Who Organizes The Organizers?

I think one of the biggest obstacles to organizing (for mutual aid, politics, or even just for hobbies) is that a lot of people seem averse to taking that kind of responsibility and doing the kind of work necessary for these kinds of tasks.

This is not necessarily the same as leading, though I think leadership falls into this category of necessary tasks that people often wish to avoid (and I am sympathetic to the desire to avoid Leaders^TM, but maintain that nonhierarchical leadership without leaders is both quite possible and meaningful).

In any case, to return to the broader topic, the kinds of things I'm talking about are the organizing tasks of organizing. Things like record-keeping, planning, making decisions, coordinating and communicating to others, and all the kinds of work that a group needs to have done to be effective or at least remain functional. Basically, organizing requires organizers, and I think a very valuable question to ask ourselves, whenever we want to organize an endeavor, is how to make sure an organization gets the organizers it needs without:

1) having to depend on people whose intent is to exploit the power such a position may give them for their own personal benefit, to the detriment of the organization's cause,

2) burning out the people who take these positions on,

3) having to coerce people into doing these tasks,

4) depending too heavily on specific individuals to perform these tasks

Important considerations for any organization, regardless of its size or level of formality, I would think.

Goodness is No Indicator of Ability

I really disagree with the idea that someone can't be an excellent writer or write an intricately crafted work just because they've said or done malicious or even outright evil things. Have seen so many people rightfully denounce writers for something terrible they've said or done and then immediately follow it up with absolutely baseless attacks on the craftmanship or skill of their writing. 

It's one thing to say that a work is not actually unimpacted by its author's ideology and biases, another to assume that has any relevance to the level of skill and artistry applied to it. Even death of the author does not magically sever this connection--in fact death of the author can be one way to interrogate biases of these sorts in a work that the author themselves will deny.

But people should really stop making the assumption that skill and accomplishment is some kind of litmus test for moral goodness. I think this is a very insidious bias that can cause a great deal of harm. A person can do both terrible and wonderful things, and neither forecloses the possibility of the other. It is not a contradiction for the same individual to save one life and extinguish another. A work can be greatly flawed and still be of value. Sometimes the value can even be in obtaining the understanding that evil can come cloaked in great beauty, can be funny and witty and worldly-wise. If evil could be none of these things, if evil could embody no skill, it could not be dangerous.