Pete Hegseth is truly one of the weakest people in the country. I guess we now know that words really do hurt him. Just say “gay, trans, LGBT, and diversity” and he’ll probably go sit under his desk to suck on a bottle of Jack.

However, I would not use the words hierarchy or chain of command to describe such a system as they naturally imply a domination by leaders over followers which should be avoided at all costs

I’m not certain it should be avoided, and in fact, it might be necessary, especially for larger groups. Smaller groups, can be flatter, but the larger the group, the more vertical it needs to be. I agree that there can be domination, and that’s what I mean by our legitimate issues with a vertical hierarchy. But, such a structure is not inherently exploitative or even domineering. I envision a structure similar to a tree where the organization is built, and the group decides who fills each leadership role.

For example, the chief is ultimately in charge of everything, and she wants to plan a protest march. So, she engages with the operations and logistics officers to tell them to plan the march details; they have two weeks to bring a plan to the next meeting. The operations officer works with his assistants who propose routes and how the march should look. The logistics officer engages with the finance officer and the assistant officers to figure out how to get people in and out safely and quickly, etc. Then at the next meeting, the operations and logistics officers discuss their plan, and other officers can ask questions and make suggestions. The chief then weighs the original plan, any suggestions brought up, etc. and then makes a decision to execute that plan.

Ultimately, all the members of the group get to decide who gets to take the responsibilities based on their qualifications, which is fairly democratic. Additionally, there would have to be measures in place to recall them.

What I just described is a fairly standard hierarchical structure. There’s a reason it’s used globally to organize governments (particularly executive branches), militaries, and corporations. It’s effective. Additionally, the different leaders aren’t meant to be dominators. Quite the contrary. They are meant to be the representative of their sub-organization and just the “button-press” for the higher to access the lower and for the lower to access the higher. It’s about information sharing, communication, and abstraction, not power.

That said, different groups can work differently; that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I do think that once a group becomes sufficiently large (probably greater than 45ish), it will have to take a more traditional structure like this. By 15-20 people, though, there will need to be a designated leader because not everything can be voted on.

leadership/negotiation committee (people who can show the target they’re hurting their bottomline and negotiate over demands)

This is the part that I have some trepidation about. There seems to be little organizing (at least in my community) outside of small pockets of people like groups of friends. One person I know went to some DSA meetings, and he reported that it’s total chaos where 100% consensus is being used as a metric and a desire to be “leaderless.” I don’t know what others are experiencing, but this is worrying me.

If others are seeing what I am, then we need to get over our (frankly legitimate) issues with vertical hierarchical organizations. It doesn’t need to be a big and expansive organization that follows Roberts Rules of Order or uses formal bylaws, but there needs to be some chain of command and method to make and take decisive actions.

Don’t just boycott for a week. Use that time to find alternative places (preferably small businesses) to buy what you need then never return to Amazon. I did that a few years ago, and I couldn’t be happier while I support local principled businesses.

Traitor.

Depending on how this develops, it can go one of three ways:

1. It’s nothing and turns into just a minor rallying point online.
2. It becomes a nuisance for the administration (like the Trump and Elon foot video). It’s an annoyance that they expend resources on rooting out because it hurts their feelings but not much more beyond that.
3. They start publishing real limdis material detailing the shocking and horrible things, as well as the banal evil things. Stuff that could cause some real damage.

Obviously, the risk involved goes up as you move down the list. Best case scenario, I think, is a mix of 2 and 3–a nuisance that occasionally becomes a real thorn in the side–but putting a concerted effort in to truly root it out is counter-productive so leaks just become the cost of doing business.

ETA: If you are a government worker or know someone who is, do what you can to push these accounts to the 2/3 territory and encourage others to do likewise.