Meetings don't have to suck! Some thoughts on the anarchist movement.

If we – as a movement – take step back I don't think it's actually that difficult to see why so many people come to a few meetings and then never return. As I've gotten a bit older and my time is a bit more precious, I find myself getting more easily frustrated with a lot of aspects of anarchist organisations. I don't have kids, but I imagine if I did, all these things would be all the more pressing.

Anyway, enough with the whinging, here's my list:

Start meetings on time.

Some less-than-desirable aspects of the anarchist movement are probably unavoidable in the short-to-medium term. Pubs and cafes are far from ideal meeting spaces and it's quite a spoiled group that gets to meet at a building that's up to code. That's all probably largely unavoidable until our financial base develops a bit. What is avoidable is when we begin our meetings. A 7 o'clock start should mean a 7 o'clock start. And, granted, many people work and have responsibilities at home and are going to be late from time-to-time; this is meant as no disrespect toward them. But as a movement we'd benefit from the discipline that comes from sticking to a schedule (something that would hopefully carry over into other aspects of our organisations as well).

Chair with an iron fist.

It seems that no matter how often we meet, we always have more to discuss that can feasibly be achieved within the agenda. And – let's be honest – every group has at least one talker. Chairing is a skill. Some people are naturally good at it; most aren't. And I think that's largely because good chairing takes a directness which anarchists – generally friendly people with a concern for inclusion – aren't always comfortable with.

So, what can be done? A few minutes at the beginning of every meeting to explain chairing procedure is always a good idea. From there, setting time limits for each topic and for individual responses will need to become a normalized part of anarchist meetings as we grow as movement. Finally, co-chairing – where a confident chair pairs ups with a less experienced individual – seems pretty sensible.

Moderate the hell out of email lists.

Anarchists love email. Besides the bad habits this can lead to when organising with non-anarchists (face-to-face or a phone call always beat an email or text), it means that most of us have a perpetually full inbox. I'm sure everyone reading this has experienced an email spat that goes on for days or has been on a list or Facebook group where people send callouts, links, and petitions that are totally unrelated to the purpose of the group.

Despite the media's best efforts to portray us to the contrary, anarchism is not about a lack of rules. It's far more about who makes the rules, how the rules are enforced, and to what end the rules are made. The point being: having an accountable moderator with a wide mandate to keep lists focused and SPAM-free would allow organisations to use email in a way that facilitates practical organisation instead of hampering it.

Get organised.

Meetings are, no doubt, an essential part of a functioning democratic organisation. That said, not every decision needs a full meeting. Working groups with a defined mandate can work wonders to shorten the length of meetings, help orientate groups toward a practical focus, and develop a culture of both mandates and accountability. In this way, every member can be involved in at least one practical effort and wider meetings can focus largely on feedback from each working group.

On a similar note, a tight organisational focus allows individual organisations to become skilled in their particular area, while cutting down on agenda items. Plus, such a division of labour allows anarchists to join the organisation that most suits their needs or interests at a given time. No doubt there are a myriad of activities the anarchist movement needs to undertake – workplace organising, propaganda, theory and analysis, anti-eviction, copwatching – but I'd argue that particular organisations should focus on a limited sphere of activity. And, of course, communication and coordination between different organisations should be a given.

Learn from the Metro.

For those who may not know, the Metro is this terrible, terrible, reactionary tabloid given out on the London Underground. In terms of content and it's general disdain for the working class, the Metro has nothing to offer the Anarchist movement. However, what the Metro has figured out is how to write articles that can be read and understood quickly by pretty much anyone regardless of their level of education. They average paragraph is like 1.2 sentences long and written in simple, jargon-free language.

This needs to be our model for any public anarchist communication, be they leaflets of callouts. This season, dense double-sided communiques of 8 point text are out and bullet points are in!

So, my advice for the anarchists movement is to read Orwell's rules for political writing at least every six months and to never, ever, ever have more than 300 words on a leaflet. Ever.

This is not say there isn't a place for analysis. From Aufheben to Fighting for Ourselves, the modern anarchist movement should take some pride in our theoretical texts. But every text is not a theoretical text and the first rule of good writing is to write for your audience.

Don't be so obsessed with democratic procedure

I know this sounds crazy, so bear with me. Most of us join organisations because we want to partake in the class struggle in a practical way. Yet, despite this, we've all spent what feels like endless hours discussing local motions, regional motions, national motions, and international motions – some with accompanying discussion papers that run into the thousands of words. Worst yet, far too often such proposals, if they pass, never get enacted.

I'm not saying that anarchist groups shouldn't organise themselves on federal lines, only that our administration should reflect what's practically already happening on the ground. Often it seems we want to build a structure in the hopes it will facilitate action, instead of building the organisation first and then creating a structure to facilitate it on a wider scale.

Be prepared to deal with non-radicals

Recently, I've been lucky enough to be involved in some proper on-the-ground self-organised disputes with my workmates where we've been supported by a number of explicitly radical organisations.

It's been a steep learning curve. Things that, to me, seem like common sense in terms of taking action, publicising a dispute, or escalating a campaign are really, really big steps for folks in the heat of their first dispute. This is fine. As radicals we're probably going to have more experience – both theoretically and practically - in these matters.

But we also need to be able to take a step back and see things through the eyes of someone doing this for the first time. If our ideas are practical and well-presented, there's a pretty decent chance we can get our workmates on board (assuming they're on board with the dispute in the first place). But we do that by presenting our ideas practically, without the jargon and shorthand we customarily use within “the movement”.

This isn't a matter of hiding our politics I should add. Rather it's about ensuring our politics come through in our actions. In a dispute, it's our role to expand the struggle as widely as possible and try to push for the most militant course of action our workmates are comfortable with. There's plenty of time to talk about being wage-slaves and the extraction of surplus value later. And once we've proven our loyalty as workmates and our skill as strategisers, our workmates are going to be far more prepared to listen to us on the theoretical side of things.