What do you think?
Rate this book
Neither Vertical nor Horizontal: A Theory of Political Organization
For something so often described as essential, political organisation remains a surprisingly under-theorised field.
Nunes redefines the terms of organisational theory, and argues that organisation must be understood as always supposing a diverse ecology of different initiatives and organisational forms. Drawing from a wide array of sources and traditions Nunes develops a grammar that eschews easy oppositions between ‘verticalism’ and ‘horizontalism’, and offers a fresh approach to enduring issues like spontaneity, leadership, democracy, strategy, populism, revolution, and the relationship between movements and parties.
Nunes redefines the terms of organisational theory, and argues that organisation must be understood as always supposing a diverse ecology of different initiatives and organisational forms. Drawing from a wide array of sources and traditions Nunes develops a grammar that eschews easy oppositions between ‘verticalism’ and ‘horizontalism’, and offers a fresh approach to enduring issues like spontaneity, leadership, democracy, strategy, populism, revolution, and the relationship between movements and parties.
320 pages, Paperback
Published May 25, 2021
39 people are currently reading
896 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
June 4, 2021
probably the best book i've read in a few years, one i'll be returning to for many more to come. Granted, i already knew that Rodrigo Nunes' argument would be right in my sweet spot: teasing out the implications of political marxism for strategic practice via a spinoza-influenced situated evaluative practice. yet the book is still incredibly refreshing in precisely *how* it unfolds the problems that revolutionary practice and political marxism have set for themselves over the last decade of cycles of struggles, debates about which are symptomatic of much deeper problems threading through marx and bakunin, luxembourg and lenin, and the success/failures of '17-'89 / '68-'2011.
the ultimate aim of the book, as the title suggests, is to get out of the stale oppositions between vertical and horizontal, vanguard and distributed action, part and immanent self-organization. these binary choices occlude what Nunes takes as ontological starting point: there is no 'disorganization' as such and thus no teleology to any specific subject or agent of an organizational form. instead, there are only different degrees and forms of organization and complexity, different "ecologies" which make certain strategies and tactics interact in ways that either increase our power (collective capacity, potentia) or cause it to break down. the book is thus part diagnosis (or even therapy, as the conclusion suggests) for the failures of the past, while it offers less a normative solution or directionality than a new lexicon for theorizing different organizational possibilities. this is not to say that there aren't leanings in particular directions: Nunes is a bit harsher on the assumptions of horizontalism, in part because he has actually done the work of going back to various kinds of cybernetics, systems and information theories to demonstrate how certain lessons were selectively imported into the early 2000s sort of negriism (let's say). a further problem is that a series of unexplored assumptions lie behind horizontalism that almost exactly mirror (or inversion) of its critique of 'verticalism' (especially a kind of naturalistic teleology, a presupposition that certain social actors unambiguously have 'the right' knowledge and strategy, and a lack of curiosity, let's say, towards the empirical). the problem of defeating planetary capitalism in the age of climate crisis also orients the argument towards scalar necessity in a somewhat normative way.
nonetheless, the point of the language here is to get us *out* of the stale oppositions that lie behind our organizing assumptions (which might be shorthanded as verticalism or horizontalism, or marxism and anarchism if you wish). the book therefore seeks to redefine organization (of course) as well as leadership (as distributed), vanguard (as a function), party (as but one element in a broader organizational ecology with a specific and above all limited role). to these it adds other new terms that help diagnose the tensions we see appearing in action: the problem of fitness (how does one test the maximal amount of change possible whilst still being intelligible to newly political subjects); directionality (how one deaggregates revolution into achievable points of intervention); nucleation and critical size (necessary elements for gauging the capacity for a system to cross a threshold of transformation) the dialectic between aggregate, collective, and distributed action; and above all, how to actually *think* organizational integration in a fully relational way. if i have one minor critique of the book it is that the saturation of emotional-psychological terms throughout (e.g., the trauma of organization, melancholia, betrayal, paranoia, and suspicion, etc) remains tantalizingly underdeveloped (at least with reference to either post-spinozist affect theory or post-freudian psychoanalysis). nonetheless, it offers us the possibility of thinking these terms *alongside* the organizational ecologies or infrastructures through which they emerge, which is exactly the right question.
i realize that i absolutely devoured this book, and i did so self-consciously. i also recognize it's a theoretically dense text, and i'm not certain how it will be read if you aren't familiar with or interested in the parameters of political marxism. for these reasons, i'll be really curious to see whether it can have the kind of impact it deserves on our political and strategic debates over the coming years.
the ultimate aim of the book, as the title suggests, is to get out of the stale oppositions between vertical and horizontal, vanguard and distributed action, part and immanent self-organization. these binary choices occlude what Nunes takes as ontological starting point: there is no 'disorganization' as such and thus no teleology to any specific subject or agent of an organizational form. instead, there are only different degrees and forms of organization and complexity, different "ecologies" which make certain strategies and tactics interact in ways that either increase our power (collective capacity, potentia) or cause it to break down. the book is thus part diagnosis (or even therapy, as the conclusion suggests) for the failures of the past, while it offers less a normative solution or directionality than a new lexicon for theorizing different organizational possibilities. this is not to say that there aren't leanings in particular directions: Nunes is a bit harsher on the assumptions of horizontalism, in part because he has actually done the work of going back to various kinds of cybernetics, systems and information theories to demonstrate how certain lessons were selectively imported into the early 2000s sort of negriism (let's say). a further problem is that a series of unexplored assumptions lie behind horizontalism that almost exactly mirror (or inversion) of its critique of 'verticalism' (especially a kind of naturalistic teleology, a presupposition that certain social actors unambiguously have 'the right' knowledge and strategy, and a lack of curiosity, let's say, towards the empirical). the problem of defeating planetary capitalism in the age of climate crisis also orients the argument towards scalar necessity in a somewhat normative way.
nonetheless, the point of the language here is to get us *out* of the stale oppositions that lie behind our organizing assumptions (which might be shorthanded as verticalism or horizontalism, or marxism and anarchism if you wish). the book therefore seeks to redefine organization (of course) as well as leadership (as distributed), vanguard (as a function), party (as but one element in a broader organizational ecology with a specific and above all limited role). to these it adds other new terms that help diagnose the tensions we see appearing in action: the problem of fitness (how does one test the maximal amount of change possible whilst still being intelligible to newly political subjects); directionality (how one deaggregates revolution into achievable points of intervention); nucleation and critical size (necessary elements for gauging the capacity for a system to cross a threshold of transformation) the dialectic between aggregate, collective, and distributed action; and above all, how to actually *think* organizational integration in a fully relational way. if i have one minor critique of the book it is that the saturation of emotional-psychological terms throughout (e.g., the trauma of organization, melancholia, betrayal, paranoia, and suspicion, etc) remains tantalizingly underdeveloped (at least with reference to either post-spinozist affect theory or post-freudian psychoanalysis). nonetheless, it offers us the possibility of thinking these terms *alongside* the organizational ecologies or infrastructures through which they emerge, which is exactly the right question.
i realize that i absolutely devoured this book, and i did so self-consciously. i also recognize it's a theoretically dense text, and i'm not certain how it will be read if you aren't familiar with or interested in the parameters of political marxism. for these reasons, i'll be really curious to see whether it can have the kind of impact it deserves on our political and strategic debates over the coming years.
August 17, 2021
An interesting and thought provoking book which is attempting to reconcile two contrasting approaches on the Left; the more Marxist, structured, vertical tradition which Nunes identifies with 1917 and the more localist, diffuse, Anarchist, horizontal tradition which Nunes identifies with 1968. These two tendencies tend to oppose each other on a fundamental, philosophical level, but in my personal experience they actually work together and get along fine.
Nunes argues that Horizontilism, which was the dominant Left tendancy in the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and a few years after the 2008 economic crisis, was given it's chance and proved incapable of winning any significant or long lasting victories. We saw the Anti-Globalisation movement, the Arab Spring, Occupy and others, and there is the example of Rojava. But it isn't capable of addressing the systemic crises we are facing, the most pressing of which is climate breakdown, which requires the power of the State to do anything about it. But, as he points out, many people on the Left were drawn towards the kind of Horizontal organising and activism he associates with 1968 by being turned off the authoritarian and disturbing states that emerged following the creation of the Soviet Union.
My impression is that Nunes devotes more time and argument to persuading Horizontalists to accept and adopt some vericality and structure, and to learn lessons from Lenin, than he does to persuading Vericalists to accept and adopt horizontal practices. The text is pretty theoretical and philosophical, getting into a debate between Hegel and Spinoza for example. The last book of political organising theory I read was No Shortcuts by Jane McAlevey, which is far more empirical and rooted in praxis.
I am glad Nunes has written this book and kicked off a conversation. I want others to read it so I can discuss it with them, because my opinion isn't settled. I need to think about it and reflect on the political organising I am involved in personally before I come to a firm conclusion. I am more sympathetic to the Leninist tradition, but I don't see a lot of evidence of this tradition thriving and succeeding so I am interested in reflecting on what our political situation is in this moment and what kind of solutions are available to us in this conjuncture.
Nunes argues that Horizontilism, which was the dominant Left tendancy in the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and a few years after the 2008 economic crisis, was given it's chance and proved incapable of winning any significant or long lasting victories. We saw the Anti-Globalisation movement, the Arab Spring, Occupy and others, and there is the example of Rojava. But it isn't capable of addressing the systemic crises we are facing, the most pressing of which is climate breakdown, which requires the power of the State to do anything about it. But, as he points out, many people on the Left were drawn towards the kind of Horizontal organising and activism he associates with 1968 by being turned off the authoritarian and disturbing states that emerged following the creation of the Soviet Union.
My impression is that Nunes devotes more time and argument to persuading Horizontalists to accept and adopt some vericality and structure, and to learn lessons from Lenin, than he does to persuading Vericalists to accept and adopt horizontal practices. The text is pretty theoretical and philosophical, getting into a debate between Hegel and Spinoza for example. The last book of political organising theory I read was No Shortcuts by Jane McAlevey, which is far more empirical and rooted in praxis.
I am glad Nunes has written this book and kicked off a conversation. I want others to read it so I can discuss it with them, because my opinion isn't settled. I need to think about it and reflect on the political organising I am involved in personally before I come to a firm conclusion. I am more sympathetic to the Leninist tradition, but I don't see a lot of evidence of this tradition thriving and succeeding so I am interested in reflecting on what our political situation is in this moment and what kind of solutions are available to us in this conjuncture.
June 2, 2025
This is one of the most compelling works of political theory I’ve read. Granted, that may not be saying much — I’m only a second-year college student with a spotty reading habit — but Neither Vertical nor Horizontal left a deep impression on me nonetheless. It revisits enduring political questions in light of contemporary contexts, transcends stale oppositions, and offers serious insights into the dilemmas and possibilities of future political action.
Along the way, Nunes breathes life into several dormant corners of leftist thought. His discussions of “left melancholia,” transitivity, and political subjectivation translate the determinism and optimism of older Marxist frameworks into something more attuned to today’s probabilistic and uncertain terrain. He also revives the idea of revolution by tying it inextricably to the “question of organization,” uniting it with “reformist” and “alternative-building” efforts into a single trajectory that injects urgency and relevance back into the concept.
Nunes draws on network theory and ecology to illuminate the nature and possibilities of political organization. He reframes vanguardism not as a fixed structure but as a relational force, allowing us to rethink its potential without the baggage of its contested history. His invocation of Paulo Freire furthers this point, likening political leadership to the pedagogical role of the teacher: facilitating transformation without imposing doctrine. In a similarly generative move, his reappraisal of populism through the framework of fitness allows us to discern which aspects of populist strategy endure, and why.
Nunes' work is especially powerful in challenging comforting dogmas on the left. He shows that “horizontalism” can itself become an ideology, disguising power, preventing accountability, all while failing to yield strategic returns at scale. His concept of distributed leadership cuts through much of this illusory fog, showing how leadership doesn’t disappear under horizontal structures, but spreads out, now incapacitated. The metaphor of an “ecology of organizations” helps reframe the left’s present diversity not as a weakness but as a strength, where different forms of organizing — vanguards and popular assemblies alike — coexist and evolve in relation to each other. Tying everything together is a deep pragmatism — Nunes asks us to judge strategies and organizations by their responsiveness to historical conjuncture, not by their ideological purity.
I’d highly recommend this book to anyone thinking seriously about how to structure and sustain political organization in the 21st century. It’s especially valuable for those caught between anarchist and communist strategic commitments, or those seeking to think beyond that binary. It's also cool if you like Spinoza.
Along the way, Nunes breathes life into several dormant corners of leftist thought. His discussions of “left melancholia,” transitivity, and political subjectivation translate the determinism and optimism of older Marxist frameworks into something more attuned to today’s probabilistic and uncertain terrain. He also revives the idea of revolution by tying it inextricably to the “question of organization,” uniting it with “reformist” and “alternative-building” efforts into a single trajectory that injects urgency and relevance back into the concept.
Nunes draws on network theory and ecology to illuminate the nature and possibilities of political organization. He reframes vanguardism not as a fixed structure but as a relational force, allowing us to rethink its potential without the baggage of its contested history. His invocation of Paulo Freire furthers this point, likening political leadership to the pedagogical role of the teacher: facilitating transformation without imposing doctrine. In a similarly generative move, his reappraisal of populism through the framework of fitness allows us to discern which aspects of populist strategy endure, and why.
Nunes' work is especially powerful in challenging comforting dogmas on the left. He shows that “horizontalism” can itself become an ideology, disguising power, preventing accountability, all while failing to yield strategic returns at scale. His concept of distributed leadership cuts through much of this illusory fog, showing how leadership doesn’t disappear under horizontal structures, but spreads out, now incapacitated. The metaphor of an “ecology of organizations” helps reframe the left’s present diversity not as a weakness but as a strength, where different forms of organizing — vanguards and popular assemblies alike — coexist and evolve in relation to each other. Tying everything together is a deep pragmatism — Nunes asks us to judge strategies and organizations by their responsiveness to historical conjuncture, not by their ideological purity.
I’d highly recommend this book to anyone thinking seriously about how to structure and sustain political organization in the 21st century. It’s especially valuable for those caught between anarchist and communist strategic commitments, or those seeking to think beyond that binary. It's also cool if you like Spinoza.
July 28, 2023
@szkorbut chciałeś review, więc pomyślałem że streszczę i wstawię kilka fragmentów, (ale pewnie połowa książki mi przefrunęła nad głową i czasem mi się nie chciało myśleć więc jeśli napiszę coś głupiego to lepiej to przyporządkować mi niż książce):
skupia się na rozważaniu pojęć organizacji i samo-organizacji politycznej, niemożliwości organicznej samo-organizacji grup ludzi (w przypadku utrzymywania złudzenia braku organizacji tak naprawdę następuje organizacja według schematów już utrwalonych) i stara się udowodnić że organizacja zawsze musi odbywać się z impulsem zewnętrznym i jest potrzebna jako aktywna deliberate czynność. pomieszane jest to z ciekawymi wstawkami z organizacji w świecie roślin i zwierząt, czasem cybernetyką. Całość to przeplatanka z abstrakcyjnych rozdziałów i "zastosowań".
zaczyna od rozważania dwóch tytułowych melancholii dotyczących sposobów organizacji (których przełomowe momenty wyznacza na rok 1918 (vertical, partia jak partia sowiecka) i 1968 (horizontal, niezależne leaderless autonomiczne sieci ludzi jak ruchy occupy w 2011)). Chyba najmocniejszym elementem całej książki jest ten rozdział, w którym proponuje model traktowania ich jako określeń względnych, nie absolutnych. zaczynając od tego, że
przechodzi do opisania tych sposobów vertical/horizontal jako sił działających w przeciwne strony, ale nie sprzecznych. Nie istnieje coś takiego jak organizacja pionowa/pozioma, tylko bardziej pionowa albo bardziej pozioma. Przez to nie ma sensu spierać się co do wyższości którejś formy - to tak jak by się zastanawiać czy lepiej jak jest cieplej czy zimniej. Wszystko zależy od kontekstu. Coś tam piszą o arystotelesie bla bla nie zrozumiałem, ale chodzi o to że jeśli istniałaby organizacja która równie mocno stosowałaby naraz techniki związane z organizacją poziomą jak i pionową to chociaż jako siły by się równoważyły (organizacja nie byłaby ani pozioma ani pionowa), to dalej miałyby pozytywny efekt. te dwie siły trzeba dopasowywać do sytuacji, bo, jak wyżej definicja, organizacja jest mediacją, a mediacja zawsze jest pomiędzy dwoma kontekstami, nigdy w próżni,
kolejne dwa rozdziały są poświęcone rozważaniom tego czemu organizacje wyłącznie wertykalne, lub wyłącznie horyzontalne nie są możliwe.
te dwie rzeczy (konieczność organizacji jako aktywnej czynności) i stosowanie modelu ekologii ( współistnienie wielu form naraz bez ich koordynacji centralnej, ale z dopasowywaniem intensywności do sytuacji) to całość książki, ale wchodzą różne ciekawe rozdziały dookoła.
jest jeden o teleologii - więc teorii samoczynnego historycznego zmierzania świata do czegoś np. rewolucji (sorry jeśli znałeś to słowo i tłumaczę, ja wcześniej nie). przykładem najbardziej rozważanym jest teleologia marksistowska gdzie zakłada się samoczynne przebudzenie konkretnie klasy robotniczej jako fakt naukowy, ale potem rozważa współczesne reintepretacje i ewolucje. zaciekawiło mnie to, że Marks skupiał się wyłącznie na naukowości swojej teleologii - wskazał miejsce gdzie najprawdapodobniej przebudzenie jego zdaniem nastąpi - nie rozważając tego czy jest to miejsce które tego potrzebuje, lub jakie cele powinno sobie postawić. wniosek z rozdziału jest taki że model teleologiczny nie działa i znowu - potrzebna jest aktywna ciągła czynność organizacji.
kolejny poświęcony jest problemowi nierówności wiedzy w rewolucji i organizacjach - jak to rozwiązać bez wprowadzenia nowej społeczności klasowej zamiast starej. historyczne podejścia z "stróżami" rewolucji, opiekunami, radami itd. najciekawsze nazwane to zmiana traktowania "opiekunów" z pozycji formalnej do funkcji która jest spontanicznie przejmowana chociaż nigdy nienazwana, albo jakieś sposoby biorące się z teologii wyzwolenia - gdzie każda interakcja różnych grup traktowana jest jako spotkanie pedagogiczne, bez wskazania strony nauczycielskiej i uczniowskiej. w tym drugim jest osoba inicjująca wymianę, ale nie pozycjonuje jej to wyżej, jako że odrzucany jest pomysł strony bardziej i mniej oświeconej.
jest jeden bardzo ciekawy rozdział o historii konceptu rewolucji od XVIII wieku aż do teraz.
Całość kończy dwoma bardzo długimi rozdziałami aplikującymi rozwiniętą wcześniej teorię organizacji do współczesnych sytuacji. dużo miejsca jest poświęconego na reinterpretację populizmu lewicowego Chantal Mouffe w kontekście wyłożonej wcześniej teorii.
Overall bardzo fajne (jak widać po ocenie), dla mnie było dosyć dostępne nawet bez wielokrotnego czytania fragmentów, chociaż większość konceptów początkowo obca.
to co mi zostanie najbardziej, tak poza wspomnianym wcześniej modelem ekologicznym organizacji, to rozważania dotyczące jej celu, które bardzo mi się skojarzyły z ukradzioną asi książką emmy goldman:
nic odkrywczego, ale jako że od października przenoszę się z uniwersytetu do pracy, a technologia jako świat jest dalej bardzo wroga organizacji pracowniczej, to mam nadzieję że w tym kontekście chociaż coś mi to wszystko ułatwi.
książka jest na libgenie, verso ma drogie wysyłki do polski i ceny w funtach
skupia się na rozważaniu pojęć organizacji i samo-organizacji politycznej, niemożliwości organicznej samo-organizacji grup ludzi (w przypadku utrzymywania złudzenia braku organizacji tak naprawdę następuje organizacja według schematów już utrwalonych) i stara się udowodnić że organizacja zawsze musi odbywać się z impulsem zewnętrznym i jest potrzebna jako aktywna deliberate czynność. pomieszane jest to z ciekawymi wstawkami z organizacji w świecie roślin i zwierząt, czasem cybernetyką. Całość to przeplatanka z abstrakcyjnych rozdziałów i "zastosowań".
zaczyna od rozważania dwóch tytułowych melancholii dotyczących sposobów organizacji (których przełomowe momenty wyznacza na rok 1918 (vertical, partia jak partia sowiecka) i 1968 (horizontal, niezależne leaderless autonomiczne sieci ludzi jak ruchy occupy w 2011)). Chyba najmocniejszym elementem całej książki jest ten rozdział, w którym proponuje model traktowania ich jako określeń względnych, nie absolutnych. zaczynając od tego, że
... organisation appears as a figure of mediation. Following Georg Lukacs' formula, organisation is the form of mediation between theory and practice, and as in every dialetictical relationship the terms of the relation only acquire concreteness and reality in and by this mediation ...
przechodzi do opisania tych sposobów vertical/horizontal jako sił działających w przeciwne strony, ale nie sprzecznych. Nie istnieje coś takiego jak organizacja pionowa/pozioma, tylko bardziej pionowa albo bardziej pozioma. Przez to nie ma sensu spierać się co do wyższości którejś formy - to tak jak by się zastanawiać czy lepiej jak jest cieplej czy zimniej. Wszystko zależy od kontekstu. Coś tam piszą o arystotelesie bla bla nie zrozumiałem, ale chodzi o to że jeśli istniałaby organizacja która równie mocno stosowałaby naraz techniki związane z organizacją poziomą jak i pionową to chociaż jako siły by się równoważyły (organizacja nie byłaby ani pozioma ani pionowa), to dalej miałyby pozytywny efekt. te dwie siły trzeba dopasowywać do sytuacji, bo, jak wyżej definicja, organizacja jest mediacją, a mediacja zawsze jest pomiędzy dwoma kontekstami, nigdy w próżni,
kolejne dwa rozdziały są poświęcone rozważaniom tego czemu organizacje wyłącznie wertykalne, lub wyłącznie horyzontalne nie są możliwe.
te dwie rzeczy (konieczność organizacji jako aktywnej czynności) i stosowanie modelu ekologii ( współistnienie wielu form naraz bez ich koordynacji centralnej, ale z dopasowywaniem intensywności do sytuacji) to całość książki, ale wchodzą różne ciekawe rozdziały dookoła.
jest jeden o teleologii - więc teorii samoczynnego historycznego zmierzania świata do czegoś np. rewolucji (sorry jeśli znałeś to słowo i tłumaczę, ja wcześniej nie). przykładem najbardziej rozważanym jest teleologia marksistowska gdzie zakłada się samoczynne przebudzenie konkretnie klasy robotniczej jako fakt naukowy, ale potem rozważa współczesne reintepretacje i ewolucje. zaciekawiło mnie to, że Marks skupiał się wyłącznie na naukowości swojej teleologii - wskazał miejsce gdzie najprawdapodobniej przebudzenie jego zdaniem nastąpi - nie rozważając tego czy jest to miejsce które tego potrzebuje, lub jakie cele powinno sobie postawić. wniosek z rozdziału jest taki że model teleologiczny nie działa i znowu - potrzebna jest aktywna ciągła czynność organizacji.
kolejny poświęcony jest problemowi nierówności wiedzy w rewolucji i organizacjach - jak to rozwiązać bez wprowadzenia nowej społeczności klasowej zamiast starej. historyczne podejścia z "stróżami" rewolucji, opiekunami, radami itd. najciekawsze nazwane to zmiana traktowania "opiekunów" z pozycji formalnej do funkcji która jest spontanicznie przejmowana chociaż nigdy nienazwana, albo jakieś sposoby biorące się z teologii wyzwolenia - gdzie każda interakcja różnych grup traktowana jest jako spotkanie pedagogiczne, bez wskazania strony nauczycielskiej i uczniowskiej. w tym drugim jest osoba inicjująca wymianę, ale nie pozycjonuje jej to wyżej, jako że odrzucany jest pomysł strony bardziej i mniej oświeconej.
jest jeden bardzo ciekawy rozdział o historii konceptu rewolucji od XVIII wieku aż do teraz.
Całość kończy dwoma bardzo długimi rozdziałami aplikującymi rozwiniętą wcześniej teorię organizacji do współczesnych sytuacji. dużo miejsca jest poświęconego na reinterpretację populizmu lewicowego Chantal Mouffe w kontekście wyłożonej wcześniej teorii.
Overall bardzo fajne (jak widać po ocenie), dla mnie było dosyć dostępne nawet bez wielokrotnego czytania fragmentów, chociaż większość konceptów początkowo obca.
to co mi zostanie najbardziej, tak poza wspomnianym wcześniej modelem ekologicznym organizacji, to rozważania dotyczące jej celu, które bardzo mi się skojarzyły z ukradzioną asi książką emmy goldman:
from the mid twentieth century onwards, many started to denounce the longing for a final reconciliation as an illegitimate attempt to collapse the distance between idea and history, the real and the symbolic, the infinite and the finite. experience had shown that the promise 'of an absolute purification of history, of an inertialess regime without chance or risk' was such a powerful defense against doubt and uncertainty that it could justify betrayal in the name of fidelity, oppression in the name of freedom, and dishonesty in the name of truth. It was both an error and a danger to confuse revolution with the institution of any particular positive order; instead, it should be identified with the infinite excess that interrupts and unmakes every order, the pregnancy of the event, the movement of deterritorialisation, the promise of the messianic.
nic odkrywczego, ale jako że od października przenoszę się z uniwersytetu do pracy, a technologia jako świat jest dalej bardzo wroga organizacji pracowniczej, to mam nadzieję że w tym kontekście chociaż coś mi to wszystko ułatwi.
książka jest na libgenie, verso ma drogie wysyłki do polski i ceny w funtach
October 31, 2025
3.5 Great content, demolishes the binary between vertical and horizontal modes of political organisation, arguing for a diverse ecology of models and tactics. Only problem with it was how much of a fucking mission it was to read. Definitely think most of the ideas could've been explained much more succinctly.
July 27, 2025
Loved the book, especially the bit about the 2 melancholias (1917, 1968) and the cybernetics and information theory stuff. Simondon, Guattari Lenin and Spinoza worked quite well in this grammar, which is what it is: a descriptive project to construct a grammar. Politically I share many premises and strategic inclinations, I now find myself having the correct language to improve my messaging.
March 24, 2025
Nunes is at his best when he's looking critically at modern left organizing efforts. The pendulum shift between mass party type dead enders and local horizontalism swings back and forth every decade or so, with little in the way of actual movement in the class struggle. Nunes refuses to believe that one need to be a verticalist or a horizontalist, and takes this one step further by saying that it's impossible to actually be one or the other.
Once you make this realization, you're halfway there. Nunes argues for what he calls distributed action, which can be read as "pushing on all fronts all the time". Does this amount to a type of reformism, as others have said? Well, I'm not sure it matters. Nunes might just be right that this is the only type of organizing that will have tangible results in the modern day.
There is more than enough fertile ground for organizing. Everywhere you look there is anti capitalist sentiment, it just doesn't seem to take the form that we as lefties are used to it taking (and by used to it taking, I mean the nostaligic way of looking at the past 150 years that may or may not be what actually happened). People seemingly aren't interested in being told that all their problems would be solved by the ever elusive mass party, just like how they roll their eyes at Occupy type organizing, which clearly goes nowhere meaningful.
As I said, Nunes might be right about distributed action being the only way forward. If that's the case, our ecological and sociological predicaments are much more worrying than we may have thought. But hey, might as well try.
This is a very dense book and at times it feels like a literature review. I'd like to see Nunes write a pamphlet for organizers that cuts a bit of the fat of this book. Overall, very worth a read though.
Once you make this realization, you're halfway there. Nunes argues for what he calls distributed action, which can be read as "pushing on all fronts all the time". Does this amount to a type of reformism, as others have said? Well, I'm not sure it matters. Nunes might just be right that this is the only type of organizing that will have tangible results in the modern day.
There is more than enough fertile ground for organizing. Everywhere you look there is anti capitalist sentiment, it just doesn't seem to take the form that we as lefties are used to it taking (and by used to it taking, I mean the nostaligic way of looking at the past 150 years that may or may not be what actually happened). People seemingly aren't interested in being told that all their problems would be solved by the ever elusive mass party, just like how they roll their eyes at Occupy type organizing, which clearly goes nowhere meaningful.
As I said, Nunes might be right about distributed action being the only way forward. If that's the case, our ecological and sociological predicaments are much more worrying than we may have thought. But hey, might as well try.
This is a very dense book and at times it feels like a literature review. I'd like to see Nunes write a pamphlet for organizers that cuts a bit of the fat of this book. Overall, very worth a read though.
August 4, 2022
Rodrigo Nunes is a Brazilian activist. In this book he reflects on the dead-lock of present-day radical politics: the campist division between two dogmatisms, verticalism and horizontalism. The author proposes, we understand radical politics as a dynamic ecosystem populated by a plurality of actors with diverse (but complementary) tactics and strategies, re-shaping each other and their environment trough their interactions.
Such perspective brings together some of the best inovations of the last decade, in radical political theory: strategic pragmatism (tom nomad) and a complementarian view of political diversity (gelderloos, josep gardenyes).
Such perspective brings together some of the best inovations of the last decade, in radical political theory: strategic pragmatism (tom nomad) and a complementarian view of political diversity (gelderloos, josep gardenyes).
September 26, 2021
This book appeared at the right point in time for me. I left a political movement about one year ago and since then I was writing an analysis of what went wrong when and why. The question I was unable to resolve was exactly the one that Nunes is discussing in this book: How can the progressive left build an organisational ecosystem without reproducing the historical mistakes of left organisations? I found a lot of ideas and inspiration in this book. While the whole philosophical derivation seems a bit overcharged at times it was an interesting and inspiring experience.
July 6, 2025
This spends way too much time getting bogged down in tired, internecine debates instead of doing what its title would suggest it would do, which would be to actually propose a model that was neither vertical nor horizontal. Instead, what we mostly get is endless throat-clearing: it turns out that false dichotomies are, indeed, false. Brilliant. I would suggest only leaving Chapter 5 and discarding the rest, for only there does one find some interesting suggestions (distributed leadership, ecology, Deleuze and Guattari's notion of the "pack," Clastres' Society Against the State, etc.).
August 7, 2023
I loved it and I need to reflect on it by writing a proper summary and critique. Hopefully will get to that in the near future... It's very dense and took me some time to get through. It doesn't have the answers, but it does ask some of the right questions and provides some language and concepts to talk about organization that could be useful for people active involved in radical left groups.
July 29, 2022
Inspiring, especially regarding the concept of an ecology made of strong core, bringing together the local and the (inter)national
Read
December 7, 2024Took me six months and I only got halfway through it....just too much required prior reading for me to be able to make much sense of individual sections.
Read
December 29, 2024Rating and review to follow. Thoroughly enjoyed and got a lot from reading this.
April 29, 2025
The Das Kapital of Organizational Theory
August 5, 2025
I'll certainly be thinking ecologically when organizing from here on
October 11, 2025
the practical stuff is in the last three chapters.
October 5, 2025
felt very very underread going into this, still got a lot of insights out of it. love how author breaks down and presents his arguments, quite easy to follow. would have to revisit this sometime later, with more experience both on paper and irl.
ecology of organisational forms, history in multiple cyclic timelines instead of a singular linear one, against hierachy but not organisation (structure), coop between organisations like mlk using mx as leverage during crm, moving away from dogmatic thinking of looking for an ideal form period, but what suits the time, situation, and goal in hand, distributed leadership, power as a tool (to share) instead of a resource (to compete for), think less position think more function
ecology of organisational forms, history in multiple cyclic timelines instead of a singular linear one, against hierachy but not organisation (structure), coop between organisations like mlk using mx as leverage during crm, moving away from dogmatic thinking of looking for an ideal form period, but what suits the time, situation, and goal in hand, distributed leadership, power as a tool (to share) instead of a resource (to compete for), think less position think more function
February 2, 2025
I need to do a longer view. There's good general points here about ontological ethics vs dogma not said as such. but it trips over itself and doesn't have a strong historical understanding of even horizontalism imo.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews