It actually seems fairly comical to me that I have got this far in calling myself and beleiving myself to be a communist without having settled the question of decision making, and that there are people three times my age in the movement who don't seem to have either would be hilarious if i didn't actually beleive anarchism had a chance.
I'd like to hear some of the different ways revolutionary groups make decisions and decide what they are going to do as an organisation.
For instance, the WSM have a practice of having position papers which are decide by a majority vote if there is no consensus, and say if a members views radically differ then they would be encouraged to leave. (i don;t know if this is the same for all Platformist orgs, so i'm using the WSM as an example) That's one way of doing things, considered absolutely unnacceptable by many anarchists i have spoken to.
Another way was the WOMBLES way of doing things, where they had no membership, no official positions and anyone could call themselves a womble. This i suppose is the other extreme, and considered equally unnacceptable by a lot of anarchists (again, this is probably the standard practice in insurrectionary groups, its just an example).
So, what are the other ways of making decisons in an anarchist organisation?
How do syndicalist groups do it? If you are a proper syndicalist group rather than a propaganda group - like the CNT - coming to decisions must be pretty bloody imperative. It won't be case of whether you write this or that article, but whether you go on strike or call off a strike etc - things which directly matter to your members.
How do left cmmunists do it?
Do people think it is even neccessary to decide what an organisation should collectively do, as a whole?
as usual, the OP is riddled with typo's cos good knows you can't edit OP's and loves to ruin up my shit.