Liberatory Points of Unity Template (2023 Remix)

01/14/23

The following is a DIY template for a liberatory Points of Unity for social movement groups and popular organizations. The following “Points of Unity Template” is designed to be tweaked and adapted to relevant conditions and variables of groups (including but not limited to the specific kind and functions of a group you are trying to form or assist). It is not a “one size fits all” kind of document, but something designed to critically engage with and reflect upon when starting or participating within a social movement group or popular organization. 

The following “Points of Unity Template” refers to various shared processes and practices of a group– shared processes and practices that relate to goal orientation as well as form and content of a group. Such shared processes and practices do NOT require a shared ideology among participants for participants to sufficiently agree with them in the context of group form and functions. Accepting shared qualities of a group that some ideology (or ideologies) would approve of is distinct from a group being an ideologically specific group– a group that espouses a specific ideology and that requires shared ideology among members. Additionally, such “Points of Unity for shared processes and practices” can exist within decision making processes and bylaws of organizations in tandem with or distinct from being present in a document titled as such. Groups can structurally include the following points of unity for shared processes and practices in varying ways. And such points of unity for shared processes and practices, if they are to exist overtime as qualities of a group, must be sufficiently present within (and developed by) a living content and culture made by participants. 

One crucial reason for including the following points of unity is the overall coherence of the multiple points when they are combined; for they round each other out to defend against various detrimental qualities (to the extent they are actuated in form and content of course). And yet, there is significant redundancy between the following points– and there are ways to combine the various points together to make them more succinct and less numerous. And there are ways to simplify points, elaborate points, or change wording for the sake of communication as well as needs and preferences of various groups. More numerically and descriptively skeletal and simple versions of points of unity often make more sense initially until if and when more coherent practical unity has been developed within a given group (or between various groups). For example, a group that is just starting could just have the points of direct democracy and direct action for a direct action group, or direct democracy and mutual aid for a mutual aid group, or all of the above for a group that does all such functions. It is possible for “free association” to be combined with “direct democracy” in one point through a holistic notion of participatory democracy or self-management– which can even be descriptively combined with the essential features of “horizontality”! Such a way of framing those points can be very useful, as it creates a way to take in what would otherwise be multiple points of unity within a single point. Such a simplification can be important, as the points are supposed to potentially unite lots of people. However, such a lumping of qualities together into one can have a downside as well; if such a combining of qualities into one is not done well, then it is possible for the substance of one or more of the multiple points being lumped together to be obscured in the process.

The following points of unity were made with community assembly groups in the mode of struggle against hierarchical power in mind. However, the first six points can be adapted and applied to other kinds of groups such as radical unions, issue/function-specific movement groups, direct action collectives, and mutual aid collectives, and the like.

Points of Unity template for shared processes and practices (for social movement groups and popular organizations of various kinds): ***Although descriptively accurate, the above is not formulated to be the best name for practical use in movement context as it is too jargon heavy and wordy. Alternative names: Points of Unity, Group agreements, Shared Agreements, Group Practices, Shared Practices, Group Processes, Shared Processes, even Shared Goals, etc.

Direct-Democracy: Direct democracy refers to direct collective decision making. Direct democracy enables collective dialogue, decisions, and actions to achieve various goals and solve various problems. Deliberation is foundational to a practical direct democracy as it enables questions, amendments, conversations, problems, solution criteria, multiple perspectives, critiques, concerns, alternative possibilities, dissent, and evaluation of pros and cons to round out proposals and decisions made. After deliberation, there is an aim for full agreement. If there is not full agreement, there is further discussion and then a decision is made by majority vote. ***The specifics of direct democracy can be tweaked and even left out of this section and simply included in the bylaws. 

Horizontality: Horizontality refers to the presence of self-organization and the absence of hierarchy. Hierarchy refers to institutionalized top-down command obedience relations. Horizontality includes freedom from hierarchy, freedom from oppression, freedom from domination, freedom from exploitation, and freedom to participate in self-managed groups and relations. This group strives to be internally horizontal and contribute to horizontal relations. etc. ***can alternatively be called or framed as: non-hierarchy, or egalitarian relations, or opposition to hierarchy. With different groups, different framings and wordings will make more sense. Depending on group and context, it may or may not make sense for a group to give a list of various hierarchies in such a points of unity document. For sake of brevity, it can make sense to include the substance of horizontality within other points.

Free Association and Participatory activity: Free association refers to freedom of and from associations as well as participatory activity within associations. For there to be free association and participatory activity, persons and groups must have the guaranteed freedoms to choose their activities and associations while respecting and enabling freedoms of others to do the same. All labor, work, and action within this group is to be voluntary and non-coerced. If someone does not like a policy that is made, they can continue to argue for and advocate an alternative proposal, continue to argue one’s point formally and informally, choose to not participate in the implementation of the policy they disagree with while remaining in the group, or choose to leave the association. *** This point can potentially be included in other points of unity without being its own point. Also, it is often implied that a community assembly group is a voluntary association so including this for a group as an explicit point of unity may or may not make sense.

Direct Action: Direct action refers to opposing exploitation, domination and oppression through self-managed action to meet needs of people. Direct action can be contrasted to indirect action of top-down organizing and relying on rulers to solve social problems. Direct action includes a wide array of potential activities and campaigns against specific hierarchical institutions for short term, mid-term, and long-term goals. *** A description giving examples of direct action tactics such as occupations, expropriations, blockades, strikes, boycotts, etc. is optional. An alternative to the wording to “domination, exploitation, and oppression” can be “unfreedom and injustice” or something sufficiently similar.

Mutual Aid: Mutual aid refers to voluntary multidirectional help to meet needs. Mutual aid can exist within a group, between groups, between groups and persons, between persons etc. Mutual aid enables groups and people to pool abilities, needs, ideas, proposals, actions, infrastructure, resources, tools, etc. together. Mutual aid can include a wide array of potential activities from mutual assistance towards common goals (including direct action goals), creating or participating in development of the commons (including communal fields, factories and workshops, social centers, libraries, eco-technology projects, etc), free food distribution, communal childcare, etc.  ***Such a list or variation thereof is optional to include.

For groups that collaborate with other groups in various formal and informal ways: 

                                                                                                                                                             Co-Federalism: Co-federalism refers to ways organizations can freely collaborate for inter-collective coordination, decisions, and actions in a way that enables decision making power to be in the hands of people directly. Delegated persons and councils of collectives can meet up for deliberation and administration. Such delegates and co-federal councils are mandated and recallable to their respective popular assemblies, are merely communicative, administrative, and have no policy making power. All policies are made and ratified by general assemblies directly. ***Alternatively the words federalism, confederalism, intercommunalism, inter-collectivity, egalitarian federation, etc. can be used in place of co-federalism. Co-federalism is a neologism, and confederalism and federalism both have connotative issues despite them referring to an essential practice for horizontal and free inter-organizational relations. 

Addendum point for Community assembly groups in particular: 

Communal Self Management: Communal self-management refers to horizontal, democratic, participatory community politics and economics. Such communal and intercommunal self-management can exist on every scale from the block, to the neighborhood, to the city, and beyond. Means of existence and production needed by communities are to be held and managed in common. Policies and protocols for communal economics are managed by communal assemblies and co-federations thereof. Such communal assemblies and co-federations thereof have embedded participatory councils that self-manage implementation within the bounds of their respective mandates and protocols. Such a communal economy aims towards providing each and all with free access to needs. 

***The above point is specifically for community assembly groups. And for the most part, this is for groups that are at relatively a mature level development to the point where they have sufficient power, means of existence and production, and popular support (although this point can also be aspirational).  

Alternative framing that synthesizes the first three points of unity into a single point: 

Self-Management: Self-management refers to a combination of direct collective decision making, without rulers and without hierarchy, where people freely participate in decision making and implementation of decisions. ***By condensing the substance of the first three points into a single point, a lot of clutter disappears. From here, people can fill out this point through their own descriptions or through copying, pasting, and blending some of the more essential sentences from the first three points of unity listed as needed. An alternative framing for this point could be “participatory democracy” in such a way that includes the substance of direct democracy, horizontality, and free association. As coherent as the first three points are as separate points rounding each other out, they are rather cumbersome and can be difficult to wrap one’s mind around. Creating a single point that combines the essential features of those points can help clear up confusion. Something like a practical unity of Self-Management as defined above (or alternatively called participatory democracy– or even called direct democracy but referring to direct democracy in tandem with the qualities of horizontality and free association), Direct Action, and Mutual aid can lead to a lot of coherence and functional use for groups starting from scratch or otherwise developing such points of unity overtime.  Having three points makes a points of unity for processes and practices easier to agree with, comprehend, and communicate to new people.

Why the Specific Points of Unity were chosen: 

As written earlier, the various points of unity round each other out quite well. For example, direct democracy is necessary for collective and individual freedom and decisions. And yet, if direct democracy is not rooted in horizontality and free association, then direct democratic processes can be instrumentalized to anti-egalitarian content or content that arbitrarily restricts freedoms of people. This is one of many examples where the above dimensions by themselves are necessary but not sufficient. Additionally, mere mutual aid without direct action leads to not opposing hierarchical power and by extension not being able to sufficiently develop networks of mutual aid and the commons (which requires expropriation of hierarchical property along the way to develop). And mere direct action without mutual aid leads to a radical de-emphasis on social reproduction of social movements, participants, and others which by extension is at the expense of sustained movement activity, at the expense of sustained direct action, at the expense of connecting social movements with ordinary people, at the expense of reaching out to others, and at the expense of prefiguring alternative ways of re/production.  And all of the above without co-federalism leads to a one-sided localism that will be at the expense of local and inter-local goals– for nothing less than inter-collective action and aid is needed for long term goals of a self-managed society. 

Why a points of unity for shared processes and practices: 

One crucial reason for some kind of good points of unity agreement is the fact that such good points of unity can allow differences to peacefully coexist and mutually thrive. When people have shared decision making practices, processes, goals, programs, etc. they are more able to unite through groups and actions in positive ways and disagree productively about specific decisions, actions, and worldviews. It is easier to not have consensus about specific decisions when there is at least some meaningful consensus about minimal qualities of what a group is, does, and what a group aims towards. Points of unity for shared processes and practices can help form the beginnings of what can become bylaws and programs of groups (and or additionally help supplement bylaws and programs). 

It is important to note that some kinds of points of unity de facto do exist within various groups that have the least bit of agreement. If such points of unity are explicit, they become easier for both participants of a group and people not in a group to learn about, question, critique, and agree/disagree with. Additionally, having explicit points of unity (such as in a points of unity document, or otherwise bylaws, or at least via an agreed upon decision making process, and potentially/eventually a program) makes it easier for people to hold themselves and each other accountable to free and egalitarian processes compared to arbitrary or otherwise non-transparent organizational qualities. 

The points of unity for shared processes and practices of a group as described above have some requisite organizational qualities in regards to decision making, formal structure, and even goal orientation. Although far from exhaustively dealing with the specifics of form and content of a group, such points of unity as spelled out above do deal with some of such features to the extent they are agreed to and carried through. And the qualities within a points of unity agreement can have an indirect function of illustrating features of a good society; for some qualities of a points of unity document can simultaneously make sense for some kind of group and also be qualities that are part of what a good society would consist of. And on top of illustrating some features of a good society, a good points of unity document can illustrate some practical qualities for social movement groups (which people can learn from and adapt and elaborate in their own contexts).

The specific points of unity above were chosen because: That which is good for volitional beings includes freedom, egalitarian relations, and solidarity (classic features of anarchist ethics). But for freedom, egalitarianism, and solidarity to thrive, there must be various means thereof. Such means thereof include institutional and relational qualities necessary for and contributing to freedom, egalitarianism, and solidarity. Egalitarian freedom / self-management of each and all on every scale includes direct democracy, horizontality, free association, participatory activity, mutual aid, co-federalism, and communal self-management. Direct action specifically defined as oppositional politics is necessary to get to a good society, and in a sufficiently good society, direct action would accordingly transform into self-determined activity in the mode of a free society. Such qualities (freedom, egalitarianism, solidarity and the institutional and relational qualities necessary for and contributing to such qualities) also 1. characteristically develop various good ends such as happiness, pleasure, and joy 2. have rights and duties in relationship to such a gestalt of qualities as a goal/telos 3. characteristically develop virtuous persons and virtuous activities 4. require a process ethics/right kind of unity of means and ends/right kind of prefiguration in order to flourish.

Credits:

Rather than a traditional bibliography, here is a dedication to our influences: This essay has been influenced by the broad libertarian socialist and libertarian communist tradition, specifically Rojava, MAREZ, the anarchist communes of the anarchist syndicalist revolution in Spain, the Shinmin Prefecture, the Free Territory, and the Morelos Commune. The Points of Unity template was influenced by many specific individuals, most notably Chaia Heller and Murray Bookchin.