The aim of any organisation is to make it as simple as possible, or as Marshall McLuhan puts it, "high in participation, low In definition. " The tendency is just the opposite. Our reflex is to create administrative structures to deal with political problems.
Most people cannot discuss intelligently the subject of size. There is an unspoken feeling either that the problem should not exist or that it is beneath us to talk about it. Let's get it out In the open. Size is a question of politics and social relations, not administration. Do you wonder why the subject is shunted aside at large meetings? Because it fundamentally challenges the repressive nature of large organisations. Small groups that function as appendages to larger bodies will never feel like small groups.
The collective should not be larger than a band - no orchestras or chamber music please. The basic idea is to reproduce the collective, not expand it. The strength of a collective lies in its social organisation, not its numbers. Once you think in terms of recruiting, you might as well join the Army. The difference between expansion and reproduction is the difference between adding and multiplying, The first based its strength on numbers and the second on relationships between people.
Why should there be a limit to size? Because we are neither supermen nor slaves. Beyond a certain point, the group becomes a meeting and before you know it you have to raise your hand to speak. The collective is a recognition of the practical limits of conversation. This simple fact is the basis for a new social experience.
Relations of inequality can be seen more clearly within a collective and dealt with more effectively. "Whatever the nature of authority in the large organisation, it is inherent in the simple organisation unit." (Chester Barnard, The Function of Executives, 1938). A small group with a 'leader' is the nucleus of a class society. Small size restricts the area which any single individual can dominate. This is true both internally and in relation to other groups.
Today, the mode of struggle requires a durable and resilient form of organisation which will enable us to cope both with the attrition of daily life and the likelihood of repression. Unless we can begin to solve problems at this level collectively, we are certainly not fit to create a new society. Contrary to what people are led to think, i.e. united we stand, united we fall, it will be harder to destroy a multitude of collectives than the largest organisations with centralised control.
Size is a key to security. But its real Importance lies in the fact that the collective reproduces new social relations - the advantage being that the process can begin now.
The limitation on size raises a difficult problem. What do you say to someone who asks, "Can I join your collective?" This question is ultimately at the root of much hostility (often unconscious) toward the collective form of organisation. You can't separate size from the collective because it must be small In order to exist. The collective has a right to exclude individuals because it offers them the alternative of starting a new collective, i.e. sharing the responsibility for organisation. This is the basic answer to the question above.
Of course, people will put down the collective as being exclusive. That is not the point. The size of a collective is essentially a limitation on its authority.
By contrast, large organisations, while having open membership, are exclusive in terms of who shapes the politics and actively participates in the structuring of activities. The choice is between joining the mass or creating the class. The revolutionary project is to do it yourself. Remember, Alexandra Kollontai warned In 1920, "The essence of bureaucracy is when some third person decides your fate."