Talk:Mutual aid (organization theory)

Latest comment: 4 months ago by Inquisitive Icarus in topic Dean Spade

COVID-19 edit

I don't have any sources to cite, so I can't keep this on the article page through proof; but in my experience, some groups seem to be mutual aid between charity organizations and don't form reciprocal community relations. They ask for volunteers who may get nothing out of the work and do not oppose the system that created the scarcity at all. Specifically, I'm talking about the Georgia Athens Mutual Aid Network ("AMAN"). "Athens Mutual Aid Network is a coalition of Athens organizations ... coming together to support the most vulnerable.... We aim to ... advocate for critical policy actions to address unmet needs."[1] They also rely on donations. Therefore, they violate a couple facets of anti-authoritarian mutual aid mentioned on the article page: "charity differentiates those who have from those who need" and "Whereas the charity funding model relies on the donations of rich individuals ..., mutual aid utilizes the resources available in their communities, often creatively seeking free supplies." This mutual aid between nonprofits rather than individuals makes sense if you know that the government also practices mutual aid; fire departments help each other and call it mutual aid, and when the national guard helped the Athens police, the police chief called it mutual aid.[2] Pittsburgh Mutual Aid looks similar to AMAN; it's "mutual aid", but it might not challenge the dominant paradigm. Ketef (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Open Letter". AthensMutualAid. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
  2. ^ Rawlins, Hadley. "Athens mayor, police chief discuss police actions during Sunday protest". The Red & Black. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

In War section edit

Grnrchst Despite the section on military soldiers not directly mentioning the term "mutual aid," what is described is horizontal networks of assistance, in fact this was described clearly throughout the text. I moved the section to Soldier and created a motivation section, yet despite this it is a description of mutual aid in times of war. Des Vallee (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is patently just your own original interpretation of the sources. On Wikipedia, we go off what sources explicitly say, not what we want them to say. The fact of the matter is that these sources are about interpersonal bonds between soldiers, not mutual aid. That "it is a description of mutual aid in times of war" is based on nothing that the sources actually said. If it is so clearly described in the text, then show me where. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources themselves describe mutual aid, you even admit this in the edit summary. Moreover they describe mutual assistance which is a universal descriptor of the term. Des Vallee (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's have a look at the sources you provided shall we?
First off, I removed the following text:

During World War I the end of the war most state institutions of the Central powers began to fail, in place of this local mutual aid organizations began to serve the various nationalities of the central powers, this in turn led to increasing nationalism most prevalent in Austria-Hungary. During the Eastern Front of WWI socialist organizations began to replace the normal administrative functions of the state which in turn led to an upsurge of support of various Russian left-wing organizations including anarchists, Bolsheviks and Menshiviks.

You had this information cited to page 3 of The Russian Revolutions of 1917, where it says: "The main features of the northern mentality were independence, freethinking, and a tradition of mutual assistance." This is talking about the culture of the Russian North, mentioning nothing close to the information you had it cited as. No "local mutual aid organizations" in the central powers, no "socialist organizations replacing administrative functions of the state". Nothing. As far as I can tell, all of this paragraph that you wrote is made up and you just cited a random source in order to make it look like it was based on verified information.
Let's now break down the other paragraph I removed:

During periods of war or extreme conflict mutual aid becomes one of the main methods of organizations as to state institutions are overwhelmed or collapse. Examples include the Blitz of World War 2,

This is cited to Bomb Back, and Bomb Hard, an article about reprisal attacks during the blitz. In the article's abstract, it very briefly mentions "In Britain, popular memory of the Blitz celebrates civilian resistance to the German bombing of London and other cities, emphasising positive values such as stoicism, humour and mutual aid." The rest of the article has nothing to do with mutual aid. So here, "examples include the Blitz" has a source backing it, but "During periods of war [...]" doesn't. The article provided doesn't go into any further detail as to mutual aid being a "main method of organization" because it doesn't talk about mutual aid at all outside of this brief passing reference in the abstract.
Next, you listed other examples of mutual aid in war time:

the eastern front in the USSR, the Nanjing Safety Zone in China, and Revolutionary Catalonia.

This you cited to The Magic of Mutual Aid, which never mentions anything about the eastern front of WWII, the Nanjing Safety Zone or Revolutionary Catalonia. The text is a personal account about the mutual aid the author experienced as an immigrant in the United States. This is a source that might be worth using, but you didn't actually provide information from the source, instead you cited it to information that it verifiably never discusses, not even in passing. Again, it seems like you just made something up and used a random source to make it look like your information was sourced.
Finally, you wrote this:

During these periods of extreme conflict communities generally organize around mutual interest, this in turn can create Social dynamics of resistance exemplified in the "Blitz Spirit". Soldiers in war have often created mutual aid networks, during wars such as WWI, the Vietnam war soldiers have reported not fighting for any national interests or ideological goal but commonly the friendship and connection with their other soldiers.

This you cited to Comrades or Friends?, an article that explores interpersonal bonds between soldiers. Does it mention "communities organizing around mutual interest"? No. Does it mention a "Blitz Spirit"? No. Does it mention the Vietnam War? No. It does mention WWI, but if you read what it says ("the First World War inspired many poets; in fact, some of the best war poetry was written during this period.") It's about poetry. Not mutual aid networks among soldiers. Poetry. Absolutely nothing in this paragraph is reflective of the information in the source. For all I know, it is all made up and you just cited a random source so it looks like your information is verified.
After I removed all of the above, you added this back in:

Soldiers in war have often created mutual aid networks, soldiers have reported not fighting for any national interests or ideological goal but commonly the friendship and connection with their other soldiers.

This was cited to Comrades or Friends? and Will to Fight, neither of which use the term "mutual aid" or even describe anything close to "mutual aid networks". The text you quoted from Will to Fight only talks about how interpersonal bonds can strengthen social cohesion, not mentioning anything to do with mutual aid. I can only assume you interpreted something from these texts that I'm missing, because despite me asking for you to provide evidence that this is what the sources were talking about, you have not done so.
You have displayed an utterly baffling capacity for original research here. That you have not provided any evidence to back up your assertions, instead daring to imply that I "admit" that you were right all along, is insulting. Have a think over what you want to add and actually read the sources you cite before citing them. Your conduct here, and what I've seen elsewhere, has given me a very bad impression of you as a researcher. Do better. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grnrchst If you had instead of key wording specific terms but instead had thoroughly reviewed the text you would find mutual aid is mentined as in the organization theory resolutely described in all cases. So your statement on being a "researcher" is rich.
"In March 1917, Soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies were organized in the towns of the region and later Soviets of peasants’ deputies were established in the countryside. The coalition of SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries) and Mensheviks dominated most of the northern Soviets almost entirely in 1917. In the first days and weeks of the revolution, ideas of class compromise were popular, along with cooperation among different social and political groups and organizations."
This is a mention of free soviet councils in the USSR and a direct mention to the Menshviks and the social organizations of the Russian state collapsing and becoming reliant. The confidence you state without reviewing the source is utterly boggling. This is a direct 1-1 summary of the text, as as the Russian state collapsed local based councils replaced them on the basis of mutual aid. Moreover no page 3 was never cited, for the section I have no clue where you got this from as it was never quoted in the source but it is patently untrue that page 3 was ever cited.
“Bomb Back, and Bomb Hard”: Debating Reprisals during the Blitz
The very start of the article mentions mutual aid, you admit this is described so how you even find issue with it is . "The Blitz" as an example of mutual aid is a very basic descriptor of the source. Sections on the "Blitz Spirit" mention, but this is irrelevant as the section which you directly quoted from directly described the Blitz as an example of mutual aid.
Horizontal social dynamics as quoted in the book the specific blockquote being "The second type of cohesion at the unit level is social cohesion. Mission accomplishment develops bonds. Social cohesion is bonding based on friendship, trust, and other aspects of interpersonal relationships. The essential argument here is that soldiers fight because of the close interpersonal bonds formed in their primary social group through shared experience and hardship. Social cohesion includes both horizontal (peer) and vertical (leader) bonds in the so-called standard model of military group cohesion.67 Some research on U.S. military forces after the Vietnam War questioned the primacy of social cohesion, but it is consistently emphasized in contemporary scholarship.68"" Is a mention of mutual aid and is currently on the page soldier.
All sections are are directly a summary of the sources and describe them directly. Des Vallee (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: "page 3 was never cited", it's in your citation here.
I'm trying to follow your rationale here that "mutual aid" is invoked by other terms but I'm not following. Just staying with the first example (the Goldin chapter), where in the source does it say that mutual aid organizations formed? If the source only says that there was cooperation across sociopolitical groups, it would be a stretch to say that those are "mutual aid organizations". But where in the source is this made explicit? czar 09:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dean Spade edit

What makes Dean Spade a "radical" activist? Inquisitive Icarus (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]