A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: What can the libertarian movement learn from statist institutions? (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

One of the most common processes in human psychology is generalization. 
Through certain types of reasoning, we assume general truths about 
people, objects, and constructs that are presented in a particular or 
contextualized way. It has a profound evolutionary meaning, but it 
clouds detailed analyses of reality. In fact, as with other illogical 
processes,1 generalization occurs more pronounced when intense emotions, 
positive or negative, are involved. It is behind, along with other 
psychosocial phenomena, issues such as racism or gossip.2

The libertarian movement is not immune to generalization processes. We, 
the individuals who comprise it, assume global conceptions and opinions 
on different issues based on our ideology and preconceived ideas, also 
when referring to statist institutions. There are numerous criticisms to 
be made of modern plutocratic states, representative "democracy," the 
nation state, etc. There is abundant literature on this subject in our 
spaces, but what can the libertarian movement learn from these institutions?

We might think there is nothing to be learned, that the entire system is 
corrupt, and advocate for a complete reset, a tabula rassa, and begin to 
build a libertarian society. It would be legitimate to think so; 
however, doing so without a detailed analysis would also be a 
generalization. State institutions-and, although outside our analysis, 
others such as the church or purely economic ones like corporations and 
cooperatives-can inspire us with useful lessons; after all, they have 
existed for centuries, emerging from complex psychological and 
sociological processes and allowing themselves to be shaped by them.

Let's engage in an intellectual openness exercise and view institutions 
with an optimistic and, above all, extractive perspective.

Structure, Self-Organization, and Group Cohesion

Let's define "statist institutions." Here, we refer to those 
organizations that are part of the state and support it. They may be 
more or less integrated, more or less autonomous, but all of them are 
characterized by (1) fulfilling processes essential to the survival of 
the state in all its dimensions, (2) operating within the capitalist 
political and economic system-although they may openly criticize it-, 
(3) answering to the legislative corpus and the bureaucratic apparatus, 
and (4) having a more or less established internal structure. 3 Thus, we 
can think of organizations such as ministries, state and regional 
directorates and secretariats, or municipalities, but also entities such 
as the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and other third-sector 
organizations, which we know legitimize themselves by patching up 
deficits in the welfare coverage of states (the practical extreme of the 
"expanded state" proposed by Gramsci).

As we can understand, from a libertarian perspective, the first three 
axes are usually actively rejected, but there is the possibility of 
enriching ourselves from the internal organizational processes of these 
structures. Self-organization characterizes the movement, but efficient 
self-organization requires information and experience about how a group 
of people can intentionally achieve a series of goals-internal or 
external. There is room for spontaneity, of course, but only the most 
anarcho-individualist perspectives would bet all their chips on this number.

First, these statist entities are usually-though not always-equipped 
with a hierarchical structure centered on the vertical transfer of 
power: the ministry determines what the management does, the latter what 
the deputy management does, the latter what the secretariat does... 
Leaving aside the authoritarian question, it would be naive to deny the 
existence of power relations in all human interactions,4 and especially 
in organizational relationships. Therefore, from libertarian movements, 
we must take note of the complex gradient of authorities and power 
figures we find in institutions and the dynamics established between them.

The first phenomenon we can echo is the fact that the mere conception of 
a group of people as a "group" is enough to give rise to behaviors that 
favor the group itself and harm those who are not part of it. 5 Applied 
to our topic, this should lead to special care when specifying functions 
within self-organized groups, especially functions with a high 
management value (for example, external relations, internal dynamics, 
information preservation), since the mere designation, election or 
voluntary creation of working groups, commissions, committees, etc., can 
induce the elitism of the behaviors of the people who compose them. 
Benefiting one's own group, therefore, comes to mean perpetuating the 
status quo and keeping those "below" them on those same lower rungs, or 
even lower if possible.

What does psychology tell us we can do? Here, the issue lies in social 
categorization: we categorize social reality and develop different 
collective identities based on the groups to which we perceive we 
belong. Since human beings always seek self-preservation and survival 
(as best as possible), we seek positive, beneficial, and higher-status 
collective identities. Therefore, if we need to create demarcated 
functional groups within self-organized movements, we can avoid the 
accumulation of power by (1) blurring the boundaries of these groups, 
encouraging the entry and exit of individuals or ensuring that certain 
functions or objectives are shared with other existing groups; (2) 
create strong global identities, increasing work time in general groups 
rather than more specialized/smaller ones, fostering social cohesion 
throughout the movement and creating informal communities that are not 
limited to the boundaries of these work groups; and (3) shifting 
decision-making from specific groups to broader groups or the collective 
as a whole as much as possible.

Power relations are more than individual behaviors; they are the result 
of complex interpersonal and intergroup dynamics. It is not enough to 
establish checks and balances, control mechanisms, and even constant 
surveillance; we must analyze the group dynamics of our organizations 
and unions to determine if a latent process of elitism exists. Although 
this process is never limited in statist institutions and is commonly 
encouraged, the strict assignment of powers and hierarchies induces 
control processes secondary to informal group dynamics.

It's worth dedicating some of our time within libertarian movements to 
debate and reach a consensus on the functions, objectives, and, if 
applicable, responsibilities of the specialized groups we create to 
avoid loopholes we could exploit. Any proposal for change must be 
analyzed in great detail. Furthermore, as we have already mentioned, it 
is not advisable to cede sovereignty to specialized groups.

On the other hand, we know that institutions become more inefficient the 
more middle managers they appoint, while direct action is reduced. This 
reality may be due both to the shift of power away from the grassroots, 
which we already characterized as undesirable, and to the increase in 
procedural bureaucracy, which we will discuss later.

Internal Communication and Transparency

A consistent criticism of statist institutions is their lack of 
transparency. This criticism seems to be on the right track: state 
agencies hide as much information as they can if it benefits them, but 
they forget that on many occasions the ground is also fertile for this 
corruption, as communities and individuals ignore information processes 
and relegate them to the background of their own attentional hierarchy. 
If our culture and education emphasized that every action or decision 
taken must be communicated to the groups that may be affected, and that 
all this information must receive a moment of our attention, we would be 
facing a different landscape.

From libertarian movements, we would benefit from fostering an 
organizational culture based on efficient communication, such that our 
own means of transmitting information are perfected, maintained, and 
regularly used, while members are aware of the importance of these 
communication processes. It can also be an effective strategy to delimit 
through consensus what type of information should be transmitted, 
however trivial it may seem to the person involved or the public, and 
the regularity with which groups and individuals should communicate the 
actions and decisions implemented.

We must also remember that in-person communication increases the 
likelihood that the message will resonate with the recipient, so it's 
beneficial to revisit and summarize key points, ideas, and past 
discussions at the beginning of meetings for the different groups, and 
especially for the collective or movement as a whole.

Additionally, it's important to pay attention to the individual's 
rhythm, as every movement will have its beginnings, ends, and also turns 
throughout its development. All of these individual changes can pose a 
challenge for the target group, as arrivals represent new inputs and new 
needs, departures can establish shared negative feelings,6 and returns 
can create tensions due to the confrontation of new information with 
past information. What corporate institutions call onboarding and 
offboarding protocols originates in a theory of Human Resources serving 
exploitation, but it is rooted in a reality that we cannot ignore. Thus, 
collectively reflecting on how we would like to be welcomed, how we 
would like to leave, and what the best process for returning to the 
movement would be would lead to a medium- to long-term improvement in 
our organizations.

Bureaucracy

Although the extractivist analysis could be developed more extensively, 
the critical reader would arrive at this point with one thought in mind: 
"How lazy, so many procedures, so many delimitations, so much 
competition, and so much consensus!" Where is the action and practice? 
Where are we going with all these processes and the bureaucracy they imply?

The recalcitrant bureaucracy of statist institutions-especially in the 
fields of education and healthcare-is clearly a model to avoid. However, 
it can also be a scenario from which practical conclusions can be drawn.

First, a democratic organizational structure generates bureaucracy. The 
only two scenarios resulting from assembly-based systems without 
bureaucracy of any kind (statutes/regulations, minutes, forms, etc.) are 
commissocracy and inoperability. The sooner we accept that a minimum of 
bureaucracy will be necessary for self-organization, the sooner we can 
focus on how to avoid becoming entrenched in it.

Second, we know that bureaucracy alienates the rank and file. It is 
enough to analyze the procedures we must follow to submit a proposal to 
Congress or process a change of doctor or license. Thus, it is necessary 
to keep in mind the idea of always maintaining the lowest possible level 
of bureaucracy, knowing that organizations always tend to become more 
complex and their structures increase in size.

So, where is that balance? Each movement and collective will have its 
own particular circumstances, and only through debate and detailed 
analysis, and even trial and error, will we know what can be useful. 
However, internal movements within institutional bodies themselves (when 
they create or dissolve working groups or sub-bodies, when they reform 
regulations or establish new ones, etc.) allow us to deduce two 
warnings: that bureaucracy must come before the establishment of any 
internal structure and that, no matter how much effort and time we 
dedicate to it, individually or as a group, we will never achieve a 
perfect bureaucracy.

It would be preferable, on the contrary, to create a minimal bureaucracy 
that addresses the most sensitive or easily operationalized procedures 
and to know how to leave open those areas that we cannot regulate, which 
will be governed by the galaxy of circumstances of the moment and which, 
therefore, will fall under the debate and subsequent general consensus 
or dissent of the collective or organization itself. This process, as 
occurs in certain global states, generates a kind of "common law," a 
jurisprudence that manifests itself in the form of organizational 
experience and collective knowledge and lays the foundation for future 
decisions without shying away from its practicality.

Conclusion

The libertarian movement is open and restless by nature, and this allows 
it, unlike many other existing ideologies, to draw on what appear to be 
the key antagonists in this case: political and economic institutions.

An elephantine statist apparatus like the decaying welfare states we 
live in in the global north are worthy of study to find what we can take 
advantage of and learn from, as well as to understand the system's 
weaknesses.

Daniel González Pérez - Libertarian Self-Training Group of Compostela

1. In this case, we are referring, in technical terms, to "heuristics," 
a type of cognitive strategy based on experience that prioritizes 
efficiency/speed over accuracy (APA, 2025).
2. In psychology, it is more commonly referred to as "rumor," as 
proposed by Allport and Postman with their "rumor theory."
3. For operational reasons, we will exclude specific individuals from 
this definition, although they sometimes represent an institution.
4. Whether from a broad psychosocial perspective or from a deep gender 
analysis.
5. The so-called "minimal group paradigm," proposed by H. Tajfel, who 
also theorized about social categorization, which we will discuss later.
6. Originated both by the emptiness caused by the departure and by the 
feelings instilled in the person who leaves, since they will likely not 
lose informal connections with the rest of the group and share those 
feelings.
7. In libertarian movements, we find various natural processes that 
limit the emergence of autocratic leadership, but the desire to 
operationalize direct action can lead to the establishment of 
"commissions" that effectively control the entire movement. 
"Commissocracy," therefore, refers to the emergence of technocratic 
values or those of representative democracies in supposedly horizontal 
or assembly-based spaces.
8. Let us remember that, from a holistic perspective and from a 
perspective of conflict management, a certain degree of dissent is not 
only not harmful, but actually beneficial for organizations.
9. Let us refer in this case, in technical language, to "heuristics", a 
type of cognitive strategy based on experience that prioritizes 
efficiency/speed over accuracy (APA, 2025).
10. In psychology it is more commonly called "rumor", as proposed by 
Allport and Postman as their "rumor theory".
11. For operational reasons, we will leave aside, for this definition, 
particular individuals, who often represent an institution.
Sex from a broad psychosocial perspective or from a deep gender analysis.
The so-called "minimal group paradigm", proposed by H. Tajfel, who also 
theorized about social categorization, means that we will talk more clearly.
Originating from both the baleiro caused by the departure and the 
sensations established in the person who walks, surely, do not lose your 
children, inform yourself with the rest of the members of the group and 
share these sensations.
Our libertarian movements point to various natural processes that limit 
the formation of autocratic leaders, but in the hope of operationalizing 
direct action we can raise or establish "commissions" that control in 
practice the entire movement. "Commissiocracy", as a logo, refers to or 
establishes technocratic values or values typical of representative 
democracies in supposedly horizontal or assembly spaces.
Let us know that, from a comprehensive perspective and conflict 
management, a certain degree of dissent is not prejudicial, but 
beneficial for organizations.

https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/05/26/que-puede-aprender-el-movimiento-libertario-de-las-instituciones-estatalistas/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en