Community organisation.

[bunyip]

...Covers a big area. Allow me to think out loud as I go here.

I think of myself as a student of history, and there is much to be learned, or just of interest in the past.

One is how things were organised.

The Greeks and Romans were very hierarchical, well organised. The Anglo Saxons and Vikings less so, but the Icelandic Althing dates back 1200+ years to that structure, and the Anglo Saxons had the Witam Megoot - the council of wise men. Maybe the lesson to learn is that humans can and will organise themselves as the situation demands it.
Go back a thousand years and England was organised into hides (~120 acre farm that suppported a family), hundreds (a hundred households - also called a wapentake) and shires (they had hundreds reeves, and shire reeves - the 'sherriff'). They had hundreds and shire courts and magistrates.

Note that was organised for control from above (the king).

But in a PAW situation, it is more likely that could become a way to organise things in a WROL scenario.

A group of households band together to share resources (generators, gardening, security).
And, as things settle down, those small groups organise at larger tiers.

Here in Oz, we don't have a FEMA per se. There is a structure, but the cells - be they the Rural Fire Service, or the SES - state Emergency Service, is usually organised at the local council level - there will be a shared compound and HQ area for the RFS and SES (which are largely volunteer, and of the local population) run by council.

Your thoughts?

[rvm45]

What kind of organization is likely, possible or desirable will very largely depend upon what is left to work with after TSHTF.

I tend to see the downside to Organization--but whether good or bad,there doesn't seem to be much way to prevent it forming.

Always remember:

(Organize + Cooperate) = (Crush the Individual)


.....RVM45

[patience]

I was a corpor-rat for longer than I care to remember, and saw a lot of what goes on in organizations.

Organizations seem to work best when they are a suitable size for the tasks at hand. Too large and they get awkward, slow and inefficient.

The pyramid organizational structure is very old and very inefficient. It favors control by the few, and discriminates against the many. The flatter the pyramid, the better.

One company, back in the early 1970's, tried a new trick, similiar to the way the "specialist" ranks are treated in the military. On a given project, the person or persons who are best qualified are given rank on THAT project, and all others report to them. By next week, the guy who is working for you could then be your boss on the NEXT project, so don't forget that.

This worked beautifully up to about 150 people, then it became ineffective for lack of proper interpersonal communications. So, the guy made a new facility whenever a plant grew beyond that size. Worked like a charm. I have seen this first hand, and loved it. The rest of my 30+ years in organizations were far less productive and no fun at all.

Bottom line--Keep It Simple, Stupid. That ALWAYS works.

If your goal is power to exploit others, then generate confusion and inefficiency by making a large organization with the maximum number of layers and baffle 'em all with BS to keep them under control.

I have had great success when in supervisory positions by carefully matching the person to the job (something they WANTED to do), and then give them everything they need to accomplish that job and GET THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY! If they don't succeed, you chose the wrong person, or they were lacking something they needed, and both conditions would be YOUR fault. (See writings by W. Edwards Deming.)

These principles never seem to get implemented correctly in the US, primarily due to management arrogance. In Japan, it worked like miracles for a time, until the Japanese management contracted the US corporate arrogance, too.

The nature of political organization is based upon either tyranny, or pandering, or some combination thereof. Thus, they are doomed to fail. I see no possible good to come from political organizations of any sort. Probably the worst of all is when 2 or more factions compete for power--the most dangerous drug of all. Then, in the words of an old proverb from India, IIRC, "When elephants fight, the grass is trampled".

[bunyip]

Oct 14, 2011 11:09:26 GMT -6 rvm45 said:

.....Always remember:

(Organize + Cooperate) = (Crush the Individual)

.....RVM45

I don't agree, The individual doesn't necessarily get crushed just because they co-operate with others. (I guess it is really a function of how much independence they retain - lose your independence and I'll agree with your point. Keep it and its a different matter).

No man (or woman) is an island, and we all need to trade or co-operate with others at some points, usually daily.

I'll argue a society/community needs to take the right balance between being competitive, and co-operative.

Competitive in business (and sport), co-operative in a community context.

[patience]

bunyip,

Yes, I agree with what you said. It is the really big organizations that troubled me, like General Motors Corporation, and most governments I have been able to learn about. Local politics is even pretty troublesome here, with some die-hards that just seem to want to be in charge, for good or ill. The smaller the organization, the better chance it has of success, IMHO.

In a small community it can be better, and yes, nobody can do it all alone. I do have some success stories of local community cooperation, where individuals make things work well. The more knowledgeable the better, for those in a leadership capacity.

Really, this aspect of preparedness worries me most of all. I have seen too many whiners, control freaks, lazy good-for-nothings, bullies, stupid knuckleheads, and generally worthless people in 65 years to have much confidence in a smoothly running community here.

The better part of it is that most all of these misfits work pretty well on their own, or in cooperation with only one or two others, if they get to choose who they work with.