings to help understanding what the words/concepts used refer to and to keep in mind decisions and debates of the past. The first part is focused on political and practical decisions about the tools of organization and communication of the network. The second one is more about the general goals and meaning of network as pga (with a few additional texts). Reapropriating the so called "pga process" may look like a challenge as part of it is quite precise, technical and doesn't sound so sexy. Not without mentioning that part of these decisions stayed as a wish and were never concretely put into practice or at least not as expected (as it often happens when decisions are taken within a group of people who are spread all over the place without clearly defined roles and responsabilities and who don't work with each other on a regular basis). During and after Dijon's final process meeting, various strong criticisms were made about the fact that the central focus and space taken here by debate on « technical tools » reflected a bureaucratic dynamic that prevented us from trying to raise more in-depth political questions about the meanings and goals of such a network. The activist reflex of creating « tools » (such as email list) sometimes hide the lack of political purpose and energy to do something out of it. Such focus could also be seen as a trap and « creativity killer » that pushed us to keep the « pga institution » going by improving the existing tools better than trying to put it more fundamentally into question. Without denying the importance and accuracy of this criticism in regard of future process debates inside pga europe, we also have to emphasize the fact the even an anti-authoritarian coordination platform (as pga could be seen) need clear and accessible tools of organization to exist in time, to be able to take the minimal decisions that have to be collectively taken and for people to get involved. Compared to traditional centralised organizations and political parties, the challenge we face is to be formal enough to function and communicate without reproducing all the coercitive systems, divisions, specializations, delegations of power, and hierarchies that can go along with pyramidal structures (knowing that all these can also sometimes easilly develop through the « tyranny of absence of structures »). So beyond the technical aspect, discussing structures that fit to our goals and ethics can also be see a meaningfull adventures relevant to any wide revolutionary project. From this point view the pga process can be seen as a passionating experimental ground that could involve many and not be only the matter of a bunch of boring « pga experts ». We could also add that taking the time to read this might prevent hours of discussions spent « reinventing the wheel » without knowing what was already tried.
Have a good reading !